Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Food Safety Shell Game
What isn't being discussed in Congress, during the ongoing debate on the broken federal food safety system, is the root cause of the most serious pathogenic outbreaks in our food—the elephant (poop) in the room.
The relatively new phenomena of nationwide pathogenic outbreaks, be they from salmonella or E. coli variants, are intimately tied to the fecal contamination of our food supply and the intermingling of millions of unhealthy animals. It’s one of the best kept secrets in the modern livestock industry.
Mountains of manure are piling up at our nation’s mammoth industrial-scale "factory farms." Thousands of dairy cows and tens of thousands of beef cattle are concentrated on feedlots; hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of chickens are confined in henhouses at one location for the production of eggs and meat.
Livestock producing manure is nothing new. But the epic scale of animal numbers at single locations and the incredible volumes of animal waste is a recipe for disaster. It eclipses anything that was happening on old McDonald's farm.
Feces carrying infectious bacteria transfer to the environment and into our food supply. Feeding heavily subsidized corn and soybeans to cattle, instead of grazing the ruminants on grass, as they were genetically designed to do, changes the pH in their digestive tracts, creating a hospitable environment for pathogenic E. coli to breed. The new phenomenon of feeding "distillers grains" (a byproduct of the ethanol refining industry) is making this risk even more grave.
The current near-nationwide contamination in the egg supply can be directly linked to industrial producers that confine millions of birds, a product of massive, centralized breeding, in manure-rich henhouses, and feeding the birds a ration spiked with antibiotics. These are chickens that the McDonald family would likely have slaughtered on the farm because they were "sickly."
Thirteen corporations each have more than 5 million laying hens, and 192 companies have flocks of more than 75,000 birds. According to the industry lobby group, United Egg Producers (UEP), this represents 95% of all the laying hens in the United States. UEP also says that “eggs on commercial egg-laying farms are never touched until they are handled by the food service operator or consumer.” Obviously, their approach been ineffective and their smokescreen is not the straight poop.
In addition to our national dependence on factory farms, the meatpacking industry, like egg production, has consolidated as well to more easily service the vast numbers of animals sent to slaughter from fewer locations. Just four companies now control over 80% of the country’s beef slaughter. Production line speed-ups have made it even harder to keep intestinal contents from landing in hamburger and meat on cutting tables.
All of these problems are further amplified by the scope of the industrial-scale food system. Now, a single contamination problem at a single national processing facility, be it meat, eggs, spinach or peanut butter, can virtually infect the entire country through their national distribution model.
As an antidote, consumers are voting with their pocketbooks by purchasing food they can trust. They are encouraging a shift back towards a more decentralized, local and organic livestock production model. Witnessing the exponential growth of farmers markets, community supported farms, direct marketing and supermarket organics, a percentage of our population is not waiting for government regulation to protect their families.
The irony of the current debate on improving our federal food safety regulatory infrastructure, now centered in the Senate, is that at the same time the erosion of FDA/USDA oversight justifies aggressive legislation, the safest farmers in this country, local and organic, might be snared in the dragnet—the proposed rules could disproportionally escalate their costs and drive some out of business.
While many in the good food movement have voiced strong concerns about the pending legislation—it's sorely needed—corporate agribusiness, in pursuit of profit, is poisoning our children!
When Congress returns to Washington, we have no doubt that food safety legislation, which has languished for months, will get fast-tracked. In an election-year our politicians don't want to be left with egg on their face.
We only hope that Senators will seriously consider not just passing comprehensive reform but incorporating an amendment sponsored by John Tester (D-MT), a certified organic farmer himself, that will exempt the safest farms in our country—small, local direct marketers. We need to allocate our scarce, limited resources based on greatest risk.
