With a food supply system completely motivated by profits, consumers are suffering adverse health effects in the interests of higher profits.  Oversight is overwhelmed and ineffective.  With these two major problems facing our population, a drastic change is needed.  Supply should be nationalized and oversight privatized.

It seems like every day there is a new article somewhere on the internet about our food.  It is a topic of the utmost importance to all of us.  It seems, however, that most of us live under the veil that Big Food has pulled over our eyes, shielding themselves from being exposed.  They are the wizard behind the curtain.  But unlike Alice’s wizard, this one has no concern for us.  They have done a great job separating the consumer from the supply.  And it is a smart business decision.  When a consumer goes to the grocery store, they see great packaging.  Unfortunately, the packaging is not reflective of that which lies within.  As Michael Pollen says in Food Inc: “There are no seasons in the American supermarket. Now there are tomatoes all year round, grown halfway around the world, picked when it was green, and ripened with ethylene gas. Although it looks like a tomato, it’s kind of a notional tomato. I mean, it’s the idea of a tomato.”

The biggest threat that the consumer faces is in the meat.  Here are just a few problems with our livestock.  1) Cows are fed corn to fatten them, which works, but causes them to retain harmful and even deadly bacteria in their bowls.  This can be avoided by feeding them grass, as they were intended to eat.  But there is less profit in that.  2) The animals are slaughtered in such quantity that the contents of the bowls are sometimes released into the eatable meat supply.  3) Shortcuts are taken in order to minimize the risks, such as treating the potentially infected meat with ammonia.  4) Some poultry feeds contain antibiotics and cancer causing arsenic.  5) Farm raised fish are fed with feed caught in polluted waters that contain cancer causing dioxins and PCBs.  Most consumers don’t know these things occur, and it turns out they don’t even wat to know.  But it’s having negative health impacts on our population.  We are growing ever more resistant to antibiotics.  There are links to cancer and other serious illnesses.  And as our population grows unhealthier, the supply companies grow richer.

Robert Kenner, the creator of Food Inc, attempted to change the market by placing more of a demand on organic foods.  Unfortunately that documentary was not seen by enough people. Consumers still live under the veil.  The only way to fix this problem is to nationalize the supply system.  It is a drastic step, but these are desperate times.  Do you really trust Monsanto with the health of your children?  When a company’s primary concern is the bottom line, they will do whatever is necessary to ensure profits.  There are ethical questions that arise as we give the food corporations this much power.  “I’m always struck by how successful we have been at hitting the bull’s-eye of the wrong target. I mean we have learned- for example, in cattle we have learned how to plant, fertilize and harvest corn using global positioning satellite technology, and nobody sits back and asks, “But should we be feeding cows corn?” We’ve become a culture of technicians. We’re all into the how of it and nobody’s stepping back and saying “But why?”- Joe Salatin.

Put government in charge of supplying the food.  They can make the health of the population their primary concern, and not profits.  They would have to take over the feed supply as well.   Rather than having “The goal: to fatten animals as fast and cheaply as possible,” it would be to nourish the animals appropriately to eventually nourish our population.  “There needs to be rigorous analysis of the health impact of what’s fed to food animals.” Additionally the government might even look after the environment.

We do not have to abandon the new technologies we have applied toward farming practices.  Blake Hurst seems to think that efficient farming and environmental consciousness seem to be mutually exclusive.  “The organic farming narrative depends on the belief that conventional farming sacrifices the present for the future…Those of us who grew up with a hoe in our hand have absolutely no nostalgia for days gone by.”

Overseeing the process of supplying the food has been proven a huge failure.  Marion Nestle almost comically points out in her about food safety.  “Even with the best of intentions, it would be difficult to keep up with food safety problems given the chances in the U.S. food system since 1906.  USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry and egg establishments-and 130 importers-that slaughter and process 89 million pigs, 37 million cattle and 7 billion chickens and turkeys, not to mention the 25 billion pounds of beef and 7 billion pounds of ground beef each year…The demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable.  About 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 10,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations.”

Leave the oversight to private business.  They can get paid per item.  It is no secret that private businesses have done very well with government contracts.  Having full transparency would be a good thing for the consumer.  There could be a whole new industry created, responsible for overseeing the safety of the population’s food supply.  As far as the economics of it are concerned, instead of the production companies earning huge profits at the cost of the health of our population, those profits would be rolled into the oversight side.  The prices will stay the same but the product will improve.  The more oversight, the more profitable the oversight company will be and the healthier the population will be.  The logic is there.

These are desperate times.  And desperate times call for desperate measures.  Are we going to continue with the status quo, lining the pockets of a few fat cats?  Or are we going to make a change?  Make the population healthier by changing to motivation of the supply side from profit to health.

Although our food production technology is at its height, that technology may be used to grow the profits of the poorly regulated food industry, rather than focus on improving public health and wellness. While there are two different agencies watching over our food supply, their duties are intertwined in a way that makes both of them borderline ineffective.

Marion Nestle points out in Resisting Food Safety that the FDA focuses on everything but meat, but even then their duties only end at the slaughterhouse, meaning a fairly small agency monitors all of our food, drugs, and even the animals all the way up until they are killed. Meanwhile, the larger USDA only monitors animals post-death. The way that the duties are split between the two agencies is mind bending, and shows the convoluted way our food is taken care of.

Food Inc., You are what they eat, and Resisting Food Safety all say that the food industry is careless in the way they are treating the bacteria, and the government is not doing much to help. In Resisting Food Safety, Nestle points out that the original legislature for food production was created to protect the animals.  In Food Inc. Kevin’s mom tells the story of how she lost her son, and then mentions Kevin’s Law, which would have forced the USDA to establish performance standards to decrease pathogens in our food, as well as allow the USDA to shut down plants. Kevin’s law was never passed, however Obama did pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011 which upheld some of Kevin’s law. This gave the government slightly more control over what goes into our food, but it still may not be enough.

