Hepworth1
Jex Hepworth
Professor Sontum
English 1010
April 27, 2011
Questionable Content, Questionable Character:
The Modern American Food Industry
From the now popular recyclable cloth grocery bags, to the organic garden at the White
House, food, and the food industry is changing. The popularity of organic and whole foods is on
the rise. Processed foods are increasingly advertising that they are additive and preservative free,
and all sorts of products now offer a “gluten-free” variety. The popularity of what is now being
called the sustainable food movement, leads many to wonder why are some people willing to pay
more, sometimes double, for organic produce, meat, eggs, and milk. Will this prove to be just
another trendy American fad, or are there real health benefits from eating organic and whole
foods? While the organic market only represents approximately 3% of the total food market,
some believe that it’s a sector that we should be supporting more (Kluger 31).
The ideal in America today, seems to be to go organic. Part of this movement seems to be
to support farmers markets, rather than the large corporate chains. A recent study conducted by
the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that there is little nutritional difference
between organic produce and the produce produced by conventional means (Kluger 31). While
many consumers draw a sharp line between the two, at least from a nutritional standpoint,
science does not draw the same distinction. However, supporters of the sustainable food
movement state that the nutritional content is not their primary concern.
Hepworth2
The issue of feeding the world’s poor no longer finds itself center-stage in American
culture. Today, the focus has shifted toward making food ‘sustainable’, by reverting from mass
production, to local and organic production. However, some believe that a shift in the way we
produce food may have some unintended consequences. They contend that poverty in nations
such as Africa and Asia is caused by the low productivity of the unindustrialized farm labor. The
U.S. Agriculture Department projects, without reform, there will be over a thirty percent increase
in the numbers of the ‘food insecure’ people in those nations over the next decade (Paarlberg
179).
Many support agricultural modernization, as a solution Africa’s, and many other
impoverished nations hunger problems. This would include the industrialization of their
agricultural industry, using modern, genetically enhanced seeds, and fertilizer. Yet, some of the
same groups that are promoting the organic movement in the United States are advocating
against the globalization of modern industrial agricultural practices (Paarlberg 179). Those who
support modernization of such nations argue that the current process in inefficient, and
inadequate. They believe that globalization of the highly capitalized, science-intensive,
agricultural system that has been developed in the West, is the answer to the worlds hunger
problems. They also warn that if the West abandons its current practices, it may fall victim to
famine due to inadequate production (Paarlberg 179). However, supporters of organic production
point to the fact that each year, approximately ten million tons of chemical fertilizer are poured
onto our corn fields alone (Kluger 32). The staggering amount of toxic chemicals that we pour
onto the crops we eat, also has an environmental impact, creating toxic runoffs into our water
supplies. While many of us take it for granted that out-of-season produce is available to us yearround, flying and driving that produce thousands of miles creates a significant carbon footprint.
Hepworth3
Some would say that is too high of a price to pay, just to be able to eat a strawberry in the middle
of the winter.
There are many supporters of the use of biotechnology in agricultural production. The
American Dietetic Association is of the opinion that the use of biotechnology applied to
agricultural techniques, such as genetically enhanced seeds and fertilizers, can improve the
quality, safety, variety and the nutritional value of the food (Bruhn 285). They also contend that
the use of these technologies increase the efficiency of food production, processing and
distribution. They encourage the government, commodity groups, manufactures, and
nutritionists, to collaborate and work together, in the interest of educating the public, and to
encourage the use of these products.
Not all supporters of the sustainable food movement are focused on agriculture, the
environment, and world hunger. Some are chiefly concerned with the humane treatment of our
livestock. The U.S. produces eighty billion pounds of meat per year (Kluger 33). It's now
relatively common knowledge that the animals are raised in miserable conditions. They argue
that anything with a circulatory and a nervous system deserves a higher standard of living.
Despite the fact that cow’s natural diet consists of grass, they are fed high-calorie, corn-based
feed, in an effort to fatten them up and moves them to slaughter as quickly as possible.
