USDA Says Faster Poultry Inspections are SaferAugust 8th, 2012 - Jill Ettinger
A controversial proposal that would increase the number of birds processed at chicken plants from 140 to 175 birds per minute, received support from a USDA spokesperson in a recent statement despite the agency’s failure to meet targeted goals for reducing the outbreak of food borne illnesses. Read More:USDA Says Faster Poultry Inspections are SaferGerman Dioxin Scare Spreads: Countries Cracking DownJanuary 21st, 2011 - Gerald "Gerry" Pugliese
European health officials are now warning that the German dioxin outbreak may be worse than previously thought – extending beyond tainted eggs – and prompting some countries to take harsher action. The dioxin scare surfaced after 3,000 tonnes (over 6,600 pounds) of an animal feed additive sold in Germany were discovered to contain trace amounts of dioxin, causing officials to ban many farms from selling eggs. Read More:German Dioxin Scare Spreads: Countries Cracking DownMeat & Poultry to Get Nutrition Labels by 2012January 13th, 2011 - Gerald "Gerry" Pugliese
Go to the supermarket and start pulling products off the shelves and you’ll see everything has nutrition labels, even water! And now, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) says starting in 2010, nutrition labels will be mandatory on many popular cuts of meat and poultry too. Read More:Meat & Poultry to Get Nutrition Labels by 20123 Chicken Mysteries SolvedSeptember 15th, 2010 - Barbara Feiner
Cook enough chicken, and you’ll become an expert in safe handling of raw poultry and proper cooking times and temperatures. But how much do you know about chicken colors—from bones, to skin, to cooked meat? In today’s post, we unravel three common mysteries. Read More:3 Chicken Mysteries SolvedFDA Advises Livestock Producers to Limit Antibiotic UseJune 29th, 2010 - Barbara Feiner
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on limiting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals. By definition, organic meat and poultry are free of antibiotics, pesticides and hormones. The agency wants to ensure animals remain healthy, while decreasing human and animal resistance to these drugs—a growing public health hazard. Not surprisingly, meat industry representatives are unhappy with the recommendation. The National Pork Producers Council argues it will be “overly burdensome,” while claiming there’s no connection between nonorganic meat consumption and antibiotic resistance. (Try again, guys…) The FDA is inviting public comments on the draft guidance, so seize the opportunity to voice your concerns. Photo: Scott Bauer/USDA Read More:FDA Advises Livestock Producers to Limit Antibiotic UseTyson Foods Lied To Consumers About Drugs Used To Raise Their ChickensJanuary 21st, 2010 - Laura Klein
Tyson Foods has been marketing their chickens as being raised without antibiotics. However Tyson uses a poultry feed additive known as ionophores, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies as an antibiotic. Ionophores are given to poultry to control the parasitic disease coccidiosis. It is also used as a growth promoter for cattle. Because ionophores have been shown not to be harmful to humans (and are supposedly not a threat to antibiotic resistance) , Tyson wanted to advertise its chicken as being “without harmful antibiotics.” In December 2007, the USDA approved the phrase for marketing purposes, but competitors Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms filed lawsuits one month later. Consumers followed with a class-action suit. A federal judge has signed off on a preliminary agreement that could net consumers $5 million in refunds and coupons from the nation’s largest poultry producer. Individuals who bought Tyson chicken products labeled as having been raised without antibiotics from mid-June 2007 through April 2009 would be entitled to refunds. This settlement also includes Tyson’s fresh, frozen or deli chicken along with Cornish hens or tenders during the same time period. Concerns about antibiotic resistance has European regulators concerned enough that they have banned several in-feed antibiotics for their animals. Legislators in the United States are considering a similar action with The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would prohibit the use of many non-therapeutic antibiotics in animal feed.1 Feeding animals a daily dose of antibiotics also has an environmental impact. Colorado State University researchers showed that ionophore drugs are getting into public waterways.2 In the study, the ionophore monensin was found at sample sites near agricultural regions. Additionally, ionophore drugs were found in surrounding streams with higher concentrations in the sediment vs. the overlaying water. Researchers concluded this study raises questions about whether antibiotics can accumulate in sediment and impact stream health. I can’t help but ask, do we really need to feed our animals a constant, steady supply of antibiotics