Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

U.S. Food System Deeply At Risk

By Jim Harkness, TomPaine.com. Posted June 4, 2007.


The recent discovery of an industrial chemical in animal feed and pet food imported from China exposes the inherent weakness of an industrial global food system designed to benefit multinational agribusiness companies.
Advertisement

The recent discovery of an industrial chemical in animal feed and pet food imported from China has added to the mounting criticism of U.S. food safety agencies. But this case represents much more than simply governmental incompetence. It exposes the inherent weaknesses of an industrial global food system designed to benefit multinational agribusiness companies at the expense of public health.

Last year, the United States imported about $10 billion more in food, feed and beverages than it exported. Imports came from 175 different countries and represented a 60 percent jump over the last decade. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors were simply overwhelmed. They were only able to examine physically 1.3 percent of food imports last year, about three-quarters of the already minute portion examined in 2003.

Our food system's increasing dependence on imports is no accident. Import dependency is a defining characteristic of an industrial food model driven by U.S. farm and trade policies over the last half century on behalf of agribusiness. U.S. farm policy has encouraged the mass production of only a few cheap crops largely used as food ingredients, animal feed and exports. U.S. trade policy has aggressively pushed for the removal of trade barriers paving the way for the global food trade.

Missing from this industrial model is a national priority to produce healthy food to feed Americans. For example, most rural Midwest supermarkets, surrounded by farms, import nearly all their food from elsewhere in the country and around the world. Taken to an extreme, some chicken grown in the United States actually is sent to China to be processed and then re-exported back the United States!

We have built a system of production and trade that treats food the same as computer parts. Cracks in this system manifest themselves in different ways, including the loss of family farms in the United States and worldwide, declining soil and water quality, and a rise in food-related health problems including obesity. But food safety dangers get most of the headlines, because these can be quickly fatal.

The tainted animal feed case is a stark example of these vulnerabilities. Feed contamination in China found its way to the United States food supply through hogs in at least six states and at least 2.5 million chickens.

Within the United States, food contamination incidents on one farm or processing plant have hit large parts of the country. E. coli-tainted spinach from a California farm affected people coast to coast, killing three and sickening nearly 200. Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter from a Georgia ConAgra plant sickened at least 329 people in 41 states.

These breakdowns were accidental, but what about intentional contamination of food? As Tommy Thompson, former director of the Department of Health and Human Services, said in 2004, "I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."

In the near term, we must boost the number of food safety inspectors, employ cutting-edge inspection technology, and strengthen oversight to rely less on industry self-regulation. But systemic changes are just as badly needed. A more decentralized food system that supports local production and consumption would greatly limit the impact of broad-scale contamination. Quite simply, we should set policy priorities to produce more of our own food, both nationally and regionally.

Consumers already endorse this approach. Locally grown products can be found on more and more store shelves. The number of farmers' markets around the country has skyrocketed. And many mainstream supermarkets are taking steps on their own to give consumers more information about where their food comes from.

Congress is writing a new Farm Bill. It's an opportunity to accelerate the transition toward a more locally based food system by funding greater crop diversification, incentives for local purchasing in schools and other government institutions, and full implementation of country of origin labeling in 2008. It's time to put the public's interest ahead of agribusiness in setting our nation's food policy.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fda, food safety, contamination

Jim Harkness is the president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy , a Minneapolis-based policy research center committed to creating environmentally and economically sustainable rural communities and regions through sound agriculture and trade policy. This article was distributed by www.MinutemanMedia.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Melamine in Animal Feeds...Imagine That
Posted by: Lying Rats on Jun 4, 2007 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This says it best:

http://community.whptv.com/forums/2/1483113/ShowThread.aspx

Sad state of affairs, this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bikey
Posted by: bikey on Jun 5, 2007 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing that this hysteria about imported food has taken hold. First of all, see Washington Post, May 31 (below). Secondly, the American population did not get to look like it looks on imported food, nor did poisons like aspartame creep into our food supply from beyond the borders. "Blame it on the foreigners" just won't work this time.
U.S. Company Used Melamine in Feed
Humans Unlikely to Be Harmed
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 31, 2007; A03

An Ohio company has long been adding the industrial toxin melamine to animal feed ingredients, and those feeds have been eaten by livestock and fish meant for human consumption, officials with the Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday.

The company used the chemical as a binding agent to hold feed granules in pellet form, in contrast to the recent pet food scandal, which involved imported ingredients that were spiked with melamine to provide a false measure of protein content, officials said.

But as with the pet food scandal, they said, the levels of melamine involved appear to be too low to harm humans who may have eaten animals that consumed the tainted feed.

The company, Tembec BTLSR of Toledo, sold the melamine-laden ingredients to Uniscope of Johnstown, Colo., which used them to make three finished food products -- one for cattle, sheep and goats, and two for fish and shrimp.

The contamination came to the FDA's attention on May 18 after Uniscope officials tested for melamine in the feed components they were buying -- something the FDA has been encouraging food producers to do.

The FDA began an investigation the next working day, officials said, and after about 10 days decided how to proceed.

Officials said that Tembec initiated a formal recall of its products yesterday and that the company has stopped adding the chemical.

It remains unclear why Tembec did not stop using melamine months ago, given the intense publicity generated by the recent pet food scandal, during which officials repeatedly made it clear that melamine is not an approved additive for human or animal food.

"What they knew and didn't know before will be part of the investigation as it unfolds," David Acheson, the FDA's assistant commissioner for food protection, said during a telephone news conference yesterday. For now, he said, "it's speculation in terms of motives and who knew what."

Officials said they do not know how many animals may have eaten the food or how long melamine has been used to make pellets. But the presumption, Acheson said, is that it has been a long-standing practice.

Melamine levels in the companies' livestock feed were so low that they did not pose a risk to the animals, or to consumers, Acheson said. Levels in the fish and shrimp feed were high enough to raise some concerns about those animals, but are still "very unlikely to pose a human health risk," he added.

Acheson said that the two fish feed products, which Tembec made for Uniscope using tainted ingredients, were exported. The FDA is trying to track the amounts shipped and to find out what countries those feeds went to.

He said it is not known whether China -- which has suffered significant political damage in recent months for having been caught exporting melamine-tainted pet food ingredients to the United States -- was among the countries that may have received the melamine-tainted U.S. products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bikey Posted by: lemon-scented