Sparboe Farms of Litchfield Minnesota produces 300 million eggs per year in shell, liquid, frozen and dried form. The company supplies retailers and food service outlets across 26 states. The undercover filming showed disturbing abuse of chicks and older hens at several of the company’s farms.

In addition to this undercover video, Sparboe Farms recently received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that said inspectors found “serious violations” at five Sparboe facilities of federal regulations meant to prevent  Salmonella. The warning said eggs from those facilities had been “prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.”

McDonald’s is finding out that there is a price to be paid for dealing with industrial egg producers like Sparboe. By their very design these industrial systems fail to meet the needs of the hens, fail to protect the consumer from health problems such as Salmonella and fail to provide farm workers with a safe and positive working environment.

Following the horrific recall of over  half a billion eggs in Iowa last year – where significant failings in basic management of the hens and their environment led to serious Salmonella risk – this is another scandal in an industry that seems incapable of regulating itself. As AWA pointed out at the time, recent research has shown a direct correlation between flock size and confinement and the presence of Salmonella – basically the bigger the flock and the more confined, the greater the risk of infection. It is also well documented that caged systems inherently lead to poor animal welfare.  A standard industry cage forces birds to live in an area smaller than a sheet of paper. The natural stress response to such close confinement is pecking and cannibalism, a problem which the industry has “solved” by removing all or parts of the birds’ beaks. This type of band-aid approach is especially disturbing given that science has already shown pasture-based systems to resolve this issue.

As McDonald’s is discovering, part of the problem with the industrial farming model is that big agribusiness puts production in the hands of very small group of producers—leaving consumers and birds vulnerable to disease and abuse with limited options of alternative products. There must be a point at which Mc Donald’s, Target and other retailers of eggs look beyond their corporate bottom line and see the future.

It may surprise you to know that McDonald’s has some experience of better and more sustainable sourcing –McDonald’s Europe that is, not McDonald’s U.S. Over 95% of all eggs used by McDonald’s across 21 European countries are either free range or cage free “barn” eggs. McDonald’s in the U.K. say that in 2009 they used over 91 million free-range (pastured) eggs on their breakfast menu, and that all the eggs for their sauces and the breakfast menu were sourced from British farmers. In addition, the hens are all fed non-GM feed; and the company estimates that the egg farmers have planted nearly half a million trees on pastured laying hen ranging and foraging areas to provide shade and shelter  for the hens, thereby improving the environment on the farms. McDonald’s Europe is committed to reaching a 100% non-caged egg supply by 2012.

McDonald’s Europe is working with companies that see the farmers and their birds and animals as an important and integral part of their business; not just figures on a balance sheet. This model of production is providing 100% pastured eggs in one country and a growing majority of non-caged egg in another 20 countries. This is the result of a committed effort on the part of McDonald’s to learning how to stimulate demand, manage distribution and to set real, monitored and achieved targets for improvement. The success of this model shows that the lessons have been learned. Why then can McDonald’s in the U.S. not learn from its European operation?

There are many farmers in America ready willing and able to step up and provide these pastured eggs for companies like McDonald’s, if only the company were seriously interested. In a joint statement today John Boyd of the National Black Farmers Association and Andrew Gunther of Animal Welfare Approved invited executives of McDonald’s to start the conversation and to make a commitment to move away from unhealthy and abusive caged eggs. The alternative is out there. We challenge McDonald’s to start looking for it.

This is exactly what has happened in a small but very significant planning battle taking place in Great Britain. Midland Pig Producers (MPP) has applied to build a state-of-the-art indoor hog production unit in Derbyshire, which would hold 2,500 sows and produce around 1,000 hogs a week for slaughter – one of the biggest industrial hog farms in the country. But in what might prove to be a fatal blow to MPP’s plans, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) – the U.K. government’s independent advisory body on health – has raised a number of human health concerns about the proposal, including the fact that “recent research has found that those living up to 150m [165 yards] downwind of an intensive swine farming installation could be at risk of adverse human health effects associated with exposure to multi-drug resistant organisms.”

According to the HPA’s statement (1), many scientific studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between ambient emissions and particulates released into the air – such as ammonia and fecal waste dust – and hospital admissions for both respiratory and cardiac diseases and deaths, particularly among older people and, for respiratory illness, children. The HPA also raised concerns about the risks posed by bioaerosols – or airborne particles that contain living organisms, their toxins and waste – which can be inhaled and ingested by humans. The HPA stated that there is significant potential for the generation of bioaerosols at intensive farming installations, with a range of possible health effects – including infectious and antibiotic resistant diseases, acute toxic effects, allergies, cancer, respiratory symptoms and lung function impairment.

