The Meaty Truth (10 page)

Of particular concern are antibiotic-resistant, foodborne illnesses, caused by fecal contamination of meat. Recent studies show that 78 percent of our turkeys and 75 percent of our chickens contained antibiotic-resistant
salmonella,
and of the 95 percent of the chickens contaminated with tetracycline, half of them were antibiotic resistant.
¹⁷
All of these numbers are up since 2010.

Already we are experiencing nearly double the rate of hospitalizations from foodborne illnesses. For example, in Los Angeles in October 2013, there was a
salmonella
outbreak at the Foster Farms facility. Foster Farms is the tenth-largest chicken producer and banks between $1.9 and $2.3 billion per year.
¹⁸
Chickens are particularly susceptible to fecal contamination because their skin is left on for human consumption. However, what is concerning is the laissez-faire attitude toward this outbreak. Foster Farms had nearly a dozen reports in 2013 that found fecal contamination on their carcasses. The USDA contends that the rate of
salmonella
contamination at Foster Farms is on par with the rest of the chicken industry. Dan Englejohn, assistant administrator of the USDA’s Office of Field Operation, states that “noncompliance is in no way indicative that there was a process out of control.” Really, Mr. Englejohn? This viewpoint is cause for concern. Just because everyone is contaminating the food does not mean it is okay! Clearly we need to completely overhaul the regulatory system or, better yet, to avoid eating meat and dairy altogether.

Moreover, according to Caroline Smith DeWall, Food Safety Director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, this new strain of
salmonella
at Foster Farms was more potent and was modified from antibiotic use.
Of those stricken, 42 percent were hospitalized. This rate is nearly
double
what we have seen in the past from foodborne-illness outbreaks and forecasts what we can expect to see if antibiotic use is not curtailed. On a comforting note, all of the chicken that was contaminated with fecal matter was stamped with the USDA-inspection mark of approval.
¹⁹

Other lesser known pathogens, such as
Yersinia enterocolitica,
found in pigs, are also becoming antibiotic resistant and are becoming even more prominent in our grocery store products than other well-known foodborne illnesses. A recent Consumer Reports study found this bacterium in nearly 70 percent of all pig products from nationally recognized grocery stores.
²⁰
Yersinia enterocolitica affects nearly one hundred thousand Americans each year. Of note is that Yersinia entercolitica is
not
one of the pathogens tested under the USDA HACCP plan. This means that even though it contaminates over half of the pig products sold in stores, the Department of Agriculture cannot require a recall. The plan is seen to be “meeting its goals.” According to the USDA, “very low contamination levels in hog carcasses indicate that companies’ practices are adequately controlling pathogens.” This thinking seems a little flawed if we are not testing for all of the pathogens. We are essentially working off of plans that are doomed to fail the consumer because they are not comprehensive. Why are we not testing for all bacteria? Isn’t our health more important? It’s time we stop putting our health in severe jeopardy.

Harmful bacteria are finding ways into our kitchens. Some of the bacteria are so stuck to the meat that you can’t even wash them off. Appetizing. But don’t get too excited. When we wash off bacteria from animal carcasses in our kitchen sinks, the water can send bacteria flying up and onto dish towels, countertops, and other food products as far as three feet away. We’ve just increased our chances of contamination.

Physicians and national organizations are urging the FDA to remove antibiotics from our food. Due to the rising resistance, way back in June 2001, the American Medical Association passed a resolution that opposed non-therapeutic use of antibiotics for livestock production.
²¹
Guess what? The FDA chose to ignore this advice and continue to approve drugs. Recently the FDA approved the use of cefquinome despite protests from
the American Medical Association and the CDC that this antibiotic comes from a class of medicines that is one of the last defenses against life-threatening, human diseases.
²²

What is confusing is that the FDA recognized back in 1977 that the therapeutic use of the three major drugs—penicillin, chlortetracycline, and oxytetracycline—it approved for use in farm animals was “not shown to be safe.”
²³
The FDA initiated the steps to withdraw these drugs when the agribusiness industry stepped up and lobbied Congress to halt the withdrawal process. Since then, the FDA has abandoned taking a stand for American health in favor of corporate interests and violated federal laws in the process.