The most common problems brought to light about the food industry are food borne pathogens. Harmful bacteria such as e. coli, listeria, and salmonella are byproducts of our highly industrialized food production system where there is blood and feces all over the slaughterhouses and animal coops. These diseases are allowed to spread into our food through various means and can cause mass outbreaks throughout the country. Rather than maintaining a clean environment for the animals and solving the problem at the root, the food industry came up with different way to combat the pathogens. In Food Inc. they showed that there are small amounts of ammonia mixed into ground beef to try and kill E. Coli, the documentary also talked about how animals are given antibiotics, even if they are not sick, to try and prevent diseases. While Blake Hurst in Organic Illusions points out that harmful chemicals such as ammonia have been shown to not be harmful in small doses, there is still a real threat of antibiotic immunity. The antibiotics given to our food is spread to humans when they eat it, this then causes bacteria to build up a resistance to antibiotics, creating much more harmful pathogens.

Another side of government oversight is shown in You are what they eat which drives home the point that our food may not be what we believe it should be, and there is not much being done about it. For instance, parts of very sick downer cows is approved to be part of animal feed, as long as it is not fed to other cows. However, these cows can be fed to pigs and chickens and fish, which can be eventually fed back to cows, causing a possible spread of the prions that cause mad cow disease. Even the part about not feeding downer cows to other cows is lax, “more than four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still hadn’t acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.’” If the FDA is not taking steps to ensure that mad cow disease is not being spread, are they truly doing what they are supposed to do?

The Food industry is growing each year, according to Cassandra Brooks in Consequences of increased global meat consumption, the worldwide consumption of livestock will double by 2020. Because of this huge increase, the food industry is growing its profits, and ignoring the huge effects they are causing on public health, wellness, and even the environment. Livestock production has become hugely industrialized in order to meet the demand, and it is taking a toll on the environment. According to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, “Livestock Production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 9 percent carbon dioxide and 37 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide” (Cassandra Brooks).

Global warming and climate change mainly affect farming communities, the United States experiences some of this backlash, but it is mostly felt in other countries, such as Ethiopia, which rely on farming to survive. Global warming also affects places such as California and Central America, which are the sources of most of our produce. By creating so many greenhouse gas emissions, the livestock industry may be harming the other parts of our food production system, as well as creating worsening poverty and hunger in areas such as Ethiopia.

While global warming is not the focus of this article, it does bring to question the true consequences of our food industry. The food industry has caused many small farmers to go out of business, or switch to industrial farming, which they may not enjoy at all. It also is responsible for a rise in food-borne pathogens and deaths from these pathogens. Another consequence may be the rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. When our food is processed, there are certain ingredients put in like high fructose corn syrup, which is harder to process than simple sugars. This creates a spike in insulin, causing a feeling of hunger more quickly, even though a person may not truly need more food.

After realizing these consequences, it may seem that organic foods are the obvious choice, however, many people cannot afford to buy organic food, even though according to You Are What They Eat, Organic food is only 20-30% more expensive.

Food regulatory agencies cannot fully inspect all the meats and produce we come in contact with this is due to the overall scale of our food systems and because of government lack funding. The articles we read in class have shown that our food regulatory agencies are not on top of inspecting our food systems for illnesses and sanitation. “Resisting Food Safety” by Nestle brings up the important note that there are “700 FDA inspectors are in charge of overseeing 30,000 food manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishment, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores and 1.5 million vending operations.” This quote shows that the FDA has a limited number of inspectors that are forced to inspect more than they can handle which results in these out breaks of foodborne illness because not ever meat or produce is inspected properly.  The articles show us the hidden truths of what really happens to the food we eat as it goes through the processes between farm to fork. Food Inc., “Resisting Food Safety,” and “You Are What They Eat” focus mainly on the hidden truths of our food system such as the poor living condition and the diseases that the farm animals can get. Organic Illusions” discusses more of the conventional vs organic argument but also discusses some of the unhealthy aspects of organic foods such as having to use more pesticides and having a higher risk for e coli.  All of them show what the food systems can get away with.

The articles all discuss the inner workings of the food system. They give us a closer look into where our food starts off at to the many processes it goes through before ending up on our plates. More specifically the articles and movie point to all the negative points of the food system. Examples include the poor health conditions chickens are grown in to the possibly cannibalistic food feed to cows. The movie Food Inc. showed that chickens are grown at a rate so fast their bones and organs cannot keep up with them. The chickens in the movie could barely take a few steps before their legs gave way. The article “You Are What They Eat” mentions that there is no regulation on animal feed so it is alright if meat scraps from chickens or pigs are in feed for cows to eat.  The argument of conventional vs organic foods are also brought up by the articles. Conventional means the animals and produce are grown by using standard farming methods. Organic means the produce seeds are GMOs that help bring out desirable traits in the produce such as being resistant to herbicide or pesticides and making them contains vitamins and nutrients that produce would not normally contain so it is “healthier” to us.  The article “Organic Illusions” by Blake Hurst in particular discusses the argument that conventional foods are just as good as organic foods.  “Organic Illusions” discusses more of the conventional vs organic argument but also brings up some details about organic foods having higher e coli content than conventional foods. The use of pesticide is also brought up in “Organic Illusions” with the article saying that much more pesticides are used on organically grown foods. The pesticides used are organic and not as strong as inorganic pesticides, as a result more has to be used to get the same effect. This leads to the produce also having higher pesticide content. These all show what happens to the food we eat before we get it. This also shows what the food system can get away with due to the lack of regulations.