Our livestock have not always been produced in an industrialized fashion. Prior to the
Second World War, our farms were small and family owned. They produced a variety of animal
products from a diverse range of livestock. The animals were free to graze, and in doing so, they
replenished the soil with vital nutrients. There are advantages to humane treatment. Cattle that
eat grass have higher ratios of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6s, a balance that's widely believed
Hepworth4
to reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and to improve cognitive function. Farmraised animals are also higher in conjugated linoleic acids; fatty acids that may help reduce the
risk of various cancers (Kluger 6). The free-range livestock benefited from the ability to exercise,
grow, and socialize with the other animals (Lessing 466).
In the 1940s, farming practices began to change, shifting to an assembly line type of
production. This made it necessary for the animals to live indoors, depriving them of exercise,
interaction, and fresh-air. Today, our livestock are not raised on farms, they are raised on
(AFOs), or animal feeding operations. Millions of animals are raised in confinement under these
industrialized conditions. The dense concentration of animals in the AFOs creates an enormous
amount waste, and they are forced to be exposed to each other’s excrement (Lessing 467). This
dramatically increases the likelihood of diseases spreading between the animals. Animal waste
can also be an environmental hazard. It is estimated that American factory farms produce over
five hundred million tons of manure each year. This requires special holding systems, such as
manure lagoons. These manure lagoons contain the air pollutant ammonia, and pathogens that
sweep into nearby water supplies.
The increased stress that is placed on the animals by living in these unnaturally confined
spaces increases the probability that they will become diseased, or aggressive, promoting injury
or illness. In response to this concern, factory-farm animals are redesigned to minimize the risk
to the rest of the flock or herd. An example would be hens raised to produce eggs. They are
confined to forty-eight sq. inches of space. In an effort to increase egg production, they are
subjected to a process called forced molting. This involves starving the chicken for two-weeks,
inducing early molting, and in turn, causing a second season of production, rather than the hen’s
natural egg cycle (Lessing 468). Another example would be the chickens raised for their meat.
Hepworth5
They are actually de-beaked to prevent them from attacking each other in reaction to the overcrowed environment, lack of ventilation, and their deficient diet. Pigs are known to suffer from
porcine stress syndrome, this is similar to shock in humans, and it is caused from the stress of the
overcrowded conditions. The suffering can be so severe that pigs are known to die from the
stress.
The industrialized environment that we now subject our livestock to endure, has forced
the food industry to make many changes. Antibiotics now are deemed necessary to prevent
diseases in the livestock that are largely created by confining large numbers of these animals in
unsanitary conditions (Lessing 464).The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for the
use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to be injected into the livestock. Recently, studies
have shown that administering sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to animals, contributes to
strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans. This can cause human illness to increase in
duration and severity, creating a heavier burden for those who are afflicted, their families, and
the health system.
Many believe that America’s meat processing industry and farm policies have dismissed
human health concerns, in an effort to maximize profits and production. As a result, drugresistant “superbugs”, such as staphylococcus (staph) infections, and vancomycin-resistant
bacteria have emerged in industrialized livestock production facilities. These superbugs are
becoming increasingly prominent around livestock operations and hospitals. They can create
very serious medical conditions, claiming many lives every year (Lessing 463).
The conditions of factory farms create a dangerous breeding ground for antibiotic
resistant bacterial strains. Administering sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to a large number of
Hepworth6
animals, over a long period of time, causes natural selection to take place (Lessing 471). The
antibiotics kill off the bacteria that are most susceptible, leaving only the most resistant bacteria
behind to spread and multiply, ultimately leading to the disease becoming immune to certain
antibiotics. The American Medical Association (AMA), and The Center for Disease Control
(CDC), has been aware of the link between antibiotic resistance in humans, and the use in
livestock since 1984 (Lessing 472).
Scientists discovered direct evidence tracing human infections to specific livestock
operations. The most notable rise in drug resistant bacteria attributed to these facilities includes,
but is not limited to: campylobacter, salmonella, and E. coli. The three main means of
transmission between human and animal include: via food, via human contact with livestock, and
via the environment, specifically through contaminated water. Up to 75% of the antibiotics
consumed by the livestock are redistributed via manure, as fertilizer to our agricultural fields.
This manure contains not only the antibiotics, but the resistant bacteria’s from the animals’
intestines as well (Lessing 473).
The factory farm operations chiefly use antibiotics to prevent disease and induce growth.