Farmers and ranchers milking 60 cows, raising a few hundred head of beef, or free ranging laying hens (many times these animals have names not numbers), offer the only true competition to corporate agribusinesses that dominate our food production system.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

26 Comments so far
Show AllThe steps to a safer diet are: Become a 50%, 75% or 95% vegetarian. Buy happy cow milk, free range this and that, local animal meats for your 50%, 25% or 10% meat days. Factory farms are never going to recover and are now (and have always been) responsible for outbreaks of E. Coli, Salmonella and now the deadly MRSA. Changing to a healthy diet is a matter of the mind, reprogramming your taste buds. After detoxing your body from all that sugar, salt and fat in the modern American diet, taste buds recover. Once I did this, I could never really each much crappy food again because when my taste buds were resurrected, they instantly protested at the crazy salty, syrupy fatty content in traditional American foods. The food science people know how to manipulate the genetic tendencies of taste buds to get people to overconsume foods by spiking them with substance (salt, sugar) which in nature are a rarity. Once you realize that food companies are happy to have you die young as long as you eat their Twinkies and Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs, you'll develop the necessary battlefield mindset and the accompanying mental fierceness to say "no thank-you" to these drug pushers.
The rotten eggs and all the stories on them are to push the "food safety" bills.
But one needs such scare tactics because the "food safety" bills come from
MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO, MONSANTO
http://yupfarming.blogspot.com/2010/08/whats-around-s-510.html
S 510 would put us under fully under the WTO, which would mean our votes here on anything are irrelevant. Some call that the end of democracy. That is what is in S 510.
MONSANTO, often called the most evil corporation on the planet, designed the "food safety" bills, is"food safety" Czar right now at the FDA - where they have asserted in court that we have no right to obtain, consume or feed our children the food we want, no right to freely contract (such as with local farmers), and no fundamental right to our health. See link above.
The corrupt FDA says it does have enough power to stop these big, bad corporations? Then how it is using armed FBI to go after a dinky organic food buying club in California that did nothing wrong? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tommy-rosen/whats-the-fbi-doing-in-my_b_633344.html
Or why is it plotting to get rid of all buying clubs, one at a time? A GREAT VIDEO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMLbNfmOxk
The poor "powerless" FDA lets the CEO of GSK go though Avandia has caused more than 80,000 heart attacks (and leaves Avandia on the market), but it has power to kidnap an herbalist out of Ecuador for what? Daring to say he has an herbal treatment for skin cancer (and a US astronaut backs him up). That guy, Greg Caton, is in prison, having harmed no one.
The 2009 Food ‘Safety’ Bills Harmonize Agribusiness Practices in Service of Corporate Global Governance
http://tiny.cc/sTQN5
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
http://tiny.cc/i9zyz
The Festering Fraud behind Food Safety Reform
http://tiny.cc/ocROi
Food "Safety" Reform and the Covert Continuation of the Enclosure Movement
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Food-Safety-Reform-and-t-by-Nicole-Johnson-100426-437.html?show=votes
Clinton and the beginning of deregulation and dietary feces
http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/ctf.cfm
The FDA and Monsanto are distractions. Libertarianism think tanks know - I have been a fly on the wall at some meetings - that if they sprinkle words like "Monsanto" into a right wing free market libertarian piece of propaganda, that liberals and organic zealots will happily act as their distribution system for them.
OCA is notorious for spreading libertarian screeds and inaccurate information.
OCA led the fight against re-regulating food, against restoring funding to the USDA, and against safety and health inspections. They put out a scurrilous piece of propaganda making all sorts of false claims about the then-pending farm bill - "they are trying to take away our organic veggies!!!" It was just packed with bald faced lies, and the general theme was "gubmint bad" and the free market and deregulation good. "We need free choices, and we need the gubmint off our backs!" Sound familiar? That was the Reagan era right wing battle cry.
Notice the word "Monsanto" repeated over and over again in capital letters. That is a technique to get people's emotions engaged so they will suspend critical judgment.
You are notorious for spreading bullshit.
Kastel and the OCA are calling out concentrated animal feedlot operations as the source of these shit-borne illnesses.
You are spreading bullshit to distract from this message.
Respond to the message, don't attack the messenger.
Yes, "calling out concentrated animal feedlot operations" is a good thing. I did not say otherwise.
"Shitborn diseases?" How can we transition to manure if you are going to spread that idea?
Of course the concentrated manure pools associated with CAFOs are a big problem, but that does not mean that there are no pathogen risks in smaller operations. In fact, the scare that resulted from cider contamination that resulted in a couple of deaths, and which completely collapsed the cider industry, once dominated by small operations, was the result of negligence by a small organic producer in California. The spinach and tomato scares, completely mismanaged by the FDA, have nothing to do with CAFOs nor with larger operations.
