Ground Turkey recall

It's happening right now... again.  There are people who are sick due to bacteria contaminated food- ground turkey.  And not just any old bacteria- the ground turkey is contaminated with Salmonella Heidelberg which is a drug-resistant strain of salmonella.  Drug-resistant as in "super-bug," exactly what I had mentioned in the posts earlier this week.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the organizations that brought suit on May 25th of this year against the FDA for allowing the use of antibiotics in healthy feedlot animals, made a request of the USDA two months ago to inspect turkey for the presence of this drug-resistant strain of bacteria.  The USDA has not acted on that recommendation.

On July 21 the Center for Disease Control and the USDA connected the outbreak to the Cargill  turkey grinding plant in Springvale, Arkansas, but did not call Cargill's lawyers until July 29.  Why the delay?    They say they had to determine the concentration of the salmonella contamination- because a lot of ground turkey is contaminated with salmonella- that is a fact, so they wanted to be sure that there was a LOT of salmonella in this batch.  And there was, because Cargill recalled 36 millions pounds of the stuff.

Dr. Elizabeth Hagan, under secretary for food safety at the American Farm Bureau said that "public health must be at the heart of all lawmakers."  Too bad the reporter who jotted down that comment didn't ask Dr. Hagan why the American Farm Bureau vehemently opposes any restriction on feeding antibiotics to farm animals. Apparently public health is not at the heart of the American Farm Bureau.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the only microbiologist in the U. S. House, has re-introduced legislation limiting the use of antibiotics in healthy feedlot animals.  Hopefully it will meet with a better fate than last time, when the American Farm Bureau and the fat cats running the big factory farms and the pharmaceutical industry joined forces to defeat it through the influence they hold over our representatives in Washington.. (The legislation Rep. Slaughter introduced is referred to as PAMTA- Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act).

Not to worry, fat cats.  An economist who used to work for ConAgra foods described the American consumer as having a relatively short-term memory.  They'll stop buying ground turkey for awhile, he said, then when the shelves are restocked they'll buy again.  So glad we don't disappoint them.... dependable that's what we are!  Too bad we can't depend on them!

The Food Police- The Movie!

Our right to purchase safe, unadulterated food from farmers is being abridged by these agencies- the FDA and the USDA.  More and more folks give up the struggle to maintain the family farm every year- between high taxes, weather- drought and flooding, crop disease, low prices, and being hassled by state and federal agencies.  Eighty-eight percent of dairy farmers alone have left dairy farming since 1970.  Factory farms seemingly flourish while our food is awash in hormones and antibiotics.  The pollution from giant manure pits taints wells and fouls streams.  Small family farms are increasingly put out of business because they just can’t compete with the big guys.

Rather than keep our food safe from additives and genetic manipulation, instead of guarding the wholesomeness and purity of food, these agencies allow huge mega-corporations to manipulate the system, dictate policy, pollute the environment and degrade our food supply while these government agencies single out small struggling family farms as targets for their selective enforcement of ridiculous, outdated laws. 

The allegiance of these government agencies  is to big-agribusiness, not to your well-being.  I personally do not have problems with a government agency keeping me safe.  I have huge problems with agencies that purport to maintain the safety of the food we eat but take orders from the exact people they should be watching.  (Check out my post from July 13- The FDA protects big biotechs, not you!)

If you would like to see a film that deals with these issues, check out Farmageddon: The unseen war on American family farms .  There you can view the trailer of the new, independent movie Farmaggedon and check to see if/when the film will be playing in your area.  No, this movie will definitely NOT be released  in lots of theaters across this country!  This is truly a subject that lots of people do NOT want us to see. 

The Food Police- THEY decide what you will eat!

If you’ve caught any old re-runs of Seinfeld you are undoubtedly familiar with the "library police".  That episode really made me chuckle.  The contrast of the super serious "library cop" with the pettiness of the "crime" was hilarious.  What a scary contrast with "the food police"- not so funny now! 