Of course, none of this will come as a surprise to anyone in the U.S. who has the misfortune of living near one of thousands of U.S. industrial pig operations across the country. Indeed, U.S. industrial hog operations have been pumping toxic waste into our environment for years – just on a far, far bigger scale.

According to the National Hog Farmer’s latest State of the Industry Report, over 116 million hogs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 2010. Almost 90 percent all pigs slaughtered in the U.S. in 2008 came from hog operations with more than 5,000 pigs, while some of the largest U.S. hog operations can hold over 50,000 head of pigs in confinement. The bottom line is that the majority of pigs slaughtered in the U.S. come from hog operations that are larger than MPP’s proposed unit.

Industrial hog operations like these produce vast quantities of concentrated waste called swine effluent – a toxic concoction of pig feces, heavy metals, bacteria and, of course, residues from the concoction of pharmaceuticals that are given to the pigs to keep them alive in the filthy, confined conditions. Most U.S. factory farms pump this swine effluent in huge nearby open tanks or cesspools. Some of these lagoons are as big as several football fields, each holding hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of gallons of putrefying swine effluent.

Being exposed to the elements, these lagoons emit toxic gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as methane, a key greenhouse gas. As this swine effluent is expensive to store or treat, most industrial systems periodically pump the waste out of the lagoons and spray it on the surrounding fields. The problem is that it is often sprayed at such high application rates or so often that the soil and plants cannot even begin to absorb it, let alone actually utilize it. This level of over-application frequently leads to highly toxic run-off, where the water-soluble nutrients find their way into our waterways and groundwater systems in vast quantities, polluting our drinking water and rivers, leaving our waterways dead. Accidents and storm floods have also led to massive releases of the toxic waste into waterways. This toxic run off is directly contributing to the 230 recognized oxygen-deprived dead zones along the U.S. coast, such as in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers from Texas A&M University are predicting that the dead zone in the Gulf will exceed 9,400 square miles this year, which would make it one of the largest ever recorded.

A significant body of scientific research already proves that the livestock waste management practices found on most industrial livestock operations in the U.S. are often not fit for the purpose and do not adequately or effectively protect water resources from contamination with excessive nutrients, microbial pathogens and the pharmaceutical residues present in the swine effluent and other industrial farming waste. A 2007 review paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2) states, “Impacts on surface water sources and wildlife have been documented in many agricultural areas in the United States. Potential impacts on human and environmental health from long-term inadvertent exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals and other compounds are a growing public concern.”

The storage and frequent spreading of this toxic swine effluent also has a significant impact on the health of communities living nearby. A growing body of research reveals that the toxic emissions which U.S. industrial hog operations release into the atmosphere every day – including gases, particulates and bioaerosols such as hydrogen sulphide, fecal waste dust, and bacteria –are causing serious adverse health effects on U.S. citizens and making their lives a misery. A March 2011 paper published in the journal Epidemiology (3) examined the health of residents in 16 communities in a region of North Carolina that is densely populated with industrial hog operations. The researchers looked at the associations of reported hog odor and of monitored air pollutants with the physical symptoms and lung function of people living within 1.5 miles of hog operations. They found that air pollutants from the hog operations were causing acute physical symptoms, including eye and nasal irritation, respiratory symptoms, difficulty breathing, wheezing, chest tightness, and nausea, among other symptoms. The evidence was so great that the researchers concluded, “Exposure to air pollution from hog operations is an environmental injustice in rural areas hosting facilities that supply pork to populations spared the burdens of its production.”

We already know that industrial farming is a perfect breeding ground for the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, so the U.K.’s HPA’s concerns that the antibiotic resistant bacteria found on industrial hog operations could pose a real health risk to nearby human populations is clearly justified – and represents a significant public health issue for U.S. citizens. As U.S. hog operations are not subject to the same strict controls on the use of antibiotics as found on European farms, more U.S.-focused research is urgently needed to establish the risks.

In the drive to produce ever-cheaper meat it would appear that the pursuit of profit comes before all other concerns, including our health. Yet as the public finally wakes up to the huge societal costs of industrialized livestock production, including the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the explosion in diet-related ill health and the impact on rural economies, and as people recognize the unsustainable nature of industrialized livestock production, with its dependence on ever-diminishing supplies of fossil fuels and immense greenhouse gas emissions, the opportunity to radically change the way we farm is becoming more realistic – and more urgent – than ever.

