In the wake of the salmonella outbreak in eggs emerges a vital question: How do we raise and grow healthy food? Do we need more drugs, antibiotics, hormones, and vaccines, or fewer drugs and healthier growing practices? Do we need more layers of federal oversight that will do little to curb industrial food practices, while burdening small suppliers? Or do we need smarter legislation targeted to the real causes of food hazards?
As the discussion of this proceeds in three (and more) Huffington blogs, guess who is chiming in -- in a sponsored blog (his first) as a 'top food and drug safety expert?' It's a Strategy Executive from the IBM emerging technologies group. What is his food safety know-how? Why, it's in the use of tagging barcodes for food tracking, an area of "tremendous growth," Paul Chang says. Food safety is a big industry for IBM, which is why they decided to capitalize on the salmonella scare by weighing in on the need for more tech solutions as proposed by the upcoming Food Safety bill, discussed later in this blog.
Salmonella is a problem-- but a lesser problem when eggs are grown via healthy practices from the start. Moreover, the bug is killed by cooking.
In response to the newly minted food crisis, an article in the New York Times raises the implicit question: Should we vaccinate hens as they do abroad to prevent such outbreaks? Even though the article reports that, "the F.D.A. said that only large-scale field trials could prove that a vaccine would work in the real world of commercial henhouses," the salmonella outbreak could easily lead to a call for more vaccines. Hard upon the salmonella scale, CNN reported on a recall of "tainted meat" in Walmart-distributed deli meat sandwiches, which contained listeria, that "could be lethal." Will public concern over these threats ultimately result in improved Food Safety, or amp up fears that drive the passage of upcoming legislation that ultimately makes food less safe?
So let's first consider why we permit industries to raise chickens in filthy, inhumane conditions. Or feed them feed they were never designed to eat, that contains unhealthy byproducts? The near inevitable result will be disease and infections in animals and food, with vaccinations and antibiotics used to address the resulting illnesses.
Animals "raised on industrial farms are routinely fed antibiotics to make them grow faster and compensate for overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions," urges the non-profit organization, FarmAid. "This overuse of antibiotics creates stronger and more drug-resistant bacteria that can cause tragic results." Such as antibiotic resistance in humans, a rising health concern.
Further, there is little scientific research into whether the antibiotics, vaccines, growth hormones, and pesticides absorbed by livestock are passed along to humans who consume them, though new studies indicate that they may well be.
Though many recognize the downsides to this agricultural, food, and health management infrastructure, it's less clear how to shift it. The upcoming Safe Food legislation is a good place to begin. If, the bill passes in its current form, how long can the health conscious avoid such foods and choose organic? Will healthy food options still be available long-term without a change in the public policies and resource allocations that support the monolithic food model, and wipe out other smaller, safer food production options?
With the salmonella outbreak immediately followed by the "tainted meat" recall, I couldn't help but note the timing-- a prelude to the impending Food Safety bill S510, coming up this fall in Congress. What a coincidence that the outbreak is perfectly timed to scare the public into spending millions of dollars of tax payer money on legislation which:
If these twin food scares build momentum for the bill's passage, the real question may become: what is the cure for an opportunistic infection -- of fear?
For health and environment insight, action, and radio, sign up at: www.healthjournalistblog.com
Follow me on twitter @AlisonRoseLevy and Facebook
Follow Alison Rose Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlisonRoseLevy
Thurs. Egg Recall Roundup: Eggs Being Laid at Recall Farms Won't Be Tossed
Santa Clara County sounded egg alarm
Eggs in the raw? Experts say give them a pass
Texas woman sues over tainted eggs
First, the standard treatment of hens in conventional egg farms contributes to disease and entails widespread use of drugs and chemicals. Some people will object to these practices on health grounds, some on humane grounds. Others will argue that there are no other options for feeding millions of people. It was not the purpose of this article to present the economics of this topic, though it certainly merits a blog. That hens are subjected to a wide range of adverse conditions in conventional growing is well documented and is not a topic that requires "scientific proof," it only requires documentation that it is occurring, which is ample. Obviously, some of the long term health impacts of these practices on humans and on public health does require study. However, it's possible to identify a problem before studies are done or completed; and it's specious to assume that a practice has a clean bill of health just because studies have yet to be done. There are many things that occur and are problematic whether or not they have been scientifically studied.