The USDA and the FDA are two federal agencies which make choices about what foods we eat.  It seems to me that the original intent here was to safeguard the public health, but more and more frequently they are making and enforcing laws that not only run contrary to the best interests of the public, but that promote the interests of big agribusiness and big biotechs.  Sometimes this selective enforcement is made with real police, and fines and imprisonment are imposed on the folks who run counter to the system.  These agencies are deciding more and more what we can and cannot eat; they are deciding which animals farmers can and cannot raise.  Are they keeping us from illness?  NO!   Are they promoting good sustainable farming practices?  NO!  Are they protecting the food supply?  NO!   

Huge agribusinesses (factory farms) run humongous feedlots where they feed tons of antibiotics to thousands of animals destined for our tables.  The use of those antibiotics has huge consequences for all of us.  Since those are the same antibiotics developed for use in human beings, this indiscriminate use has resulted in drugs which are no longer working to get us well. Superbugs are here!  They’ve triumphed over our drug arsenal, and so far there’s no new magic bullet.  Have you heard of MRSA? C-Diff?  Have you heard of people having portions of their intestines removed because there’s no other way to get rid of the infection other than cutting it out?  Have you heard of “flesh-eating disease”? These diseases are so scary because they are resistant to antibiotics.

Instead of the FDA and USDA keeping the public safe from the dangers of the overuse of antibiotics which they could accomplish by pursuing the matter through the courts or requesting legislation to PROHIBIT feeding ANTIBIOTICS to these animals, the FDA targets instead the little guy- the folks on the family farm (who are NOT dosing their animals with drugs, who are NOT polluting, etc) but whom they are very successful at bullying.  They confiscate computers, equipment, records, farm animals and crops.  Amish farmers- and others- are taken away in handcuffs.  Hundreds of gallons of milk and other products are destroyed or confiscated.  Some raids are conducted on farm families in the middle of the night at gunpoint.  Their crime?  They're targets of selective enforcement of stupid and arcane laws.  Continued on the next blog:  The Food Police- The Movie!

Farmers' Market

This past weekend I took in a farmers’ market in the Midwest, not far from Chicago.  It was a fun experience despite the fact that that part of the country (like just about every other section of the country) has been experiencing some radical weather.  It was hot, humid and overcast- hardly conducive to a fun outing- but we enjoyed the experience never the less.  It was surprising to see so many people there who could have chosen to hide indoors in some cool air conditioning but instead strolled amongst the many booths displaying all sorts of merchandise.  The beauty of the thing- and there is much to be extolled about farmers’ markets- is that the folks in attendance and the folks displaying their wares are from the community or at least the “extended community”- maybe as far away as fifty miles, but no one is schlepping stuff across the continent to hawk it there. 

There were wonderful vegetables- gorgeous zucchini and yellow squash, fresh green beans, plump tomatoes, deep red beets, freshly picked spinach, fresh turnip greens, ripe cantaloupe, fat blueberries and fresh garlic for sale.  Michigan was represented by the juicy peaches which have begun to come in as well as the last of the cherries, and plump blueberries, to be sure.  Flower bouquets were available for purchase- I found the Queen Ann’s lace bouquets spiked with pink snapdragons and blue cornflowers especially attractive.  The local apiary had a wonderful array of honey available in so many sizes- and honeycombs also.  I’m a regular purchaser of local honey.  I’ve found it’s headed off many a sore throat for me-  just a teaspoonful when I feel the scratchiness of a sore throat coming on.  (And if you buy your honey in pint jars with metal screw-on lids, I found that a dab of olive oil around the jar lip where it meets the metal will keep the lid from getting stuck and hard to open.)  There were wonderful cheeses on display, with obliging salespeople cutting off just the exact amount you ordered… creamy mild cheeses, piquant hard cheeses and tastes in between to satisfy every cheese lover’s palate.  And the grass-fed beef and pork farmer was there with his meats.  They use sustainable farming methods and sell meat from animals which are not fed antibiotics, nor hormones.  There were bakers of artisanal breads and rolls-  and some wonderfully crispy things with savory rosemary baked into the dough! 

Do yourself a favor- if you haven’t been out to a farmers’ market yet, get out there!  There’s an abundance of produce coming in now, and it’ll continue through the end of the summer and well into the fall.  Avail yourself of some of these products; try a new vegetable; get to know your local farmers.  It’s fun, interesting, and nourishes not only your body but your spirit as well.