The FDAs lack of inspectors is due to people who support these big faming industries hold office in the government. Food Inc. brought up the example of Monsanto. Monsanto is huge company that makes seeds, herbicides, and pesticides. Monsanto has supporters that hold seats in office and as a result can do things that other farming companies cannot. In the movie Monsanto bullied and sued farmers that did not stick there their strict guidelines about what they could and could not due with the products they were given. The movie also showed that Monsanto kept a private list that contained all the names of the farmers that did anything Monsanto did not like such as reusing seeds the next year or not throwing away all ungrown seeds at the end of the harvest.

GREED

One thing that I have recently started to realize is that money runs this country. It’s as simple as that. As populations grew so did the demand for food. Farmers needed to produce a lot and fast. The example mentioned above truly shows how farmers have been altering their practices in order to keep up with the rising demand. How can the amount of time a chicken fully grows be cut in half? One answer that I can give you is that it definitely is not natural or healthy. Not only is it unhealthy food but it’s food that costs nothing (I wouldn’t even consider it food). As a matter of fact, “every year in the U.S., 11 billion pounds of animal fat is recycled into animal feed.” We’re feeding the animals that we eat recycled animal fat? Why is that? Because it’s cheap. In You Are What They Eat the article says for food producers and companies “the goal: to fatten animas as fast and as cheaply as possible.”  In Food Inc., Michael Pollan, who is an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in many publications around the world highlighting the problems of the food industry, said that “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” We have all heard of the recent outbreaks of E. Coli that have happened at Chipotle which even made the store close all of its chains on one day. E. Coli is no joke and people can lose their lives but one thing that really angers me is that the practices the food industry is using today produces more E. Coli. Michael Pollan also goes on to say “give an animal grass in one day and 80% of the E. Coli they have will be gone.” But why don’t they feed their animals grass if it got rid of all that E. Coli? Because they wouldn’t achieve their “goal” and their chickens wouldn’t be able to grow fully in 49 days.

REGULATORY LOOPHOLES

One of my biggest concerns about the food industry are the regulatory loopholes that are present so easily accessible. In You Are What They Eat by Consumer Reports the problem is introduced right off the bat. “Our investigation raises the concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the food supplies……Regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection.” Regulatory loopholes can allow any type of infection! The United States Government has the responsibility to protect its citizens but yet there are regulatory loopholes in an industry that provides the food that we put on the table for all types of people to eat from little kids to the elderly. Food is a life necessity and we cannot live without it but yet we can’t be sure about the safety of the food we put on our tables? That’s scary. One question on my mind is how are there regulatory loopholes? I believe the following reasons from a few experts help answer that question for us.

In Organic Illusions by Blake Hurst points out something that doesn’t make me feel any better. Hurst says, “organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they’ve followed organic procedures. No testing is done to check the veracity of these claims. So, even if all procedures are followed, it’s possible that conventional pesticides are present—either from drift from neighboring conventionally farmed fields, or because the producer has been less than honest in his certification.” Although he says organic foods that can mean that any foods are like that as well. God knows what type of containments people have been consuming with there good. How are food producers able to lie about how they grow their food? This is a prime example of the government and regulatory agencies not doing its job. If these loopholes are present in the food industry, I can only imagine what kind of loopholes can be exposed in all other industries. In You Are What They Eat, it is mentioned that “about 80 percent of seafood sold in the U.S. is imported. Yet the FDA tests only about 2 percent of those imports, mainly for drug residues.” Wow. If food that is imported is barely tested for contaminations (mainly drug residue but they should be looking for ALL possible containments) then it must be extremely easy for food that is produced domestically to pass tests and end up on our plates. The inspection and testing procedure is completely broken. Farmers can lie about the way they grow their food and much testing isn’t done. The government can do more but they haven’t and in You Are What They Eat, it says that “the Government Accountability Office, has called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s data on inspections of animal feed producers “severely flawed.” Yet federal food-safety agencies have failed to tighten restrictions.” How have these food agencies failed to tighten restrictions?

Marion Nestle helps answer the question of how these food agencies have failed to tighten restrictions and how they have failed to protect the consumer’s health and interests in his work called “The Politics of Food Safety.” Nestle says, “attempts to give federal agencies the right to enforce food safety regulations have been blocked repeatedly by food producers and their supporters in Congress, sometimes joined by the agencies themselves.” I can only think of one word to describe this: corruption. Marion Nestle even goes on to say that there has been a “historic closeness of working relationships among congressional agriculture committees, federal regulatory agencies and food producers.” How can it get better if there is such heavy influence from these top companies? According to Food Inc., “in 1910 the top 4 companies had a market share of 25%, today the top 4 have a market share of 80%.” In addition to that, at one point in the documentary it showed how some of the top company executives ended up holding a high level position for the same regulatory agencies that were regulating the companies they used to work for. Whose interests are put first at that point? The company or the consumer? The company. You would think that it couldn’t go any further than the government and its agencies being heavily influenced (corrupt) however, Blake Hurst from Organic Illusions brings up another controversial point. In his article he uses a study that was published from scientists and researchers from Stanford University. The article says that “a group of scientists at Stanford University found that the nutritional benefits of organic food have, to say the least, been oversold.” Later in the article Mr. Hurst then brings this into light “Stanford University and the authors have been accused of being in bed with food producer Cargill, and all the bishops of the foodie orthodoxy have responded by disagreeing and, in many instances, changing the subject.” Why would food producers, such as Cargill, love a study that says organic food has the same health benefits as food that is grown conventionally? Because growing organic food is more expensive than growing food conventionally. However, that is not the part that strikes me. The part that strikes me the most is the fact that a private university, including professors and scientists and everyone that helped with study, are also being corrupt/heavily influenced by these food producers. A study from a private university that used scientists and professors should be telling the truth and if they were telling the truth they wouldn’t be “changing the subject.” Hurst then delivers the final blow by saying, “How can you trust the same government to enforce organic rules or guarantee the safety of organic pesticides? Or to approve the pharmaceuticals you rely upon to cure your illnesses?” Like I mentioned previously, all of this revealing information is simply scary.