However, in December 2013, the FDA announced new, voluntary regulatory guidelines to phase out growth enhancers in livestock over the next three years. The FDA finally acknowledged that administering the same antimicrobial drugs used in both humans and animals can contribute to resistance. Eli Lilly and Company and Zoetis, two of the largest drug makers, were asked to revise their labels and remove animal production as one of its acceptable uses. While this looks like a step in the right direction, the problem is with the word “voluntary.” According to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, the only microbiologist in Congress, the FDA’s plan is “an inadequate response with no mechanisms for enforcement and no metric for success.”
²⁴
Congresswoman Slaughter, we have to wholeheartedly agree. Friends, let’s be real. If producers are given the chance to “opt in” to a plan that might cost them money, do you really think they will happily oblige? It seems extremely doubtful at best. Looking at the FDA’s history of issuing voluntary guidelines in 2012 that received little to no response, we can guess that these guidelines will receive a similar response.

Fortunately, not all of Congress is blind to the effects of abusing antibiotics and wants to stand on the sidelines while industries make antibiotics ineffective. Congresswoman Slaughter (NY) and Congressman Harris Waxman (CA) have both sponsored two new bills to curb antibiotic use and provide for better regulation. The Delivering Antimicrobial
Transparency in Animals Act and Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act both seek to actually regulate the use of antibiotics and enforce better usage and guidelines.
²⁵
They would provide the FDA with a more substantive understanding of how antibiotics are being used and whether the FDA’s voluntary program is effective. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act is widely supported among the medical community. Yet statistics indicate both bills only have about a 1 percent chance of being enacted. This is pathetic to say the least.

Think about the death toll when antibiotics no longer work. We are in a huge economic crisis, and yet we are spending between $4 and $5 billion dollars a year on antimicrobial resistance. This pales in comparison to the $45 billion the chicken industry alone rakes in every year.
²⁶
Yet it doesn’t pay for the external costs of its production. These health costs society has to bear will only increase if we continue down this path.
²⁷
Already, pig farms are implicated in the rise of a new strain of MRSA, which is a potentially fatal disease and kills more people than AIDS per year.

Massive pandemics are on the horizon. However, the industry and our government are more inclined to protect corporate interests. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack was quick to rename swine flu with the innocuous title H1N1. It’s the same way the industry hides feces in our meat by calling it
E. coli
or
salmonella
. It is all about the marketing message and placing distance between the industry and its consequences. The USDA didn’t hide its favorability for protecting the pork industry either. Mr. Vilsack stated during the 2009 swine flu outbreak that the USDA was doing “everything to ensure the hog industry was safe and sound.”
²⁸
No mention of the American public, despite the 250,000 Americans who were hospitalized. In the face of the World Health Organization issuing the highest pandemic level alert, the National Pork Producers Council stated that “[t]his flu is being called something it isn’t . . . it is ruining people’s lives.”
²⁹
The latter sentiment is one that we couldn’t agree with more. The agribusiness industry and the USDA and FDA’s continual backing of industry interests that promote antibiotic resistance are without a doubt ruining American lives, not to mention our pocketbooks. As antibiotic resistance
is on the rise, this cost is only expected to increase as well. This is all preventable. It’s time we reclaimed antibiotics and kept their integrity for curing illnesses intact.

Everything Is Not Better With Bacon

Ever heard of ractopamine? Most people haven’t, but it is the main ingredient in the growth additive, Paylean, given to 80 percent of slaughtered pigs that then become our ham and bacon staples.
³⁰
Ractopamine is a toxin that, as it warns on its label, is “not for human use.” Clearly, this means we should not be ingesting any amount of this toxin. Yet as much as 20 percent of ractopamine residue can be found in the meat we eat. Although the drug manufacturer prides itself on the fact that this poison is tasteless, we find that information more terrifying than optimistic.