The FDA outlaws a dangerous food

With all my harping that the FDA doesn’t protect us from harmful additives, carcinogens, hormones and drugs, not to mention genetically altered organisms (GMOs), I have to confess that I have come across an instance where the FDA protects us – unequivocally.  The FDA along with the USCBP, the United States Customs and Border Patrol, a division of the Office of Homeland Security, are ever vigilant and most protective of our best interests here.  The food in question?  Chocolate candy eggs with a toy in the center!  Those babies are dangerous!!!!  Apparently in 1938 when Congress established the FDA a law was passed outlawing the sale of food which contains a non-nutritive item.  (And how, pray tell, has the wily and elusive Cracker Jack escaped notice?) Well the FDA has embraced its responsibilities here and has run with it!  Why, you ask, are the Office of Homeland Security and the CBP involved?  To protect us from ourselves, of course!  Aside from the possibility that the “toy” in the center of this purported candy could possibly be assembled into a ‘weapon of mass destruction’, American children and their parents are potentially subjected to all the dangers accompanying something so vile of its very nature. 

Yes, the FDA bans these products, prohibits possession of the candies, and denies Americans the privilege of buying these dangers and transporting them across the borders of the United States and into this country.   The Italian candy company Ferrero manufactures the candies in various plants throughout the world and incredibly sells them worldwide.  The egg is about the size of a large chicken egg.  It is purchased foil-wrapped.  Upon unwrapping the egg, a chocolate shell is revealed.  When the chocolate shell has been consumed one finds a plastic container with the toy within.  According to reports, the plastic shell with the toy inside is not easily opened.  The toy is sometimes made up of small parts that must be assembled into the actual “prize”, if you will.  Apparently this is way too dangerous for Americans and the FDA is saving us from ourselves…. Except that there is a Chinese-made copycat product which is much more readily available on American store shelves.  Gee, I hope THOSE toys don’t contain lead!

So while giant animal feedlots feed millions of tons of antibiotics to animals that wind up on our tables for consumption, and the big biotechs screw around with the very basic composition of our food down to its genetic make-up, and dairy farmers shoot-up their milk cows with hormones and feed ‘em antibiotics, the FDA outlaws the sale of chocolate eggs.  Would somebody please explain this to me?????   Wait- I've got it!  Ferrero, the chocolate egg manufacturer, isn’t funneling tons of cash into the grimy, greedy hands of Congress and the MonsanFDAto!

BPA

What is Bisphenol-A?  a plastics additive; a synthetic form of the estrogen hormone; a ubiquitous industrial chemical in use for over 50 years

Where is it found? in beverage containers, infant feeding bottles, plastic dinnerware and plastic storage containers, in the epoxy resin lining of food and beverage cans; in the cord blood of newborns; in the urine of people who ingest it

What’s the concern?  BPA leaches into the contents of these baby bottles, plastic containers, and cans- into the consumable contents even at cool temps.  In laboratory tests the chemical has been linked to breast and testicular cancers, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, lower sperm count, miscarriage reproductive problems, and heart disease. 

What does the FDA say about BPA?  The FDA has no problem with BPA.  After two studies were done on BPA indicating it was harmless, the FDA approved it for use in the US.  After it was revealed that the labs that had conducted those two tests were linked to the chemical industry trade group, studies were done by scientific and university labs.  Those two hundred studies indicated that there were possible problems with BPA.  However the FDA never “pulled” it. 

Has anyone outlawed it? Ten of the fifty United States, the European Union, Canada, China, and a US municipality and various counties (Chicago, some NY counties) have restricted its use.  Manufacturers of most baby bottles have discontinued its use, however the cheaper brands found at some discount stores still carry baby and toddler products that contain BPA. 

Why does the debate still continue?  Babies and children have fewer defenses against irritants and pollutants, plus they have (hopefully) long lives ahead of them during which time they face ingestion of large quantities of possibly harmful “stuff”- like drugs, poisons, additives, pesticides, toxins, and carcinogens.  Therefore some activists and organizations which are watchdogs are crusading against the use of BPA in items that come into contact with food and drink.  The industry is fighting back by casting doubt on the scientific findings.