Everyone has experienced a case of food poisoning before. But no one ever blames the government agencies or food production companies for it. No, they were just unlucky and had something that wasn’t clean. But what if you made dinner one night, and all your guests got sick. Are you to blame for opening a package of ready to eat organic spinach for your salad, and organic steak that you bought from Wegmans? In the heat of the moment, you are to blame. But trace it back to where the food came from, and ask yourself the question again. The answer should be no, you are not to be blamed. The government agencies in charge of the food industries are the ones to blame.

This topic has been resurfaced in recent news in cases like Chipotle, where they claim to have ethically raised poultry and non-GMO foods. As of January 27, 2016 there was a total case of 55 people who were infected with the outbreak strain of E.Coli O26 in Chipotle restaurants. As a popular fast food chain, they took actions immediately to expand the testing of fresh produce, raw meat and dairy items prior to restocking the restaurants. Luckily they are taking the next step in making their food safer for the consumer. Other cases, aren’t so generous, and will fight to keep doing what their doing, and that is keeping the consumer clueless as to where the food they put in their mouth has been and has gone through.

In films like Food Inc, they expose different cases in which food has been a big issue. One of the big cases that were talking about was Kevin’s story. Kevin was a little boy, who was full of life, and on a family vacation decided to chow down on a burger. After returning home from his vacation, Kevin’s mother reported seeing blood in Kevin’s stool and also noticed that he has a slight fever. They went to the doctor but were sent home. The next day, Kevin’s condition was significantly worse than it had ever been, and went to the hospital again for dehydration and bloody stools. His kidneys started failing, and they were given the diagnosis that he had contracted E.coli O157:H7. He passed away. Kevin’s sister and father were also tested positive for E.coli O157:H7. They brought this case to court, but they did not have enough evidence. Later on, the same company had a random test, and were positive for E.coli O157:H7, and the PFGE pattern (or DNA) for Kevin’s E. coli matched the PFGE pattern of the recalled meat. However this was still not enough evidence to get justice for Kevin. What happened to Kevin was very tragic, and the scary thing is it can honestly happen to anyone.

Kevin had it very bad, but his sister and father who also ate the contaminated meat just had one uncomfortable bowel movement. This is very common. Most frequent cases of these illnesses are viruses and species of bacteria, but most episodes are never reported to health authorities. The most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of food borne disease in the United States is 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths. Today, food production has created more promising conditions for bacteria and viruses to breed. Infected animals excrete pathogens in their feces, and other animals and plants come across the infected feces and then we proceed to eat it. Some pathogens survive cooking, stomach acid and other bodily functions and these pathogens can multiply and do much worse things to your body. On top of these pathogens, plants are genetically modified and animals are fed ridiculous foods, both are done in efforts of making the food bigger and more appealing to the consumer.

When you see a fat cow, you immediately think that he is fed proper meals, and grown to be big and fat and healthy. You would also think that the cows are hanging out on nice big grass fields and eating grass like they portray in some commercials. However that is certainly not the case. Cows are fed things as ludicrous as chicken feathers, because they apparently contain a high source of protein. On top of that all animals, including cows, chicken, pigs and even fish are fed corn. Corn comes in abundance and fattens up animals quick. As casual as that sounds that’s backtrack for a minute. Cows are fed corn, when they are supposed to be eating grass. Cows are unable to digest corn. When they eat corn, it can upset their digestive system. Cattle create a lot of gas, which they usually release, but when their diet is high in starch and low in roughage, a layer of foamy slime forms in their great food-processing tank. In a web article called “ What happens in the stomach of a corn-fed cows” it states that a corn diet can also generate acidosis. Unlike our highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of cattle stomachs is neutral. Corn makes then unnaturally acidic. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and drool, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system. A cow that has a poor immune system due to eating corn, which is suppose to make them fat and appealing, is being served to us. The extent to which the affects the cow has that can be passed onto humans through consumption are still unsure of, but it surely does not sound okay.

Despite obvious concerns of the food industry and the impacts it has on our health, food industries are doing little to nothing about it. We are left with a constant mystery of where our food has been.

Throughout the course of time, food has been an everlasting staple to all species. It is a reason for people to get together and communicate, it’s a reason to celebrate and relax, and it’s a necessity in order for the body to be properly nourished. However, over the past century or so, food has become less of a gathering tool, and less of a reason to get together, and it has become a way to make money. In the centuries prior to this one, home-cooked meals, fresh food, and delicious ingredients were all a staple of the American household. People would invite their friends and family over, cook food, and relish the opportunity to enjoy each others company. However, as stated above, the last 60 or 70 years has brought us a massive change in society that now sees food as only a commodity in order to profit. Of course, with every statement, there are limitations. Food is still used by many people, both in this country, and around the world, to relax and enjoy, however as a whole, there have been a plethora of reasons as to why we are starting to see food as simply a way for large corporations and farmers to make money. In the documentary Food, Inc., the narrator discussed how the rise of the fast food industry and the “conveyer belt/mass production” system created an atmosphere that changed the landscape of food production forever. At that point, growing food became less and less about growing fresh products that tasted great, and more about growing and using pesticides to mass produce things that could be given to chains like McDonalds, who could then turn around and give these large companies a major profit. When the food market became more about creating money and supplying large amounts of both meat and produce to giant companies, rather than allowing small time farmers to create fresh food that could be better quality, the entire dynamic changed. Now, we live in a society much different than the one half a century ago. While it seems that our food is relatively easy to purchase as a consumer, we are blissfully unaware of the difficulties and struggles that go into processing our food, as well as the harsh conditions that many farmers must go through in order to take care of their families. Although, as I stated above, we live in a society that puts a greater emphasis on quantity than quality, there are still farmers out there that are trying to stay with old traditions and create good quality food; however, those farmers will most likely either be eaten up by the large companies, or unable to compete with them because of the price difference. It is why we see such a problem in today’s food industry, and there only seems to be a handful of people rising up to address the problem head on.

