|
Home Monthly Topics Index of Issues Articles About Us Links Help Wanted Contact Us |
|
|
| January Race, Class, and Civil Rights |
| February Poverty, Homelessness, and Unemployment |
| March Imperialism and Economic Injustice |
| April Environment |
| May Labor |
| June Population |
| July Violence |
| August Nuclear weapons |
| September Education, Information, and Communication |
| October Democracy and Religion |
| November Hunger and Health Care |
| December Children |
by Ron Forthofer
Originally published in the Longmont Daily Times-Call, November 22, 1999.
I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough - the USDA and other federal and state agencies have a poor record when it comes to protecting the public’s interest. This was admitted by a former Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Herbert L. Ley, who was quoted as follows:
"The thing that bugs me is that people think the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is protecting them -- it isn’t."The influence of corporations on Congress and state legislatures has greatly limited these health agencies’ ability to act independently to protect our health. This influence through legalized bribery and the revolving door between health agencies and corporations bodes poorly for public health.
The following material demonstrates why I question the idea that our food is safe. In September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that about 76 million Americans suffer food poisoning annually and that about 5,000 die as a result. To understand why our food is a threat to health, Nicols Fox studied the meat and dairy industry. Her excellent book "Spoiled" documents the corporate role and is the source for much of the following.
-
After the Jack-in-the-Box outbreak in 1992/93 in which at least 732 people
in five states became ill and 4 children died after eating USDA-inspected
hamburger, an assistant administrator of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
System said "We will take no action because this meat does not violate USDA
standards."
-
Affidavits from a Government Accountability Project yielded testimony such
as "Much of what USDA calls wholesome today would have been condemned in 1984
... Meat whose disease symptoms previously would have forced it to be
condemned, or at most approved for dog food, now gets the USDA seal of
approval for consumers."
-
Bacteria contamination of processed chickens here is so bad that a former
USDA microbiologist said the "final product is no different than if you stuck
it in the toilet and ate it."
-
In 1990, the FDA finally redesignated the egg as a hazardous food due to
Salmonella contamination and resultant food poisoning. Eggs would have to be
refrigerated, even during transportation, to slow the growth of bacteria in
contaminated eggs. In 1996, the USDA revealed that the rules for
refrigeration had never been enforced because the egg industry felt they were
too restrictive. To compound an already bad situation, the United Egg
Producers influenced Congress to deny the USDA funds for its Salmonella
program. The program was killed. Still worse, the USDA is now accepting
comments for a new labeling category for eggs, the ambient temperature egg,
which could change the refrigeration requirement.
-
Forty percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are used in agriculture.
This use has played a major role in the rise of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. The United Kingdom tightly controlled the use of antibiotics in
agriculture as early as 1970, but the U.S. has still failed to act due to
industry pressure.
- Monsanto covered up an early animal study which showed problems with rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone. Former Monsanto employees involved with rBGH were hired by the FDA where they played key roles in its approval. Canadian and European scientists recently reexamined data and the scientific literature and concluded that rBGH harms cows and posed major risks of cancer, particularly of the breast and prostate, in humans. These findings caused the U.S. to drop its effort to force Europe to accept rBGH products.
Federal agencies have adopted the position that processes used by agribusiness are safe until shown to be hazardous. However, by then, it may be too late.These agencies should require independent studies to determine if agribusiness’ processes are safe before they are used in uncontrolled experiments on humans. As an example of what happens when one accepts assurances from industry, recall the recent discovery that monarch butterflies were killed as a result of the use of GE corn, despite industry’s claim of no risks.
For more information on this subject go to