My take on the situation: Better safe than sorry.  I wonder why we need a synthetic hormone in our food at all.  One more unknown in the giant equation… why take the risk?  Other countries take the approach of banning a chemical until it’s proven safe.  We allow a chemical until it’s proven harmful.  Why?        

What's that doing in my bread?

Did you ever wonder why there is such a long list of ingredients on your food labels?  Take bread, for instance.  Bread and the human race have a long history together.  In its “manna” form it gave nourishment to the Israelites; along with “a jug of wine and thou” it makes for a great intimate lunch.  It exists in many cultures, under various forms, and it’s even got great symbolic meaning.  Bread has historically been made of flour, yeast, water and salt.  You can add sugar, eggs, oatmeal, cinnamon, raisins…. well, I could go on.  So if all it takes is just four ingredients, why do we see a list of fifteen or more on our bread wrappers?  And by the way, what is all that stuff?  If it has that many syllables, I don’t think it belongs in my food!  Take for instance Azodicarbonamide, or Azodicarboxamide as the FDA likes to call it.  (Let’s call it ADA here so I don’t get cramps in my fingers.)  It’s a bleaching agent and a flour-maturing agent.  Is that ADA’s principal use… conditioning the flour in our bread?  No, as a matter of fact its principal use is to make gaskets for use around door- and window-frames, shoe soles, and padded floor mats.  (That’s floor not flour!)  In other words it’s used in the manufacture of foam plastics- food not so much-- at least not in other countries.  The UK, Australia and Europe don’t allow it.  Singapore goes a little further:  you face a fine of $450,000 and a jail term for using it… those Singaporeans apparently take their bread seriously.  Some of the caveats for folks handling it are downright scary!  Inhalation of ADA may cause asthma or trigger asthma; it must not come in contact with skin; it’s to be kept out of the reach of children; one must wear suitable gloves, eye and face protection when using it.  (Do bakers get hazard pay?  Maybe they should.)  Anyway the FDA allows it in our food, although according to the FDA it’s NOT used in any of our food, but it would be OK with them if it were.  Well, FDA, check your bread wrappers!   I found it listed on the labels of most of the brands in my supermarket.  (I couldn’t read them all, I was drawing a crowd.)  Additionally, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, Panera and Dunkin’ Donuts use it in their breads and rolls, too.  What’s the answer?  Make your own, buy a bread machine, buy and bake frozen bread (it’s not listed on the frozen bread wrapper in my freezer), buy a brand that doesn’t use it, or move to the UK, Australia, Europe or Singapore- although it would be easier to just check labels. Oh, and let’s not tell the FDA.  I want to see the expression on their faces when they find out it’s in our bread already!!

Shuddup and drink your milk!

Shuddup and drink your milk!  I think that’s the message we’re being sent by the FDA and Elanco, the manufacturer of the synthetic growth hormone Posilac.  If you don’t like it, too bad.   Well  I don’t like it and I won’t buy it.

This whole story makes me very angry.  When I set out researching the subject at the urging of a couple friends, I had no idea of the magnitude of the subject.  The more checking I did the more information I was finding.  What really gets me so angry is that the whole story is so OLD and I was relatively unaware of any of this prior to my digging.  I realize part of the fault is definitely mine.  I’ve never been too concerned about food safety before.  I always placed my trust in the FDA and the USDA and all the other organizations we tax payers foot the bill for.  I thought they had our backs.  Antibiotics in our meat supply was something I was somewhat familiar with, but OMG, this whole antibiotics/hormone/genetically modified organisms thing is like a pus oozing cancer, just waiting to burst open on all of us.  The research just isn’t there.  They don’t know if it’s safe and yet we’re eating it!

