“Just being honest, I don’t think your average consumer probably knows a lot about how food is produced.”
~ Elizabeth Hagen, USDA’s Head of Food Safety
Pink slime made headlines in 2012 as we shockingly discovered that the majority of our hamburger meat was not only doused with ammonia nitrate—a common component in bombs, fertilizers, and detergents—but also was made up of ground-up, otherwise-inedible beef scraps and cow-connective tissue that could be highly contaminated with the lethal pathogens E. coli and salmonella.1 This disgusting beef product referred to as “finely textured beef” comprised our children’s school lunches and infiltrated our grocery stores. In fact, the US government was buying seven million pounds of it for school lunches.2 As much as two-thirds of our ground beef contained pink slime and didn’t require labeling. Even though food companies tried to pass off this chemical as non-toxic and benign for our health, let’s cut the crap: even if ammonia doesn’t kill us on the spot, we should not be eating it. Thankfully, public uproar forced three of the four lean, finely textured beef plants to close, as most major supermarket chains and school-lunch programs refused to buy their products.
The bigger problem is that ammonia is not the only toxin in our food. The stunning truth is that untested growth hormones, arsenic, a wide spectrum of antibiotics, anxiety pills, flame retardants, bleach, animal crap, chemical fillers, and pus are all allowed in our meat and dairy by the USDA and FDA. That’s right. We eat all of those in our food products. Since this is not advertised or labeled, we have absolutely no idea what chemicals our food contains. These dangerous chemical fillers and toxins are catastrophic for our health. Imagine if every American knew what they were really eating how the industries would be forced to change their habits . . .
Spicing It Up!
Our food products are so loaded with chemicals and toxins that today we could liken them more to science experiments.
Ever wondered what autolyzed yeast extract is? It’s monosodium glutamate, notoriously known as MSG. It is only one of the worst possible toxins that we could ingest. MSG is a known excitotoxin that stimulates our cells to the point of death. It is ubiquitously used in fast foods, and most of our processed food products. It is a known silent killer.
How did MSG get into our food supply? The FDA allowed it. This isn’t to say this practice is remotely safe. The FDA Commissioner that promoted the benign health effects of MSG to Congress cited four studies. Turns out two of these studies didn’t exist and the other two studies were incomplete.3 And yet, the FDA still allows this known health hazard into our food supply. In fact, the FDA allows about three hundred foods to have secret ingredients—meaning the food companies are not required to specify them on the labels. It is high time we rethink how our food is produced.
Let’s take a brief look at a small sample of some of the added “spices” in our foods.
Do you recognize any of these on our food labels? All of these chemicals and toxins do not have to be labeled. What’s worse is that for many of these drugs, the USDA audit report found that the FDA has yet to set “tolerance” limits. For example, copper does not have a tolerance limit. The newest research implicates copper as one of the main metals related to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease.7 As we well know, Alzheimer’s disease has no cure.
While the USDA and FDA claim these so-called ingredients are added in such finite amounts that they have no real effect, it seems our health problems are saying the opposite. There is absolutely no reason we should be eating bleach, disinfectant spray, chlorine, warfare materials, poison, and antibiotics. There is a reason most household cleaning products and detergents state to contact poison control if ingested. It seems ironic then that it is okay to consume these same chemicals in any amount during breakfast!
Drug and substance residues in your meat and dairy products can cause a range of reactions from skin lesions to nerve poisoning and death. We have never experienced such food-related health problems or food allergens before today. As most of these added chemicals are man-made, our bodies have zero experience or history processing these chemicals. Our food is now a disastrous experiment gone very, very wrong. A USDA audit report admits, “Since consumers have no easy way of protecting themselves against the residues of harmful substances in their food, it is important that the national residue program’s controls be as robust as possible to prevent meat contaminated with harmful substances from reaching the kitchen table.”8
This could not be more of an understatement.
Is that Safe to Eat?
