Obama Administration Backwards On Food Safety

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 by Food & Water Watch

by Wenonah Hauter

 

Recently, with Obama re-election posters blanketing the audience at the Democratic National Convention and Republicans mocking Obama’s campaign slogan, the word of the moment was Forward. But when it comes to food safety, this Administration is stuck in reverse. The 56-page 2012 Democratic Party Platform included no mention of food safety or the President’s monumental signing of the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Even more alarming are the Administration’s proposed set of rules for the inspection of poultry that would take us back to the days of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” That proposal would turn over key inspection duties to the poultry companies so that they can police themselves and allow them to increase line speeds in chicken plants from the current 35 birds-per-minute to to 175 birds-per-minute.

That’s right — one USDA inspector will have ONE THIRD OF A SECOND to inspect each bird to make sure that it did not have an animal disease, fecal contamination, tumors, improperly removed intestines or feathers before it is dipped in a chemical soup meant to kill microbial pathogens such as salmonella and campylobacter. A Food & Water Watch analysis of the proposal’s pilot program reveals large numbers of defects — including feathers, bile and feces — were routinely missed when company employees instead of USDA inspectors performed inspection tasks.

This proposal is reminiscent of “The Jungle” not only due to the “ick” factor behind improperly regulated and supervised meat production, but also because of the little consideration given to worker safety in these poultry slaughterhouses. The modern-day Jurgis Rudkus faces many of the same issues as those he faced 100 years ago. Even at current line speeds, poultry workers face serious safety issues. Musculoskeletal diseases, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by repetitive motions in poultry processing are rampant among these workers. Occupational epidemiologists have begun to publish studies that describe anecdotal evidence of the occupational diseases suffered by plant workers, but long-term study is needed to evaluate how the conditions on these poultry slaughterhouses and the demands placed on workers impact their safety and health.

Is the Obama Administration planning to do that before it implements the new inspection system? No. Instead, it will conduct a study in one poultry facility over a three and a half year period to determine whether any changes are required to mitigate safety concerns, but it will not wait for the results of that study before plowing ahead with the new inspection program.

The USDA will save $90 million over a three-year period by eliminating 800 USDA inspector positions and the industry stands to add to its bottom line $260 million per year by being able to increase production and not face as many regulatory requirements. So the proposal is a boon for a handful of giant poultry processing corporations and budget hawks but concern for the health and safety of eaters and workers has been left in the scrap pile.

Mr. President, if you really want to improve food safety, you need to go to Congress to get the authority to hold the poultry industry accountable. What your Administration is proposing is counter-intuitive. Handing over the reins of inspection to the agribusiness barons is not going to help consumers. It certainly will not help their employees. This proposal may have poultry whizzing forward on slaughter lines at break-neck speeds, but it is a big step backward for the safety of our food supply and could put thousands of workers and all Americans who eat chicken in danger.

Scientists Cry Fowl Over the FDA's Regulatory Failure

Friday, April 27, 2012 by the Guardian/UK
Overuse of antibiotics in factory farming kills thousands every year, yet the industry is force-feeding chickens pharmaceuticals
by Richard Schiffman


In 2005, the antibiotic fluoroquinolone was banned by the FDA for use in poultry production. The reason for the ban was an alarming increase in antibiotic-resistant campylobacter bacteria in the meat of chickens and turkeys – "superbugs", which can lead to a lethal form of meningitis that our current antibiotics are no longer effective against.

Antibiotic-resistant infections kill tens of thousands of people every year, more than die of AIDS, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This problem is on the rise because antibiotics are recklessly overused, especially in the commercial livestock industry, where 80% of all antibiotics manufactured in the US end up.

Fluoroquinolone used to be fed to chickens primarily to stimulate their growth. But why did the banned substance show up recently in eight of 12 samples of "feather meal", the ground-down plumage leftover from commercial poultry production?