Second, I note the coincident timing between the upcoming Food Safety bill S510 and the current food scare which raises fears about food safety. People can track the bill and form their own conclusions about its provisions; and take action accordingly. Continues below...
And certainly if many millions of people prefer to act preventively for the sake of their health, and/or for humane reasons, then they should follow through and take action to support the availability of those foods, with or without the support of those who prefer a different growing method.
Thanks all for your comments!
Alison
www.healthjournalist.com
It doesn't make much sense to call for evidence and then reject anything you don't like as propaganda.
Increasingly, writers like Ms. Levy call for dismantling industrial-scale food production and increasing the poorly-defined techniques called "organic." This avoids two facts:
1) We live in a nation of 330 million individuals. The world population is 6.7 billion. Alas, both figures are rising. There is no way to feed that many people without industrial-scale methods.
2) Agriculture is the most destructive technology in human history, destroying more wildlife habitat than all other human activity combined. What was once called "the fertile crescent" is now a desert because of farming.
If you actually look at the techniques used by farmers who call themselves organic, what you see is that they require more land, more fuel, more irrigation, and more soil amendments than conventional farming. This makes a destructive technology more destructive.
Organic farming does an excellent job producing very high quality food for the world's most affluent people. It does this at the cost of destroying more habitat and producing more greenhouse gases.
Organic is to farming what the SUV is to driving. Yes, the quality is very high. So is the environmental impact.
This is not the time to turn away from technology that can make a destructive technology less destructive.
Or are we seeing a move from a lot of small disease outbreaks to fewer, larger outbreaks? And which is easier to control? If farmer John, Joe and Jim sicken 10 people a piece in the local area, is it likely to be noticed or publicized? Compare that to farmer Big who sickens 30 people.
As to regulating and inspecting, it seems to me that it is easier to inspect farmer Big and for farmer Big to have the tools to check the safety of the product than it is to do the same with John, Jim and Joe.
Perhaps we need tiered inspections, with more scrutiny the larger the producer. I don't know if that would be constitutional in the US.
A single big outbreak has the advantage of concentrating everyone's attention on the problem. I can safely predict that big egg producers, including organic ones, will now bring in the equipment, training and people to ensure they produce a safe product, starting with testing the feed they buy.
Bottom line? - the series of comments by this poster taking issue with numerous sustainable humane farming practices, denigrating organic agriculture ("There is really nothing new or innovative in organic agriculture production over the last 100 years") and cheerleading the use of non-sustainable chemical agriculture that is both dangerous to human health, our environment and other sectors of our economy, should be called for what they are. You are trying to be too nice in the face of this garbage. Please stand-up for truth over profit-driven disinformation or just astonishingly ignorant false misinformation.
Alison
It is significant that Batguano makes this accusation based on absolutely no evidence. This reveals that he operates from a position of bias, not evidence.
If you can bear to read the emotional screed that follows his baseless accusation, you will learn a great deal about the "logic" of anti-science denialists.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Factory_farms.aspx
http://search.mercola.com/Results.aspx?q=factory%20farms&k=factory%20farms
http://organicconsumers.org/Toxic/factoryfarm.cfm
http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming
http://www.saveantibiotics.org/newsroom/Couric_Jul2010.html
http://www.saveantibiotics.org/?gclid=CKrRhObl56MCFVVx5QoddzXA4w
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/eggs/
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-animals-and-factory-farms
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=103
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/
http://www.animalfreedom.org/english/information/abuses.html
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/legislation/gafs_manure.pdf
http://www.friendsoffamilyfarmers.org/?page_id=525
http://www.meat.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4
One of the reasons for dust clouds in the 1930's was farmers had to use tillage to control weeds. This led to bare soil with no residue on top to help protect the soil. Today, with the use of chemicals for weed control, many farmers use no-till methods, which leave lots of previous years crop residue on the surface and prevents soil erosion.