We have to question things.  It’s very evident there aren’t any questions being asked or truthfully answered at the FDA.  There is a lot of money involved because these are some HUGE companies with really deep pockets.  Monsanto would not have us question the safety of its products.  Monsanto made Agent Orange, PCBs and dioxin.  The government said they were safe.  Monsanto said they were safe.  Yet they’re among some of the most horrific things that have been visited on us, aren’t they?  Now we know more questions should have been asked.  Now we’re wiser, …. aren’t we?

So what am I doing about it- meaning the lack of standards, the laws being adjusted to suit big agribusiness and big biotechnology companies?  For one thing I’m spending my food dollars a lot more judiciously.  I’m buying free-range and grass-fed when I can (and I’m buying bison meat, too).  When I can’t, I just cut back on my purchases- some days going meatless.  I buy organic dairy products and eggs now and organic fruits and vegetables whenever possible.  And I’m alerting you to what’s going on with our food supply, too, so you can be in the know.  So what are you doing about it? 

More shared talent at the FDA & Who stood up to Monsanto and said NO!

Taylor wasn’t the only talent Monsanto and the FDA shared.  Margaret Miller, a researcher at Monsanto, prepared a report requested by the FDA which was to present evidence that the growth hormone Posilac was safe.  Just prior to the submission of the report by Monsanto to the FDA Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA as Deputy Director of the Office of New Animal Drugs where her first task was to approve or disapprove the report she had just put together at Monsanto.  She approved it.  (is that a conflict of interest? dishonest? mind-blowing?  Naw!  It’s all in a day’s work at your MonsanFDAto.)  And while Miller was in this position at the FDA she increased the allowable amount of antibiotics cows can be given by 100 times.  (The correlation between the use of synthetic hormones and antibiotics appeared in my post on Antibiotics in milk and bovine health, part 1, posted July 5^th) .  Other Monsanto transplants into the FDA were Susan Sechen and Nick Weber.
 

So the FDA with no mention of a conflict of interest (the revolving door between Monsanto and the agency) accepted Monsanto’s “evidence” (written at Monsanto, approved at the FDA, all by the same person- the writer and the "approver" were one and the same) as to the safety of its products over the objection of scientists.   I have a problem with that.

Scientists at Health Canada said they had grave misgivings over the safety of Posilac during hearings conducted there.  They stated that they were being pressured and coerced into giving the drug approval.  Dr. Margaret Haydon testified that Monsanto had made an offer of between $1 million and $2 million to Health Canada, which the scientists there interpreted as a bribe. Additionally she noted that notes and files critical of the data provided by Monsanto disappeared from a locked cabinet in her office.  (It could be noted here that Nick Weber, Margaret Miller’s direct underling at the FDA, passed to Monsanto the European Commission’s confidential documents outlining their misgivings about rBGH.  I believe he was terminated.)  Health Canada turned Monsanto away.  They were not persuaded of the safety of the drug, quite the contrary.

Additionally the World Health Organization, the United Nations Food Safety Agency which represents 101 nations worldwide, ruled unanimously in favor of the European moratorium on genetically engineered hormonal milk.  Their Codex Alimentarius, Latin for the Food Book, provides written guidelines and is the internationally recognized collection of food standards, guidelines and codes of practice to protect the health of consumers.  So I guess that leaves the U.S., Mexico and South Africa as the nations who have approved it.  Lonesome ain’t it?

The FDA protects big biotechs- not you!

The FDA and Monsanto have been sharing “talent” for quite a few years.  Folks like to work for Monsanto then they apparently find employment opportunities at the FDA where they can promote Monsanto’s products, then rotate back into the fold, until their special talents are needed again… kinda like a sleeper cell.

Michael Taylor, a lawyer who began his career at the FDA in 1976 personifies this “revolving door” phenomenon better than anyone else.  Following his stint at the FDA Taylor worked for a law firm which represented the Monsanto Corporation.  During his tenure at the law firm from 1984 to 1991 he prepared a memo for Monsanto as to the constitutionality of state’s adoption of laws that would allow milk to be labeled free of synthetic hormones and also whether or not Monsanto could sue states, and dairies as well, that chose to differentiate between the products via labels.