Sub-therapeutic doses are not sufficient to treat infections. They are however, effective in
preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Approximately 70% of all the antibiotics
produced in the United States are administered to our livestock in sub-therapeutic doses (Lessing
469). That equates to fifteen to eighteen million pounds of antibiotics annually. The farmer’s
ability to mass medicate the animals through their feed, enables them to administer the
antibiotics for growth enhancement, contributing to the development of drug-resistant pathogens.
Hepworth7
Scientists do not fully understand how antibiotics stimulate growth in animals. However,
there is a fair amount of speculation. One possibility is that the antibiotics strengthen the
animal’s immune system, enabling them to fight off low-grade diseases caused by the trauma
and crowding. Another possibility is that antibiotics in the animal feed may be altering the
animal’s metabolic rate, resulting in weight gains. If animal hygiene was not so poor, if our
livestock was not subjected to living in congested and stressful conditions, it may no longer be
necessary to administer antibiotics to these animals.
Antibiotics are not the only cause for concern. The industry also administers synthetic
hormones to the livestock. Monsanto’s “Posilac” was the first genetically engineered food to
receive approval by the FDA (Matavalli, Rembert). Posilac is a genetically engineered, synthetic
form of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), also known as bovine somatotropin. The
product is injected into the cow’s pituitary gland every two weeks, and can increase milk output
by as much as twenty-five percent. The use of genetic manipulation of food through the use of
recombinant DNA technology has created a significant amount of controversy. Considering that
the general public has little knowledge of this technology, or of its potential benefits and/or
consequences, many people turn to their doctors for their opinion. A recent survey of physicians,
nurse practitioners, and registered dietitians, suggested an overall positive attitude toward the use
of this type of technology (Snider 44).
In order for Monsanto’s product to work effectively, the animals must consume higher
quantities of protein. With profit margins in mind, industrial farms choose the cheapest form of
protein available, rendered animal carcasses. One side-effect of the rBGH regiment is severe
cases of mastitis (infections of the udder), requiring treatments of heavy antibiotics (Matavalli,
Rembert). It is known that rBGH works by stimulating the production of insulin-like growth
Hepworth8
factors known as IGF-1. There is a corresponding factor with the same molecular structure found
in humans. High levels of IGF-1, transmitted through the consumption of milk, are believed to
cause: ovarian, breast, and prostate cancer (Matavalli, Rembert). The hormone is also believed to
play a role in early onset puberty. Currently, it is against the law for dairy farmers to label their
products as “rBGH-free”, because of the potential adverse impact on milk sales.
This sustainable food movement, like many interesting topics, is complicated. Like most
issues worth debating, it has many intelligent people, with many compelling arguments on both
sides of the fence. Ultimately, it will most likely be the consumers, voting with their credit cards,
who will dictate the directions of the food industry. Americans are concerned with animal rights,
the environment, and their health. They are also concerned with world hunger, convenience,
availability, and perhaps above all, cost. An extreme in any direction would likely prove to be
detrimental. Hopefully the market, and consumers, will be able to find a “healthy” balance.
Hepworth9
Works Cited
Bruhn, Christine. "Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural and Food
Biotechnology." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 106.2 (2006): 285-293.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
Kluger, Jeffrey. "What's So Great About Organic Food?." Time 176.9 (2010): 30-40. Academic
Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Apr. 2011.
Lessing, Ariele. "KILLING US SOFTLY: HOW SUB-THERAPEUTIC DOSING OF
LIVESTOCK CAUSES DRUG-RESISTANT BACTERIA IN HUMANS." Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review 37.2 (2010): 463-491. Academic Search
Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
Matavalli, Jim, and Tracey Rembert. "A brave new world: Genetic engineering, rBGH and mad
cow disease." E: The Environmental Magazine 7.4 (1996): 40. Academic Search Premier.
EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011
Paarlberg, Robert. "Attention Whole Foods Shoppers." Foreign Policy 179 (2010): 1. Academic
Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.
O. Sue Snider, et al. "Health Professionals Hold Positive Attitudes Toward Biotechnology and
Genetically Engineered Foods." Journal of Environmental Health 67.10 (2005): 44-49.
Hepworth10
Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
.