in their food and water when they are not sick? We will have a severe problem on our hands if we continue this practice. In case you missed it, ABC News ran a story about one farmer who fought for his life after becoming infected with an antibiotic resistant form of strep after being gored in the knee by a bore. After two months of unsuccessful antibiotic treatments, Kremer’s doctors were baffled. The answer was found in the bore. A drug resistant strain of strep ran through the boars veins after being fed a steady, daily supply of penicillin. Antibiotics save lives when used properly. Do we really want to continue to risk human lives by feeding our livestock a steady supply of drugs when they aren’t needed? The conditions of animals that are raised in Big Ag (Big Agriculture) are atrocious and disgusting. Something has got to change. You can make a difference buy buying more certified organic foods and continue to raise the demand for truly healthy foods. The American dollar is the most important voting tool we as consumers have. 1 http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/wise_antibiotics/pamta.html Turkey TroubleAugust 30th, 2009 - Barbara Feiner
Turkeys at two farms in Chile recently tested positive for the same strain of H1N1 (swine flu) that has been infecting humans, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Experts are concerned that other poultry farms around the world could be affected. FAO Chief Veterinary Officer Juan Lubroth, DVM, PhD, says the Chilean incidents pose no immediate threat to humans and that veterinarian-inspected turkey remains safe. “The reaction of the Chilean authorities to the discovery of H1N1 in turkeys—namely, prompt reporting to international organizations, establishing a temporary quarantine and the decision to allow infected birds to recover rather than culling them—is scientifically sound,” he says. “Once the sick birds have recovered, safe production and processing can continue. They do not pose a threat to the food chain.” H1N1 is a mixture of human, pig and bird genes that has proved to be very contagious, but no more deadly than common seasonal flu viruses. It could, theoretically, become more virulent if it combines with H5N1 (avian flu)—more deadly, but harder to contract. “Chile does not have H5N1 flu,” Dr. Lubroth explains. “In Southeast Asia, where there is a lot of the virus circulating in poultry, the introduction of H1N1 in these populations would be of a greater concern.” Hygienic and safe farming practices must be followed, he says. This includes protecting farm workers who care for, or work near, sick animals. “We must monitor the situation in animals more closely and strengthen veterinary services in poor and in-transition countries,” Dr. Lubroth says. “They need adequate diagnostic capability and competent and suitably resourced field teams that can respond to emergency needs.” Photo courtesy of the CDC Read More:Turkey TroubleRussia and China Say Thanks, But No Thanks, to U.S. PoultryAugust 24th, 2009 - Laura Klein
Both Russia and China – not the most progressive countries when it comes to environmental and social service issues – have imposed bans on American poultry and pork. As recently as March, 2009, Russian inspectors uncovered antibiotics and anti-parasitic drugs from three U.S.-based plants including Sanderson Farms in Hammond, La., a Peco foods facility in Canton, Miss., and a Tyson Foods plant in Cumming Ga. Sadly, this isn’t new news. A rep from the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences explained that the reason Russia imposed a ban on all poultry from the U.S. back in March, 2002, was because U.S. poultry producers use such large doses of these drugs that they accumulate in the tissues of the birds. “It is dangerous,” he said, “especially for children and older people.” And just this month, China has banned imports of meat from two U.S. poultry plants and three U.S. pork plants. Although a specific reason wasn’t given, we can assume safety is at the core. That’s why it’s so important for the Senate to reject HR 2749 – the Food Safety Enhancement Act – when they consider it upon their return from summer recess. The bill simply doesn’t do enough to get huge agribusiness to provide safe food for the public at large. Clearly, Russia and China would agree that we have a ways to go in the realm of food regulation. HR 2749 also makes smaller producers subject to the same regulations as huge, industrial firms…a one-size-fits-all approach that simply doesn’t make sense. What do you think about Russia and China banning poultry and pork from the U.S.? How does it make you feel? Let us know – we love hearing from you! Read More:Russia and China Say Thanks, But No Thanks, to U.S. Poultry |
Because of the rising demand for drug free meat and poultry, it looks like big food producers are turning to deceitful tactics to trick consumers into thinking their products are drug free.
Leader of the free world? Not when it comes to food production…