In 1991 the FDA welcomed Taylor back, even created a new special position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy.  Overnight he became the point man for fast-tracking Genetically Modified Organisms (genetically engineered food).  He brushed aside the concerns of FDA scientists, eliminated references to the negative effects of GMOS, and by golly, Monsanto got their stuff approved!  (What’s that reference to having friends in high places?)  He wrote the FDA’s synthetic hormone labeling guidelines in 1994- virtually prohibiting dairy corporations from making the distinction between milk with and without the drug.  (Remember that memo he prepared while he was an attorney working for Monsanto?)  He wanted to avoid the stigmatization of the product, or more correctly stated, wanted to keep the consumer in the dark as to what he/she was buying.  That same year it was publicized that Taylor had worked for the Monsanto Corporation as a lawyer for seven years.  Oh, not to worry!  The FDA doesn’t care and nobody much will tell the American public.  From 1994 – 1996 he worked at the USDA in food safety(?) and inspection services.  He then rotated back into the Monsanto Corporation as the Vice President for Public Policy and lobbyist.  Well, he’s gone, right?  No!  He’s baaaa-aaack!  President Obama appointed Taylor as “Advisor to the FDA Commissioner as a food safety expert.”  Wait, he’s a lawyer.  A lawyer has a background in law, not science, not public health, not …. Oh never mind!  His new duties include planning implementation of “new food safety legislation”.   Hey, Mr. Taylor, what about antibiotics in our milk, in our meat, cancer causing hormones in our food?  Legislation, yes- safety, not so much.  Tomorrow more shared talent at the FDA and who ultimately stood up to Monsanto.

Fox TV and synthetic hormonal milk, part 2

“We paid $3billion for these stations.  We’ll decide what the news is.  The news is what we tell you it is.”  That’s what Jane Akre reports David Boylan, then station manager of Fox TV’s channel 13 in Tampa, Florida told her during their ongoing struggle over which story on rBGH would air- the report she and her investigative partner Steve Wilson wrote, or the one that Fox wanted them to present on air…. a fabrication of the imagination of Fox’s lawyers with probably plenty of input from Monsanto (and the dairy and grocery industries which were also interested in hiding the information from the public).

 After the report failed to air the first two times it was scheduled, the two reporters agreed to re-work the series, changing the wording so that they could live with the story as well as Fox.  After a series of 83 re-writes (!!!) (Do you think they were being played?) demanded by Fox and after six scheduled and cancelled airdates, the story still wasn’t broadcast.  Finally David Boylan, the station manager, told the pair that the station would find another reporter to rewrite the story according to Fox’s demands if they wouldn’t toe the line.   When Akre and Wilson threatened to file a formal complaint with the FCC, the station manager offered them two hundred thousand dollars to go away, keep quiet about the story, and not disclose how Fox had handled the whole affair.  (They have it in writing.) They turned down the offer.  They were ultimately fired in December, 1997.  Eventually they instituted a suit against Fox and won a “landmark whistleblower suit” wherein they were awarded $425,000 in damages by a jury.  Fox unsuccessfully appealed the case three times.  Finally they hit pay dirt after three appeals failed and six judges turned down hearing it.  They ultimately found a judge who would hear the appeal.  On February 14, 2003, the jury decision was overturned on a “technicality.”  The “technicality”?  The Florida whistleblower law protected employees whose employer required them to break a law.  This was the basis for Akre and Wilson winning the original suit.  The “technicality” is this:  Fox argued and WON that there is no FCC law that requires a tv station to broadcast the truth.  Telling the truth on the air is only a policy and because WTVT did not ask the reporters to break a law by broadcasting lies, there was no basis for the suit!  Jury award vacated!  Case closed!  Fox did not violate any law, the appellate judge said because a television station is not bound by law to tell the truth.  “We paid $3 billion for these stations.  We’ll decide what the news is.  The news is what we tell you it is.”  Guess Boylan was right!  It should be noted that news editors do have the legitimate right to not air or publish a story, but not to demand it be falsified.  

Tomorrow’s post will talk about how the FDA protects biotech industries, not you.