Alison
Regardless, I'm not sure what the Dust Bowl has to do with my initial comments...? My point was simply that in the food industry, protection of the consumer's health is not the government's top priority.
http://www.serendipity.li/bf/swine_flu.htm
It is most likely the same with the food safety scares – Salmonella, etc – that are driving the “Food Safety bills - manufactured fear to create profits (and laws to lock those profits in) for a connected few, via more massive control of our food supply, who controls it and who can produce it, and how, and sell it to you. Of course Agri-business/Monsanto and the chemical industry will prosper, but organics, family farms and sustainable agriculture will potentially be destroyed; another massive rip-off of Americans by the greedy rich and powerful.
The cost of the 2009 H1N1 programs is a pittance compared to that.
Thanks for alerting us that Food Safety bill S510 could, as you put it, build "bureaucratic compliance mechanisms that serve the industrial agricultural food chain, while unnecessarily burdening organic growers and small farmers"; give the FDA "unprecedented powers despite its poor track record in enforcing existing safety measures"; and increase "costs astronomically while not increasing actual on-site inspections."
Keep up your good work.
I actively farm and also work part time at a feedlot. I do know what I'm talking about. If you want to know the truth, I can tell you. If you want to believe the lies of the research you can find on the Internet, that is a huge problem in you research skills.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Land grant Universities do this type of research on a daily basis. The biggest problem with the use of antibiotics are medical Doctors over prescribing them and people not taking the full dose of a prescription when they start feeling well.
What you say about doctors and people are true, but that is distorting and distracting the issue at hand, as they both are a problem, but you see only one. You are purposely trying to get people away from the argument, and it cannot work, as the truth will always come out. Factory farming is disgusting, inhumane and unhealthy, period! That is fact, as well as all the crap they put into the product, which does end up inside you!
That is a fact, not opinion. If it wasn't, just let them eat cake!
MG, you are repeating the myths of food faddists with an ideological agenda. You need to be more careful of the sources of your information.
Photofarm's comments reveal that he/she has more objective knowledge of this subject.
My impression is that you would benefit from reading Photofarm's commentary with a more open mind. Don't forget that a lot of folks with a political ax to grind participate in this discussion. Please consider the possibility that you are giving these folks more credence than they deserve.
There could be some requirement that people who post here back-up some wild and demonstrably false assertions with links to other sources; the fact that some never do while continually spewing false and dangerous misinformation, clearly designed to shill for a specific profit-driven agenda or ag sector should tell us that their assertions are worthless, specious garbage. False claims on a single subject issue repeated ad-nauseum by some posters with ZERO links to back them up should lead to some action. This kind of patently false disinformation could have a “corporate shillâ€, troll, or other flag available.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gunther/usda-antibiotics_b_649673.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7045108/Widespread-antibiotic-use-in-1960s-sparked-MRSA.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/antibiotic-farming-fda-vs-republicans_n_649611.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/opinion/12kristof.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/hogging-it-estimates-of.html
Without some government overlooking these factory farms it would be a much worse situation, because it is already deplorable at most and without any constraints and regulations greed would be the first thing without competition on the minds of these mass producing operations (it really already is but the magnitude would be even greater).So, the FDA and USDA need to step up enforcement of existing regulations as well as improve and add some that would have real consequences that would really impact these gigantic operations that look at fines as the cost of doing business. These types of places cannot police themselves because they inherently don't care - it is all about the money - no conscience whatsoever - if they did they would not have the conditions that they do, as well as put into the product all the "stuff" that inevitably ends up in us, and that is not a good thing.
Factory farming needs to end, it is just deplorable. Organic and humane practices are a healthier choice all the way around.
That is just a little bit of reality.
Again, it would behoove people to eat less meat and dairy, which would reduce demand, and subsequently help those people in their overall wellness (this is not opinion this is fact), as well as conserve the supply better.
A good movie (documentary) to watch is Food, Inc. as well as others like Meet Your Meat, which show the deplorable conditions that the majority of the nation's food source comes from. These mass producers try to hide their operations at all costs, because it is just unconsionable, and very unhealthy. Greed over health and safety is their motto.
So stop about then and concentrate on now, which is a HUGE problem.
Alison
www.healthjournalist.com
Sgn up at: www.healthjournalist.com