Ractopamine is given to pigs a few weeks before they are slaughtered to make the meat leaner and let the farmer get more bang for his buck. Since it gives higher feed efficiencies, it raises profits. While this works out nicely for farmers and the drug manufacturer, Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly and Company, the same benefits are not conferred on consumers or the animals. The FDA approved the use of ractopamine back in 1999 for use in pigs, and has since approved its use for beef cattle in 2003 and turkeys in 2008. However, ractopamine is not the wonder drug it is sold as.

Ractopamine belongs to the beta-agonists drug group, the opposite of beta blockers. Essentially, it mimics stress hormones and increases heart rate. Since its inception, the FDA has received over two hundred thousand reports of pigs that have adverse reactions, such as “hyperactivity, trembling, broken limbs, and inability to walk.”
³¹
Imagine the unreported number. The label on the drug itself states that the product can cause “downer pigs,” which are those too sick to move or get up. Common sense says that consuming an animal in this state is not healthy. The industry and its major producers that use ractopamine, such as Smithfield and Tyson, suggest that it is perfectly safe. The safety claims that the FDA based approval on for the drug, came from tests conducted by the manufacturer itself. Apparently they saw no blatant conflict of interest.

In case you were wondering, the FDA has not approved beta-agonists drugs for human use. It is surprising then that they set “tolerance” levels for ractopamine residues in our bacon, ham, and pulled-pork products. If a product is not for human use and is known to cause cardiovascular issues, we shouldn’t be receiving any amount whatsoever. There should be a zero-tolerance policy.

Ractopamine is one of the most controversial growth-promoting drugs. About 160 countries have banned the drug due to its health consequences in pigs and known, negative impacts on the human cardiovascular system. Russia, which imported about $500 million worth of pork and beef products, banned US imports in 2012.
³²
This did not go over well with the United States. Instead of re-evaluating the food-safety concerns Russia presented, the United States petitioned international CODEX standards and tried to gain widespread, global acceptance of ractopmaine. The United States claimed that Russia’s move was not motivated by food-safety concerns but by financial protection of its own pork industry. It is apparently a very foreign concept for our government to understand why another government would restrict a toxin in the food system for safety reasons. Recently Russia lifted its ban on US products under the notion that upon testing, no ractopamine residues are found in imports.
³³
The United States does very little testing for residues. In 2011, it simply didn’t test about 22 billion pounds of pork produced. On the off chance that meat is tested for ractopamine, the toxin is frequently found. Think about this: if you ate pork that year, most likely it wasn’t tested for this toxin.

The United States’ actions are nothing short of depressing and horrifying. Ractopamine has been shown to cause heart damage, developmental defects, and fertility problems, in addition to extremely sick animals that are turned into food.
³⁴
Why would our country that strives to be a model of opportunity, health, and prosperity knowingly compromise its citizens’ health? We can’t rely on industry and drug manufacturers to keep citizens’ best interests at the forefront, because they only care about profits. We can do better than contaminated bacon. It’s time we heeded the warning and steered clear of these “prized” meat products.

Arsenic, My Dear?

Some industry practices, such as the use of arsenic, cross the line of imprudence into insanity. In 2013, the FDA finally admitted that there is indeed arsenic added to our chicken and turkey. Before we get too excited about this news, know that the FDA has, for some reason, needed convincing to acknowledge the risks associated with this problem. For nearly five years, the FDA has chosen to ignore petitions filed against it for allowing arsenic use until now.
³⁵

Since the 1940s, chickens and other poultry have been given arsenic in their feed in order to make them grow faster and improve meat pigmentation. By 2010, about 88 percent of the nine billion chickens produced were fed arsenic.
³⁶
The most common form of arsenic fed to chickens is called roxarsone, manufactured by the well-known pharmaceutical mogul, Pfizer. Roxarsone is an organic form of arsenic that is less toxic than its inorganic counterpart. For years, the poultry industry claimed that “there is no reason to believe that there are any human health hazards from this type of use.”
³⁷
The FDA sang a similar tune, claiming that there were no residues left in meat. Disturbingly, the industry and FDA are sorely wrong.