You are what you eat.
Actually, I think it is more true that people eat what they are. People eat according to their income level. Most people have few choices. That has nothing to do with farming. Those who have choices, through good fortune, lecture those without so many choices and then try to convince us all that the social and political problems can be solved by people making better personal choices.
Nationwide pathogenic outbreaks are not a "relatively new phenomena."
Massive feedlots and all of the horrific problems with them are moist certainly not "one of the best kept secrets in the modern livestock industry."
There is no "national dependence on factory farms," rather there is a collapsing public agriculture infrastructure and an increasing and dangerous reliance on the "free market" in the food system.
It is not true that larger scale production necessarily increases the risk to the public. Bad practices are bad practices, on a large or a small scale. It does mean bigger headlines, and it also means quicker response.
Consumers "voting with their pocketbooks" can never be an "antidote" to the problems, can never replace a strong public agriculture infrastructure, and consumerism is notoriously unreliable for affecting changes in social and political policy.
Exemption of small scale farms from regulatory oversight and inspection is one of the worst ideas involving agriculture ever.
"There is no "national dependence on factory farms," rather there is a collapsing public agriculture infrastructure and an increasing and dangerous reliance on the "free market" in the food system."
Yes, there is.
"It is not true that larger scale production necessarily increases the risk to the public. Bad practices are bad practices, on a large or a small scale. It does mean bigger headlines, and it also means quicker response."
In theory. In practice, in reality, to get to such large scales, you end up keeping a large amount of animals in small amount of space. In practice, large scales mean that any single problem affects everything. In practice, very large scales lead to bad practice.
"Exemption of small scale farms from regulatory oversight and inspection is one of the worst ideas involving agriculture ever."
Not if the regulatory oversight, not if the food safety laws, is / are skewed in such a way to favour large farms, and certain lobbies, without any regard for science (which they nearly always are)
"Exemption of small scale farms from regulatory oversight and inspection is one of the worst ideas involving agriculture ever."
Not if the regulatory oversight, not if the food safety laws, is / are skewed in such a way to favour large farms, and certain lobbies, without any regard for science (which they nearly always are."
Your response does not seem to pertain to the statement above it.
But nevertheless, regardless of how many pages of federal and state regulations exist that should affect food production, few of them seem to be applied to large-scale operations. The problem with peanuts a year or two ago occurred because the inspector sent to the peanut operation knew nothing about peanuts - he usually inspected meat plants. And even when the inspectors know what they are doing, they do not seem to have the authority to shut bad operations down. Why have regulations if they are not enforced?
Libertarian think tanks are inserting arguments into the progressive and liberal organizations which then disseminate the ideas for them. They seek an end to all regulation, to all pubic oversight. We need to be alert to that. Funding has been stripped from the agencies, while political hack appointees have been placed in the management of the agencies. The fact that the right wingers and corporations have destroyed the agencies charged with protecting public health is not an argument for a "free market" anything goes privatized and deregulated food distribution system.
Small farms selling to the public have been tightly regulated and inspected for decades. Almost all small farmers support that and see it as a good thing, not a burden or an obstacle.
Unless the 'small farmers' happen to part of a larger Mennonite community that contracts to firms such as Tyson and Cargill, for example. Some of the 'small farmers' around these parts deliberately maintain operations that fall just short of the threshold definition of CAFO, thus exempting that particular farm from the stricter federal regulations that apply to the bigger operations. Quite a loop hole they work--what appears on paper as an independent small operation is really part of a larger de facto corporate community, sharing in all of the access, profits, and even federal subsidies.
Maybe. Examples of almost anything can be found somewhere in the ag world.
Not sure what your point might be.
Wall Street controls the companies that control the food distribution system that controls the packers that control the producers. It is called Capitalism. That cannot be overcome with consumer "choices" nor with privatization nor with deregulation.
Cargill is privately held---the largest privately held company in the US.
Cargill contracts extensively with Mennonites--around the world.
Mennonites have no problem circumventing laws and regulations. As they believe everything they do is god sanctioned, the laws of other men do not apply to them.
When you read about some rain forest being cut down and replaced by GMO crops, what farmers do you think do the planting?