Fox TV and synthetic hormonal milk, part 1

The investigative team of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson had been hired expressly by the television station WTVT in Tampa to do just that…. conduct investigative reporting.  In fact Wilson had received 4 Emmies for his reporting, and Akre had received an Associated Press award for her work.  Shortly after the husband and wife team was hired on, the station was sold to new owners- Fox TV, owned by Rupert Murdoch, and thus begins our story.  Akre and Wilson had been writing an in-depth report on Florida’s dairy industry and were turning up all sorts of negative information relating to the use of rBGH in milk cows and that gave them great concern.  They had conducted lots of interviews, had shot a lot of footage, and had done plenty of investigative digging into the subject.  This was going to be a BIG story.  It was scheduled to air in four parts beginning on February 24, 1997, and in anticipation of its airing during that sweeps week Fox was paying for ads on radio as well to stimulate public interest.  Just before it was to be aired the Fox News Chairman received what could be viewed as a threatening letter from a powerful New York attorney representing Monsanto.  “There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto but also for Fox News and its owner,” concluded the New York attorney John J. Walsh in that letter.  It was received virtually on the eve of the scheduled broadcast of the first segment of the report.  Walsh asked for a week for Monsanto to prepare material to defend itself from what they perceived as an attack on their product, Posilac. The investigative series was postponed while attorneys and reporters poured over the material but found no inaccuracies.  The reporters offered to interview a rep of Monsanto to explain their side of the story.  Walsh then ridiculed that idea.  The series was postponed again.  Over a period of months Fox tried all sorts of means to get Akre and Wilson to drop the story entirely or to change it to the extent that it would have ultimately been completely false.   How did it turn out?  Did the truth win out?  Check it out tomorrow.

The media- watch dog or lapdog?

How much have you read or heard of hormones in your food?  or antibiotics in your food?  how about genetically modified food?  Most people have a passing acquaintance with these subjects. “Oh yeah!  I heard something about that a while ago.  What’s that all about?”  I feel that real dangers exist.  I am convinced that not enough research has been done and not enough is known about the effects of hormones in our food and genetically modified products.  The jury is definitely in with regard to the dangers antibiotics pose.

Why don’t we hear about this danger?  Why don’t we know that the FDA is NOT protecting our health?  Why is the media so silent on the subject?  There are quite a few possible answers:  These stories don’t create enough of a splash to hold people’s attention.  People don’t want to hear “bad” things about the food they eat.  Big industry pays to avoid negative attention.  The media in our country is increasingly owned and operated by fewer and fewer people- thus there’s a lack of diversity of opinion, less competition to get the scoop; fewer newspapers are employing fewer reporters.  (So many newspapers are going out of business!)  Fewer and fewer editors and news writers are generating the information you get.  “They” are controlling what you hear, read and ultimately know.   

What would you say about a TV station that chose to NOT present a story about a danger in our food supply?  That chose NOT to act in the best interest of the public?  That caved to pressure from some big players?  What would you say about a major TV network pressuring their investigative reporters to air falsehoods to cover up some scary practices?  The latter scenario actually happened in Tampa, Florida at a Fox TV station.  The whole thing played out over the course of six or so years and it makes for a VERY interesting read.    I’ll tell you more about it next week.

Food fad: good or bad?