The American Farm Bureau Association proudly boasts, “Today’s farmers produce 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs (labor, seeds, feed, fertilizer, etc.), compared to 1950.”9 Hold the applause, please. There is a very simple reason why they are generating more food. They are pumping the animals with antibiotics, arsenic, and ractopamine that make them grow faster, as well as using fillers in our feed products such as roadkill to curb costs.10 That’s right, animals that have been euthanized, slaughtered, or found by the side of the road are all fair game to be ground up and fed to animals produced for food. Animal waste, polyethylene plastic, and previously contaminated human food (such as food that has roach excrement on it) are all approved and used in animal feed. While the industry tries to pass this off as progress, it really comes down to cutting corners and producing cheap, unhealthy food products that are taking a disastrous toll on our environment and our health.
Let’s review three of the most worrying additives to our meat and dairy products: the reckless use and abuse of antibiotics, the intentional feeding of arsenic to chickens and turkeys, and the not-so-wonder drug ractopamine given to pigs that comprise your bacon breakfast.
The End of Antibiotics
Think about the number of times we have used antibiotics to get back to our healthy, happy selves. What would happen if another swine flu hit? In 2009, swine flu reached near epidemic proportions, and twelve thousand Americans died.11 Can you imagine a world where you can’t recover from the flu? Sadly, this is a very real possibility, because we are giving factory-farm animals four-fifths of all the antibiotics produced.12 In fact, in 2011, factory-farm animals received almost four times as many antibiotics as humans. The antibiotics are fed to the animals due to the filthy conditions in the factory farms, which are causing an antibiotic resistant epidemic. The CDC, USDA, and FDA all recognize and acknowledge that this overuse of antibiotics in our food supply is contributing to the antibiotic resistance that is becoming a significant threat to public health. Surprisingly, little is done to remediate this problem. In fact, more Americans die from antibiotic-resistant bacteria each year than from HIV/AIDS. The problem is that antibiotic use in our food is not declining but actually increasing. In 2011, more antibiotics were given to animals than ever before. We are rapidly reaching the end of the antibiotic era, placing us on the cusp of a monumental health crisis.
Why do cows, pigs, and chickens need antibiotics? The animals in factory farms are fed our antibiotics because horrendous factory farms produce prime conditions for disease. In order to keep the animals alive and to promote growth at a faster pace (from the growth hormones), animals are given therapeutic doses of antibiotics, so they can survive long enough to make it to slaughter. In other words, antibiotics are being used as preventative measures, rather than cures as they were intended. Eighty percent of all the antibiotics manufactured in the United States are fed to the over twenty-seven billion animals raised for food each year.13 An added and even ironic problem is that the animals do not even absorb the majority of the antibiotics. Animals only absorb about 15 to 20 percent of the antibiotics. The rest is excreted in their waste, which then contaminates our water and soil. This means we can pick up antibiotic-resistant bacteria from drinking water, swimming in a river, or eating food that has been fertilized with animal manure. No one is safe.
The antibiotics fed to the animals wouldn’t be such a problem if they weren’t the same antibiotics that we use to cure our illnesses. Alexander Fleming, who invented penicillin, warned that issuing non-lethal doses of an antibiotic makes the bacteria resistant. Substantial research reveals that exposure to low dosages of antibiotics like the ones given to animals causes enough stress on the bacteria to increase their rate of mutations. This process, called mutagenesis, is basically creating more virulent, hard-to-kill strains of bacteria that are resistant to drugs. These bacteria cause foodborne illnesses and problems such as urinary tract infections. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in UTIs, especially linked to the consumption of chicken. This isn’t just a coincidence. Tests now show that bacteria continue to multiply in the presence of drugs designed to kill them.14
The overuse of antibiotics given to animals is now posing a major threat to human health, as bacteria is developing resistance faster than we could ever come up with new cures. Researchers are frantically pressing the government to act. Citing that antibiotics are the “crown jewels” of modern medicine, at a Congressional hearing the Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest for food safety pleaded with Congress, “We must not continue to jeopardize the effectiveness of these drugs by using them recklessly for non-therapeutic uses on farms and in animal factories. Otherwise, consumers may face longer illnesses, more hospitalizations, and more fatalities when exposed to resistant strains of common foodborne pathogens.”15Already the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) declared that antibiotic-resistant infections are an epidemic in the United States. Study after study is finding that the therapeutic dosage given to animals is costing lives. About two million people contract antibiotic-resistant infections, and ninety thousand per year are dying.16 Yet the pharmaceutical and animal industries continue to deny the scientific evidence. This is despite the fact that the World Health Organization has also declared that the therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals contributes to the rise in antibiotic resistance. Friends, the science is crystal clear. Continuing down this path is a prescription for catastrophe.