Here's a challenge for all those CD'ers out there. Every time you read some article about indigenous cultures loosing their farm land to transnational agricultural concerns, do an advanced Google search of the place with the specific word Mennonite and see what results pop up.
I don't doubt what you say here.
What you say is true, yet doesn't contradict what I said.
In regards the statement about "national dependence on factory farms," factory farms is not defined, nor does the use of the word "dependence" make any sense. They are buzz words. People are dependent upon food. Capitalists are dependent upon CAFOs to increase profits. Farmers are forced to comply with those realities. Ergo, it is not a farming issue, so factory "farms" is also misleading.
If the regulatory system has become corrupted and ineffective, and it has, the answer is to more tightly regulate the big firms, not to eliminate regulation.
The issue is that the capitalists own the farms.
I'm not advocating eliminating regulation, just pointing that regulation has become worthless; just pointing out that regulation for a long time has been deliberately written and implemented to favour the growth of ultra large farms, including via heavy subsidies to certain sectors of agriculture. In theory, there's nothing wrong with regulation, certainly. But in practice, agriculture and food regulation is always tilted, by those with huge amounts of money, to favour those with huge amounts of money; and not only in America.
rfloh writes:
"I'm not advocating eliminating regulation..."
Two Americas always barges in specifically on food safety threads and throws wild accusations of extreme libertarianism in every direction. As if rfloh, or as if Kastel and the Cornucopia Institute, were advocating extreme libertarianism. Bullshit.
Two Americas is here to distract.
Please stop the attacks on the messenger and address the message.
Public ownership of productive farmland solves that. That is the only measure that will. Of course that would be dreaded evil regulation and subsidies, that the extreme right wing and an ever-increasing number of "progressives" are so opposed to.
Everything is always tilted by those with huge amounts of money, to favour those with huge amounts of money. There is nothing special or unusual happening in agriculture on that score. However, there is money to be made by progressive entrepreneurs when food, and upscale foodie tastes are involved.
Capitalists own the farms? That is true in every industry, and yes it is the fundamental nature of Capitalism. Capitalists own everything - of course. That is what Capitalism is. The person who owns therefore controls others who do not own. How can people have every aspect of their entire lives ruled by this game and not see the game?
The millionaire Mennonite communities aren't forced to do anything. They choose to construct CAFOs because they love money. CAFOs are only profitable because we, the tax payers, heavily subsidize Cargill, Tyson, et al. There are no free market forces at work in this. It is not Capitalism, the correct terms are monopoly and oligarchy.
Yes - "CAFOs are only profitable because we, the tax payers, heavily subsidize Cargill, Tyson, et al." Grain is subsidized, the original idea behind that was to subsidize that small special interest group - the eaters.
"Free market?" Huh? Do you really think any market can ever be free under Capitalism? Oligarchy and monopoly are the goals, the inevitable outcome. Do you really believe that ADM, Cargil, Tyson, et al are operating any differently then any other corporation?
Capitalism is not about greed, nor the love of money. It is about controlling and dominating others - control or be controlled is the game - and money is merely the tool for achieving that.
The CAFO's are profitable in the same way the financial sector has become 'profitable' thanks to TARP--which is to say, that in reality, though the balance books at the end of term may indicate positive cash flow, no gains were ever realized. Their profits are fiction and absolutely unsustainable.
As ADM has already been found guilty of price fixing and market manipulation in the past, it may be assumed with some certainty that ADM, Cargill, Tyson, et al are behaving no differently than any other self-respecting oligarchal cabal would if given half a chance. (incidentally, Dwayne O Andreas, former Chairman and CEO of ADM was born a Mennonite)
Farm subsidy has become a convoluted mess, ignoring the plights of legitimate small farmers who could benefit from it, and instead, funnels fortunes towards those with no actual need other than avarice.
and on it continues...
Agreed. Good post. I am not familiar with the Mennonite connection here, but will educate myself about it.
It's a crap shoot. I was buying dog food, a high end gourmet brand, that I thought I could trust. Last month, they recalled their stock because of salmonella at one of their plants.
I think the food production / industry just got too big - too big to oversee, too big to carry out humanely and safely, too big to avoid contamination of food and environment. We need to break it into small units where the producers operate with pride and resonsibility, and have a connection to their product - and their customers.