The May/June issue of Foreign Policy magazine, dubbed The Food Issue, found its way into my hands.  The issue is chock full of very interesting information.  The reporters conducted several interesting polls.  Long about the last page of the issue, they queried the fifty-eight poll participants who are “some of the world’s leading experts” on food, its distribution, and the world’s hunger problems. The survey asked participants to fill in the blanks on specific topics related to food, such as:  "The best way to feed the world in 50 years is…;” and “Organic is....”    I found many of the responses thought provoking and interesting, some rather glib, a couple silly.   But a respondent named Sallie James floored me when she filled in some blanks thusly:  “The stupidest food fad is.... “the ‘locavore’ and ‘slow food’ movement”, said Sallie, and she elaborated- “snobbish, condescending, indulgent, misguided, and thoroughly unrealistic.”  Gee, sounds like Sallie really enjoys her Mickey D’s and is unwilling to give them up!*  Well, Sallie, it’s not that many years ago- in this country- that we ate what we grew or what we bought from our local markets which retailed food grown in the community.  As a matter of fact a lot of people still do that today!  Some folks are lucky enough to have farmers’ markets in their communities or nearby towns.  Some people eat the produce from their own gardens.  Some people buy shares from CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture- local farms where you can buy a "share" of the crops being grown); some buy their produce at farmstands.  Some people even preserve some of their food!  These small farms are more likely to use good sustainable methods in their farming than huge factory farms.  If you get to know the people you buy from, you can actually ask questions of them.  If you’re lucky you’ll run into folks using sustainable or organic methods.  Buying directly from the grower can save not only you, but him/her money as well.  (It is estimated that the farmer gets under 12 cents of every dollar we spend on food at the market.)  Food that is grown and eaten locally is fresher, tastier and higher in nutrients than food that’s been shipped long distances.  Eating locally keeps dollars in the community, and increases the security and resiliency of the community.  A farmer being able to hold onto a small farm keeps jobs in the community and the natural beauty of the land is preserved.  That’s all part of being a locavore, right?  -eating what’s grown locally, or nearby. (I don’t think there is a hard and fast definition, at least no one spells out the radius for locavore eating.)  Check further here.  Slow food- the opposite of fast food- is the consumption of food cooked at home (or in a restaurant where no one yells through a microphone upon your order “want fries with that?”).  In much of this country people still sit down to slow cooked meals, as they do all over Canada, Europe, Asia, South America and in fact just about everywhere!  I guess they’re all too snobbish and misguided to realize that a fast alternative exists, that is if they'd be willing to sacrifice taste and nutrition on the altar of saved time.  Yeah, Sallie, what a great alternative!  I realize fast food is here to stay.  It’s a convenience.  It’s a necessary “evil,” but that doesn’t mean the alternative is indulgent, misguided and unrealistic.  And I realize we’re exporting our fast food industry to other countries, too, where it’s gobbled up- not exactly a good example of American culture.  When you cook at home you know where your ingredients come from… you know what you’re getting.   Slow food means fresher ingredients, less processing, better taste, more nutrition, better all round bang for your buck.  

*I was trying to be facetious, - imagining Sallie pounding down fast food.  Sallie’s a trade policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a conservative “think tank.”  Sallie’s no more getting her chow from a fast food chain than I’m getting carry-out from a five star restaurant.  I think it’s Sallie who’s being snobbish.  She doesn’t realize that little people like me don’t prefer to eat food that’s had the heck processed out of it and/or that’s traveled across oceans and continents before it’s reached my table.      

Antibiotics in our milk and bovine health, Part 2

Let’s look at some of the effects of Posilac on bovine health.  How we treat our animals often reflects how we treat our fellow man and reveals our character.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, the warning insert that comes with the drug spells out just the problems that the manufacturer acknowledges.  Reproduction-wise the drug is associated with cystic ovaries, disorders of the uterus and retention of the placenta.  Mastitis is acknowledged as well as the increased frequency of medication for mastitis “and other health problems.” The drug increases digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat and diarrhea.  Cows injected with the drug have increased cases of enlarged hocks as well as lacerations, enlargements and calluses of the knee.  Perhaps the size of the udders which are so out of proportion to the rest of the body distorts the pelvis and the attached musculature as well as the joints making it hard to walk?  Reductions in hematocrit and hemoglobin occur during treatment.  The manufacturer recommends discontinuing injecting cows that react with injection sites that repeatedly open and drain.  Good call!!  They go on to advise that no milk discard or pre-slaughter withdrawal period is required.  Hormones!  Fresh to your table!  You can check out the contents of the the warning insert here.  Summary:  Posilac increases milk production.  This fills a need for more milk for a thirsty calcium-craving public, right?  WRONG!  We already produce a surplus of milk in this country.  It’s not filling a need other than filling the wallets of the manufacturers of the drug and the producers of the milk, while emptying the wallets of the taxpayer because Uncle Sam is buying back the surplus.  Oh yeah, remember we can’t sell it to other countries because they don’t want milk tainted with synthetic hormones.  Their governments protect their health.  Our government protects big agribusiness.