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.
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.
Let’s look at Prairie Grove in Washington County, Arkansas, home of the poultry giant, Tyson, and its “100 percent All Natural” and “Kid Tested, Kid Approved” chicken. Prairie Grove is surrounded by chicken-factory farms where farmland is regularly spread with arsenic-laden litter. Prairie Grove’s cancer rate is fifty times higher than the national average.38 Similarly, in the Delmarva Peninsula that contains some of the biggest chicken-producing states, the cancer rates are alarmingly high, especially among young children. Why are the cancer rates so high? Arsenic doesn’t just magically disappear once it is given to animals. It is either excreted in the manure that then makes its way into our environment or remains in the chicken that winds up on our grocery-store shelves. The air filters in the homes tested in Prairie Grove found arsenic levels exceeding even those in the soil outside. More than 350,000 tons of arsenic is applied to our land every year.39 Clearly, arsenic in chicken production does have human-health effects.
Unlike the FDA, Johns Hopkins researchers undertook a landmark study in 2004 and 2013 to see if there was in fact arsenic residue in our meat.40 The researchers tested not just the livers but the actual animal tissue, which is what consumers eat. They found arsenic residue in meat purchased from grocery stores across the nation.
Let’s look at the findings from the most recent study that tested chicken, conducted in 2010 and 2011. The researchers compared organic chicken raised without arsenic and those they call “conventional,” or what most people consume. They found that conventional chicken products had higher levels of arsenic in general and especially inorganic arsenic. Seventy percent of the samples contained inorganic arsenic that exceeded the FDA limits.41 A bucket of fried chicken contained about fifty times the allowable arsenic than the “allowable” levels in a glass of water.
Although roxarsone is organic arsenic and supposedly less dangerous, these studies show that some of the arsenic is converted into the inorganic, toxic form from the bacteria inside chickens’ guts. The EPA found that 65 percent of the arsenic in chicken meat converts to the inorganic form.42 The organic arsenic also changes to inorganic when it is excreted in the waste and then distributed onto the field as part of the fertilizer.
While many other studies have shown the levels of arsenic to be below the FDA limits, no exposure to arsenic is good exposure. Arsenic is linked to a variety of health problems, namely cancer, but also cognitive defects; cardiovascular, immune, and endocrine problems; partial paralysis; miscarriages; and type 2 diabetes.43 Why are we allowing an unnecessary public-health threat when we can choose to eliminate the problem?
The FDA suspended roxarsone in 2011 after these findings showed the level of poisonous, inorganic arsenic in chickens, but it never banned the drug. Finally, in 2013, the FDA ordered three of the four drugs to be removed from the market. The makers Zoetis and Fleming, subsidies of Pfizer, voluntarily pulled these three drugs in 2011 after the findings of inorganic arsenic. Why the FDA has been dragging its feet when it comes to with drawing arsenic in the animal’s feed that remains in our food is a mystery. Even the makers of the drugs pulled them from the market before the FDA did.44 It has taken the FDA over fifty years to act somewhat in the public interest. One version of organic arsenic, nitrasone, which is mainly used in turkeys, is still on the market.45 This could be a reason to rethink our Thanksgiving menu.
Americans eat more chicken and poultry than any other type of meat—about eighty-three pounds per American in 2011.46 Chicken is marketed as the “healthiest” and leanest meat. Somehow eating arsenic doesn’t translate to health. This practice is beyond irresponsible. We should never let ourselves or corporations play chicken with our health.