This was just one of the mysteries uncovered in a study conducted jointly by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future and Arizona State University. The research, published last month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, uncovered a whole slew of other drugs in the feather meal that the scientists had not expected to find there.

Traces of the arsenic compound Roxarsone, for example, were present in almost all of the samples. Farms administer arsenic to chickens to turn their flesh just the right shade of pink that consumers find attractive. Yet, in June 2011, the FDA gave Pfizer 30 days to discontinue selling Roxarsone, a proven carcinogen. So why is it still showing up in our chickens?

Other substances that the scientists found include acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, Benadryl, an antihistamine, even Prozac, an antidepressant. Farms feed chickens these mood-altering drugs to reduce their anxiety. Chickens are anxious because they are bred on overcrowded and filthy factory farms. Stressed-out birds develop meat that is tough and unpalatable, so they need to be sedated. Yet, chickens on tranquilizers sleep all the time and do not eat enough. So they are given high doses of caffeine (which was also found in the feather meal) to keep them awake at night to feed and fatten up.

So, here is the deal. We create hellish conditions for our livestock, then we drug them to keep them numb. Then we drug them again to wake them from their pharmaceutical stupor. Then we drug them to grow faster. Then we drug them so their flesh will look healthier. Then we drug them to withstand the disease epidemics that our overcrowding has created.

Then, of course, we drug ourselves every time we take a bite of factory-farmed poultry.

"We were kind of floored," Keeve E Nachman, a co-author of the study told the New York Times. "It's unbelievable what we found." While Nachman says that the levels of arsenic and the witches' brew of other drugs and chemicals in the chicken samples may not be high enough to harm humans, he is not betting his own health on it.

"I've been studying food-animal production for some time," the researcher said, "and the more I study, the more I'm drawn to organic. We buy organic [in my family]."

"So, here is the deal. We create hellish conditions for our livestock, then we drug them to keep them numb. Then we drug them again to wake them from their pharmaceutical stupor. Then we drug them to grow faster. Then we drug them so their flesh will look healthier. Then we drug them to withstand the disease epidemics that our overcrowding has created... Then, of course, we drug ourselves every time we take a bite of factory-farmed poultry."Organic chickens are bred without artificial growth hormones and antibiotics. They are fed organically grown vegetable foods rather than the ground-up animal products – bones, feathers, blood, excrement, fishmeal and diseased animal parts – which their conventionally grown brethren receive. They are also raised free-range with plenty of space, sunlight and opportunities for exercise to keep them healthy. A 2001 study conducted at the University of Perugia found that chickens produced this way actually taste better than conventionally bred birds.

Yet, organic poultry is a lot more expensive to raise. While the market is growing steadily for organic birds, it still comprises less than 1% of the poultry sold in the US today (pdf). So, food scientists argue that the standards for conventional chickens and turkeys need to be strengthened.

"We strongly believe that the FDA should monitor what drugs are going into animal feed," Keeve Nachman urged, adding that, based on what the researchers discovered, they had little confidence that the animal food production industry could be left to regulate itself.

Earlier this month, the FDA announced what looked at first glance like sweeping new guidelines on the use of antibiotics in livestock. The new rules, however, are strictly "voluntary", and, while they do recommend restricting the use of antibiotics to stimulate growth, they would still allow them to be prescribed by a veterinarian for animals that are "either sick or at risk of getting a specific illness".

Critics contend that the words "at risk of getting a specific illness" provide factory poultry farms a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Margaret Mellon, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a press statement:


"The outlined process appears to give the companies the opportunity to relabel drugs currently slated for growth promotion for disease prevention instead. Such relabeling could allow them to sell the exact same drugs in the very same amounts."

Public interest groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists say the time has come for the FDA to stop proposing half-measures and demonstrate that it is serious about preventing a looming public health disaster. It needs to ban dangerous antibiotic use in the raising of livestock, and to conduct rigorous on-site inspections to insure that the ban is enforced.