One of the main issues we face today in the food industry is safety of the food that we are growing and consuming. We have had a handful of foodborne illnesses over the course of the last 30 years, however, people, in general, don’t seem to be very concerned about the fact that they may be eating tarnished food. They simply expect the government to look out for them and “vet” the food before it arrives in their refrigerator, however in many instances, that is just not the case. The government may not be impartial, first of all, and may have some of the large food corporations in their back pocket, but even more terrifying than that is the peoples’ unawareness to the potential problems that foodborne illnesses can create. Marian Nestle, a professor of sociology and food studies at New York University, gives us a perfect anecdote to sum up American’s ignorance to the harsh realities of foodborne illnesses. She says in here article “The Politics of Foodborne Illness” that she and her family were at a dinner party in the 1970’s, and many people got sick afterwards. Now, instead of going to the doctor and making sure that they were truly okay, or calling the company that supplied the foods they ate and asking them if there had been any other reported outbreaks of illness, the people simply took Advil, Tylenol, and within a few days there were back to normal. Now, while it is definitely a positive that nobody got seriously hurt, or worse, died, it speaks to how uninformed and unaware these people were to the serious dangers of food. Now, that was 40 some years ago, however the true message really hasn’t changed. People simply expect the government to have their best interest in mind and to monitor everything that they are putting into their mouths, and that simply isn’t the case time and time again. Thus, Nestle argues that there needs to be more government intervention, as well as more self-teaching when it comes to people and their food.

As discussed above, consumer awareness is a major part of creating a society with good food that is both tasty, and safe. While it should be the job of the government to make sure that people are eating safe food, we also need to encourage a society of people who understand the nuances of the food industry and how to spot food that is both safe and unsafe.

One of the big arguments and debates in today’s food society revolves around whether or not organic food is truly better than you. On one hand, companies like Chipotle thrive off of being organic, and their entire brand revolves around organic food. On the other hand, however, many people, including Blake Hurst, tend to argue that the entire organic “fad” is simply a marketing tool used by companies to sell things at a more expensive price and to create a submarket inside the healthy food section that allows people to think they are being healthy and paying a higher price for it, when in reality, that is simply not the case.

1000 word response feb 22

The production of food is still and always has been a very controversial topic. There are many different points of view and voices each trying to sway readers to side with them. Throughout these five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety” there are many different voices either condoning or criticizing the ways of the food industry. The controversial nature of food safety yields an unproductive environment for change and with no one unanimously at fault (government, consumers, food producers, workers) unhealthy and unsanitary methods of food production continue to affect consumers.

Food Inc., a documentary that criticizes how much control the food industry has, speaks to the audience to invoke change. One of the first lines said in the documentary, as a way to summarize the overall theme was, “the industry doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating, because if you knew, you wouldn’t eat it.” Food Inc. makes it clear how much control the food industry actually has, stating that never in history have food companies been as big or as powerful as they are now. As also mentioned in “Resisting Food Safety,” the four leading firms are controlling a huge proportion of the industry and are continuing to grow. Tyson, for example, after its merge with IBP, “controls 28% of the world’s beef, 25% of the world’s chicken, and 18% of the pork” (Nestle, 44). These industries, along with many others that make up the remaining percentage of food producers, seem to intentionally keep consumers in the dark making them unaware of the industry’s production methods and the food they are consuming.

Another example that emphasizes the amount of control the food industry has is through government manipulation. Food Inc., “You Are What They Eat,” and “Resisting Food Safety” all mention the leniency of the government. Food Inc. talks about how food producers are actually a part of the government and they are making decisions about food regulations. Sections in “You Are What They Eat” example how industries are able to find loopholes in regulations and laws, and then the government’s (lack of) reactions. An example of this is the ban on feeding the protein from cow ruminants to other ruminants, ideally preventing the spread of mad cow disease. However, rather than honoring the nature of the regulation, food producers would take the protein from cow ruminants, even from downer cows, and feed it to pigs, chicken, and fish. Then those remains would be fed to back to the ruminants. The whole argument about government in this article was that the government is too slow in creating bans and too lax in enforcing regulations. “Resisting Food Safety” has evidence of the influence of the food industry on the government saying the Congress overruled FDA attempts to restrict the use of antibiotics in feed because of the intense pressure from the livestock producers. The food producer’s lobbying pushes Congress into clashing with the FDA until, eventually, the FDA backs down.

Even with substantial evidence of the power the food industry has, many companies and producers argue that they are not at fault for consumer sickness and, in fact, the consumer is at fault. As mentioned in “Food Safety,” in the industry’s eyes, food producers are not liable to control food safety because the consumer most likely inadequately underwent the necessary food preparation steps. Although it is proven that actions taken in the food production process (i.e. ammonia injections, pesticides) can and have led to contamination and illness, food industries continue to imply that food preparation the most crucial step in making the food safe. It is true that high heat can make the impact of pathogens on peoples’ health minimal to non-existent, however this cannot be the only boundary between safe and unsafe food. Many foods are eaten raw or without much cooking. Foods in this category need to be safe without relying on heat. “Resisting Food Safety” also briefly touches on this topic explaining how the food industries do not express self-blame. Food industries are very comfortable with placing the blame elsewhere, for example to consumers, the government, and even workers. There is evidence that inadequacy from each segment can lead to unsafe food, however it is wrong and unfair for a segment as powerful as the food industries are to deny responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.