Deadly Dioxins
Although not added to our food products, the presence of dioxins in our food is not new. Since 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared dioxins a serious health threat and some of the most deadly and harmful chemicals known to science. Dioxins are a group of chemicals in our environment that are formed from the by-product of processes such as herbicide manufacturing. However, what most people don’t know is that today between 93 percent and 96 percent of human exposure to dioxins comes from eating meat and dairy products. Twenty-three percent of dioxin exposure comes from milk and dairy alone. The highest levels of dioxins are found in beef products, then dairy, milk, chicken, pork, fish, and eggs.47 Dioxins are known for causing health problems, such as cancer, damage to the immune system, and developmental problems as in birth defects as well as fertility issues, endometriosis, diabetes, lung and respiratory problems, skin disorders, and for men, lowered testosterone levels.
Humans are particularly susceptible to high concentrations of dioxins because the chemicals bioaccumulate in animals’ fat up the food chain. The animals can be exposed to dioxins through the pesticides and herbicides in their feed as well as pollutants in factory farms. Dioxins are fat soluble, meaning they are stored in the fatty tissue of the animals. Similarly, the dioxins accumulate in our fat. Problematically, men have no mechanism for getting rid of dioxins, and the only way women can lower their level of dioxins is by passing on the toxins to their babies either via umbilical cords or through breastfeeding. Obviously, these aren’t great options, as this sets up your child for health problems. Studies indicate that many babies are born already pre-polluted with carcinogens from their umbilical cords.
Although the FDA loves to set acceptable thresholds and tolerance limits on toxins, the EPA confirms that there is no safe level of exposure. More worrisome, there is no safe threshold below which dioxins will not cause cancer. What this means, friends, is that any exposure can instigate cancer growth. In July 2002, a study found a direct association between dioxin exposure and increased risk of breast cancer. As dioxins are by-products and not intentionally manufactured, many organizations collectively agree that dioxin exposure can best be avoided by not eating meat and dairy products.48 It really is that simple.
After acknowledging that dioxins are known carcinogens, it would seem that the EPA would act expeditiously to monitor our exposure and set regulations. However, the EPA has consecutively and continuously missed its own deadlines for releasing its newest study on dioxins. In the meantime, the Dairy Association and National Chicken Council, among other pharmaceutical and Big Ag groups, are vehemently lobbying against releasing the report. They have repeatedly urged the White House to block the EPA study.49 Even the FDA urges consumers not to “avoid any particular foods because of dioxins.”50 Did the FDA miss the memo stating dioxins are cancer causing and most of our exposure comes from milk and meat products?
We should be allowed access to information on toxins that could lead to a potentially fatal illness and be told the warnings associated with eating animal products. Big Ag and many drug manufacturers would rather distort the truth about the dangers of dioxins in our meat and dairy products than stand to lose profits. This is shameful when we know that dioxins are referred to as “the most toxic chemicals known to science.”51 We are hoping the EPA doesn’t cave to industry dollars and interests but rather takes a stand and lives up to the “protection” part of its title.
The FDA proclaims that “the US food supply is among the safest and most nutritious in the world.”52 Knowing the amount of toxic chemicals in our food and the government’s push to continue to use unsafe chemicals, it seems quite a stretch to use the words “safest” and “most nutritious” in connection with our food system. America, this is why our food system is broken. We have agencies promoting a false sense of safety and security. Realistically, our food system falls very short of this idealistic statement. It’s time we take our food system into our own hands and push the government to live up to this sentiment.
Know your Sh!t Solutions:
1) Read nutritional labels. If you can’t pronounce the ingredients, don’t buy the food products.
2) Be aware that all the ingredients may not be listed, so eat at your own risk. Anything that says “natural” or “artificial” flavoring is probably not something you should be ingesting. Think bleach and rocket fuel.
3) Buy organic as much as possible.
4) Don’t play around with your health. You only have one body, and you have to treat it right. Avoid all animal products, especially factory-farmed products, as much as possible.