Despite the aforementioned arguments against the food industry control, Blake Hurst, writer of “Organic Illusions,” contradicts these arguments in an attempt to bring justification the actions of the food industry. “Organic Illusions” expresses that the amount of control is fundamental for the efficient production of food and, contrary to the previous sources, does not have as many negative health impacts from the conventionally produced food. Hurst’s piece consists of comparing the methods of conventionally produced foods to organically produced foods by stating first, why people perceive organic as better, then, his logic to disprove this common assumption. Throughout the piece he pulls examples that support the amount of control the food industry has. One point he makes is about the pesticide exposure. He goes on to state that the food industry’s conventional farming is actually better and healthier for people than the organic alternative. He backs this up by saying that pesticides are going to be on foods regardless, and on most foods, the pesticide level is too low to cause any harm. However, he continues with implying that organically produced food is actually worse because natural pesticides are less effective and therefore need to be applied in much higher quantities than their man-made counterpart. Another example of how Hurst believes the food industries have an appropriate amount of control is environment preservation. Hurst says that conventional farming preserves nature better because it takes less space to produce the same amount of food conventionally than it does to farm organically.

These five pieces, Food Inc., Consumer Reports “You Are What They Eat,” “Organic Illusions,” “Resisting Food Safety,” and “Food Safety,” are just a few of the countless number of pieces speaking their own opinions about food production. From the sources collected in this instance, there are more arguments against food industries than for. With this being said, there is also a theme among the pieces against the food industry that exercise an opinion about power and control. Most of the food producers have too much control and are not paying enough attention to the health and well being of their consumers. Throughout these pieces it is clear that food safety is an issue that needs to be faced head on, however the difficulties of doing so can be overbearing. Change has to happen collectively throughout all parts of the chain (food producers, government, and consumers). However, the lack of cohesiveness throughout impedes the movement towards a healthier environment.

When most people think of where their food comes from, they probably think of a farm. Perhaps their farm has a happy farmer and his family making conscious decisions about the food they are making. The farmer could be the one in charge of how his food is created and what growing practices he/she chooses to follow. However, the sad reality is that the food industry is no longer controlled by the farmers themselves, they are controlled by big businesses.

These businesses have a lot more power than the average Joe thinks they do.  Most of these large corporations have a strong hold on the average farmer. These large businesses often put farmers in crippling debt and force the to follow unsafe farming practices. With most of these businesses having a huge monopoly within the farming realm, most farmers have no choice but to succumb to whatever unsafe practices that company wants. Large companies such as Monsanto, have even gone as far as controlling what type of seed farmers use and how they use it. They use scare tactics to keep farmers from speaking out or breaking these unfair rules.

But the corruption does not stop there.

Almost all of these large food production companies have members running for important positions in government. This leads to an ever present bias within government towards the food industry rather than public safety. These government positions allow for companies to have control over what safety precautions are made, which often benefits the company rather than the consumer.

In the world of food production, money is a much larger concern than food safety. The people within this growing industry are fully aware that their food is unsafe, yet they continue with these bad practices because they are more profitable.

But that leads to big question: what is making our food unsafe?

You could point to a number of culprits: pesticides, antibiotics, pathogens, and animal feed. However, these are just a few of the many problems within the food industry.

Pesticides:

So if pesticides are the problem, what don’t more people choose organic? This is the question many people seem to be asking. The problem with this statement is that the answer may not lie within the organic food industry. In a study done by Stanford University, is was found that organic foods did have less pesticides than conventional food. However, E.Coli was far more present in the organically grown food. In an article written by Blake Hurst, it was revealed that even the organic food industry is not entirely pesticide free. While the pesticides being used are not as strong, the organic farmer will often have to use more pesticides in order to make the less potent kind more successful. So in regards to pesticides, there does not seem to be a way around it entirely.

Antibiotics & Pathogens:

The reason why antibiotics are used in food production is not necessarily a bad one at first glance. The reason is to prevent sick animals from creating sick consumers after eating that animals product. However, the more antibiotics are used in animals, the more antibiotic resistant bacteria are formed. This resistant bacteria contaminates the food that comes from that sick animals, which can then make the consumer develop an antibiotic resistant infection. While the CDC says that the use of antibiotics in the food industry should only be used to address sickness in animals, not to promote growth. However, even animals that are not sick get large doses of these antibiotics in order to create a bigger ‘super’ animal to create more food.

Animal Feed:

What do you think a cow eats? Most people would say grass, right? Well the sad truth is that most cows and other animals no longer eat grass, they eat corn and other waste products. These waste products are not limited to processed feathers, poultry litter, floor waste, feces, plastic pellets, and other forms of meat. As we know, cows and chickens are not carnivores and probably should not be eating feces from other animals. The reason why the food industry does this is because this type of ‘animal feed’ makes the animals fatter creating more food production per animal, which is then more profit for the food industry. This also creates less waste from the food industry since rather than throwing these things away, they feed them to the animals. The problem with this practice though, is that whatever the animal eats directly influences the consumer. In a study done by the Animal Protein Producers Industry, salmonella was found is about one fourth of feed on average. To simplify, if the cows are eating salmonella contaminated food, and then the consumer is eating it, there is a much higher likelihood that the consumer will then be contaminated as well.

So, why does all of this matter to the consumer?

It matters because the consumer should have a say in how their food is being made. They should also be knowledgable about what exactly the risks are to what they are eating. If the consumer is unaware of the practices being used in the food industry, how will they be able to fight it? They won’t.

The food industry needs a completely renovation. The government should not be biased towards companies using unsafe practices. The people that make decisions on consumer health should be the consumer themselves, not the company getting a paycheck. Th only people that should have a say in what a safe farming practice is, is the consumers and the FDA or other food safety commissions.

A change needs to be made, and while change may take time it is definitely worth the wait to save even one life from dangerous food consumption. Food should not be made on a conveyer belt. Cows and other animals were meant to eat grass and be able to roam around. While these new techniques have made quite the profit for these big companies, the consumer is suffering greatly.  Consumer health needs to come before profit, and the only way to do that is to fight the industry for change.

Elizabeth Quezada

WRT 205

Professor Phillips

February 22nd 2016

Conversation on Food Politics & Safety: Choices

You can very easily go onto today’s favorite search engine and type in, “Are GMOs harmful?” or “Is organic food really that much better?” into the search bar and pull up some quick and dirty answers to those questions. Really though, you are just a concerned consumer being tossed into the large, messy bowl of food politics and safety. You’ll find a mesh of articles telling you what the author thinks and a healthy dose of statistics thrown your way if you’re lucky. Believe it or not,  food safety and politics does not just pertain to the consumers health based needs! Money, the environment are a huge portion of food safety and the political sphere represents delicious three course meal you can’t pull your eyes from. When it comes to food safety, I belong to the team that’s pro-labeling. I believe that despite the benefits of either side, consumers deserve the right to know what they choose to put in their system.

What do people have to say about this discourse?

Some individuals argue between the efficiency and benefits of either organic or conventional farming while others argues that consumers should have a choice within the food system. Food Inc., a documentary that argues against GMOs, questions the food system attacks the opaqueness of the system. “Do you know where your food comes from?” This documentary attempts to bring forth information for their audience to process while ultimately trying to get you on their side of the argument. The director of the film, Robert Kenner does a fantastic job at distributing information and using the medium of film to their advantage and he also really stretches out the conversation that finds its way to our dinner tables every night. While the film does give their viewers a mouthful of information, it is heavily biased in arguing more for one side instead of bringing out the facts and letting you decide what side you want to eat grass from. One of my favorite pieces to read in regards to the issues around food safety and politics,  “Organic Illusions,” written by a farmer, Blake Hurst, suggests that though the government cannot afford a form of organic agriculture, they can afford to provide a system with choices. However, he does not present his claim in a helpful or resourceful manner. Carrying a heavily sarcastic tone and providing a much more entertaining read that can be read throughout the masses, Hurst maintains a “Who cares about organic or conventional farming?” attitude and suggests without any real traceable sources, that what really matters in this complex food system is not a romanticized “version of agriculture”(Hurst) but “a food system that provides lots of choices,” (Hurst). Unfortunately, as entertaining as he may be, he does not provide enough credible information to really let his audience decide the importance of conventional agriculture versus organic agriculture. He attacks organic farming more than he complains about farming in general.

Although I do understand the benefits of either side, I think the two styles of agriculture can exist together but the government could afford to be a little more transparent, less sketchy when it came to interviews (Food Inc.) Truthfully, labeling the food at your local grocery store is more about allowing the consumer to be more aware and informed of their decisions. Nearly 50 nations worldwide require that all GE foods be labeled as such (Dahl), so what’s the big deal? California tried to pass the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act back in November of 2012 (Dahl) and had it been passed, California would have been the first state to require the labeling of food products. The bill sounds pretty until you know what it really does and then you wonder, what’s the point? The bill would have exempted “meat, dairy, and other products from animals that were themselves genetically engineered. It would have also exempted food sold in restaurants and alcohol,” (Dahl). Though it wouldn’t have proved as effective as it could have been, this was considered a step forwards in the food revolution. Consumers are getting more fed up as “food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal,” (Nestle). Only 700 FDA inspectors must oversee 30,000 manufacturers and processors, 20,000 warehouses, 785,000 commercial and institutional food establishments, 128,000 grocery and convenience stores, and 1.5 million vending operations (Nestle). That number seems incredibly low for a population as large as the American population. The statistics speak for themselves here, how safe do you really think your food really is? Go ahead, type in E Coli and Salmonella outbreaks in your search bar and determine just how frequent they are. Consumer safety should always be the government’s priority but money allows illness and corruption to really slip through the cracks,  just ask your local farmer.

While many like Hurst believe that a romanticized version of farming would be too costly, I do agree that labeling for consumer health reasons proves to be a solution everyone could be happier with. There’s evidence according to Dahl and his source, Hansen,  to suggest a connection between GE Crops and allergenicity, which provides more than enough reason to label foods. Data from the Centers of Disease control and Prevention show an 18% increase in reported food allergy cases among children between 1997 and 2007 (Dahl), that alone proves to be alarming as a consumer myself. Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, suggests a theoretical example of how tracking health risks would work: “If you take a gene from the kiwifruit, put it into a tomato and the tomato gets turned into sauce for your pizza, and there’s an allergic reaction…this is not like [allergy concerns associated with] conventional foods because the problem is going to for one particular [bio-engineered modification]. How are you going to figure out unless it’s labeled? You can’t and that’s why so many countries have labeling,” (Hansen), except us of course. There should always be a choice presented for consumers, for health–for ethical reasons, our government after all is supposed to be for the people and we made that choice, didn’t we?

Sources:

• “You are what they eat,” Consumer Reports, 2005

• Hurst, Blake. “Organic Illusions – AEI.” AEI. The American, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

• Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Berkeley: U of California, 2010. Print.

• Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Movie One, 2008.

• Dahl, Richard. “To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods.” Environ Health Perspect Environmental Health Perspectives 120.9 (2012). Jstor. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

All issues related to and relevant to food safety are reflective of a three way power struggle between the industry, the government, and consumers. This matters because the industry is more powerful than the government in certain areas. Consumers should be concerned because they are increasingly at the mercy of the economic-interest of major food corporations. After reading the texts, there were several issues prevalent throughout all of the texts. The topic of government regulation over the food industry was touched upon briefly in almost every reading.

Each text observed and commented on the over the actions and lack of actions on behalf of organizations such as the FDA and the USDA. The Consumer Reports article You are What They Eat article inquiries into the lack of government monitoring of the food fed to the animals we eventually eat and the adverse effects thereafter.  It also provides the current narrative between industry and concerned officials. Highlighted in the article is the inclusion of waste and antibiotics in the feed of farm animals such as cows and chickens. The article states that the appropriate organizations do have oversight and final approval over feed ingredients. Yet even officials in the food industry are aware of the potential for the feed to still become contaminated in several parts of the process. The question Consumer Reports raises is whether the rules surrounding food supply are strong enough, and whether or not government enforcement is expansive enough. “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be and FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality” (Consumer Reports, 27) Another of the text’s observations was that certain health labels and claims on food are unverified, I wish to add that this is another power of the food industry over consumers. Consumers are disadvantage by not knowing where there food comes from or how it is prepared and must trust labeling.

As a readers and food consumers, we naturally wonder why the government would be so negligent in this area. The investigations conducted in the film Food Inc. does the work of providing some answers. The directors and producers perform investigative work into every aspect of food production in an attempt to pull back the veil over food industry practices. Eric Schlosser, the author and co-producer, explains that “For years during the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist to the beef industry in Washington; the head of the F.D.A. was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association. These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they’re supposed to be scrutinizing”. (Food Inc.) This is possible because only a handful of companies control the food system. This is a significant trend because it illuminates how the amassing economic power of food corporations is being transformed into political power further tipping the balance of influence away from the government.

Marion Nestle in her article Resisting Food Safety argues that food safety rules and regulations are outdated.  Pulling from her experience as the senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services, she attempts to provide and authoritative insight into the inner workings of regulatory agencies.  She provides the facts and statistical details as to why the actions of regulatory agencies are so limited. She insists that there is more protection for producers than public, and explains why it is difficult to connect foodborne illness to production. “If anything the demands on the FDA are even more unreasonable…The FDA’s budget allocation for inspection purposes was…minuscule by any standard of federal expenditure”. (Nestle, 59) The arguments made by Nestle about the daunting tasks provided to food regulation organizations stood out to me. Extending the text’s observation that regulatory government agencies are more concerned about vying for resources and jurisdiction than public safety, I wish to add that the dilution of their responsibilities contributes to the dilution of their power. It is this environment that influences the behavior noted by Nestle.

One of the risks associated with lax government regulation is obviously foodborne illness. This issue is framed by power as well. As the current system is constructed all the texts seem to point to the fact that consumers, the industry and the government are all disadvantaged in their attempts to prevent foodborne illness, which is cause for concern. Food Inc. employs a strong emotional rhetoric when addressing the issue. The inclusion of Barb Kowalcky’s story regarding her son Kevin emphasizes the dangers of foodborne illness in a way that effectively hits home. On screen Ms. Kowalcky explains how her son developed hemolytic-uremic syndrome in reaction to contaminated hamburger meat. The most alarming part of the story for me is the legislation that followed. Kevin’s Law, passed after his 2001 death, gives the USDA the power to close down plants with contaminated meat. What was alarming to me was that the government didn’t already reserve this power and that it took death and years of lobbying for them to assume this power. Ms. Kowalcky explains ““It took us almost two or three years and hiring a private attorney to actually find out that we matched a meat recall”. The Kowalcky family was powerless to prevent their son from eating the tainted meat. The industry lacked significant power to identify and contain the contaminated food, and the until Kevin’s law the government lacked the power to shut down production of contaminated meat.

The Consumer Reports article is characterized by explaining the source and risk of two major foodborne illness. It cites how infectious prions in beef feed can lead to mad cow disease in humans and antibiotics in chicken feed can expose people to arsenic. Yet, even though the sources of the diseases are known preventative efforts are still hampered. “The FDA is aware of a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed… connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult” (Consumer Reports, 28). Extending the text’s observation about the difficulty linking feed ingredients to foodborne illness, I wish to add that the dangerous aspect of this issue is that the industry again reigns superior and influence. If it is difficult to link the ingredients known to have potential for harm to actual outbreaks, it is easier to defend their inclusion.

Nestle’s article being more factual and educational in nature highlights the general difficulties of identifying the source of foodborne illness and why it poses such a threat. She notes “most episodes of food poisoning are not very serious… it is difficult to collect accurate information about the number of cases and their severity”. (Nestle, 37) She is also able to tangibly clarify what I have observed as prioritizing of economic interests over public safety.  Nestle provides data showing foodborne illness presents a multi-million dollar cost to the industry in the form of recalls and loss of reputation. I similarly hold one of the text’s position that consumers do share some of the responsibility in issues of food safety.  This was a perspective touched on in all articles in fact. Food Inc., tries through rhetorical exercise to emphasize the power consumers have by selective spending when it comes to food. Consumer Reports urges people to utilize their local means of political influence to affect change by signing petitions and such. Yet, as Nestle observes the blame and responsibility is shared equally between producers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Although, revisiting these issues of food through the framework of power, it becomes clear that power is concentrated in the industry. Therefore, so should the responsibility and accountability for food safety.