References
1. Derbyshire County Council planning application consultation responses for the erection of a 2,500 breeding sow pig rearing unit near Foston. Available online at:
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/ESplanningapps/Planning-Applications/CW9-0311-174/9.1563.5/02-Consultation/RES.pdf

2. Burkholder, J., Libra, B., Weyer. P. et al. (2007). Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115:308–312.

3. Schinasi, L., Horton, R.A., Guidry, V.T., Wing, S., Marshall, S.W., Morland, K.B. (2011). Air pollution, lung function, and physical symptoms in communities near concentrated swine feeding operations. Epidemiology. 22:208–215.

So what’s ruffled my feathers? At issue here is a statement released by National Pork Producers Council President Doug Wolf on the new Government Accountability Office report, Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies Have Made Limited Progress Addressing Antibiotic Use in Animals.  Wolf says, “Not only is there no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as the U.S. pork industry has continually pointed out, but there isn’t even adequate data to conduct a study.” He continues, “The GAO report on antibiotic resistance issued today confirms this.”

Wolf’s comments are hogwash and he knows it. The truth is that the GAO report does nothing of the sort, nor was that ever its intention. Even from the report title it’s already pretty clear what the overall conclusion is: key government agencies – namely the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) which are primarily responsible for ensuring food safety in the U.S. – are not doing enough to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria to public health. Far from “confirming” Wolf’s position, the GAO report states that, “Antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but antibiotic use in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that may affect humans.”

What’s more, the GAO provided the USDA and HHS with a draft of the report for review and comment and both departments agreed with the GAO’s recommendations for urgent changes to ensure that the correct data is recorded. It’s there in black and white. So I hope you can understand my utter indignation when I read a so-called ‘news’ item about this very same GAO report on the hitherto balanced and respected Meatingplace.com with a headline of “GAO can’t find link between antibiotic use in food animals and human resistance.”  Rather than evaluate the report themselves it would appear that Meatingplace took the spin from the NPPC and ran it as fact.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that the National Pork Producers Council has fed the media with this kind of disinformation. In 2010, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, American Meat Institute and other industry bodies issued a joint statement which claimed, “there is no conclusive scientific evidence that shows the use of antibiotics on farms contributes significantly to an increase in antibiotic resistance in humans.”

The statement above flies in the face of fact. Only the willfully ignorant could ignore the recent World Health Organization (WHO) report which states that the “effectiveness of critically important antimicrobials for human medicine should not be compromised by inappropriate over-use and/or misuse in the non-human sector.” If we really had nothing to worry about, why did Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO, warn earlier this year that, “In the absence of urgent corrective and protective actions, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era in which many common infections will no longer have a cure and, once again, kill unabated”? Why did the WHO dedicate World Health Day 2011 – an annual global PR initiative to highlight a priority area of concern to the WHO – to the very plight of combating the rampant rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

When it comes to protecting your future health, and the health of your family, who would you trust? A motley crew of lobbying organizations whose industry-funded objective is to protect and promote the interests (i.e., profit) of companies that control the industrialized livestock farming industry above all else? Or the World Health Organization (WHO), a world renowned specialized agency of the United Nations that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health?

Scientists have known for years that intensive farming systems provide a perfect breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria. And this isn’t something that’s just happening in other countries: it’s happening in our own backyards. It is also killing Americans every year and unless we do something about it now, it’s going to get a whole lot worse. And while the NPPC is unable to put science ahead of profit, the United States Department of Agriculture has already admitted the link.

Recent cases of antibiotic-resistant E. coli, Salmonella and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have all been linked to industrial farming. A recent study by University of Iowa found MRSA in swine and swine workers in the United States. The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest. “Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two,” said the lead author of the study. “Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium.” This begs the question, “Who is the NPPC really representing?” By denying the existence of the link between the use of antibiotics and the obvious threat to farmers’ health and livelihood the NPPC demonstrates complete disregard, if not contempt for the farmers it allegedly represents.

NPPC’s position shows a failure of industry to address systemic problems that are threatening public health. A nationwide study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal in April 2011 found “unexpectedly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in fresh meat and poultry from grocery stores. Analyzing 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey from 26 retail grocery stores in five major U.S. cities, researchers found that nearly half of the meat and poultry samples—47 percent—were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria—52 percent—were resistant to at least three antibiotics. The most recent incident was the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg this summer, which was linked to a single Cargill meat processing plant in Arkansas, killing one and sickening more than 80 people. Cargill’s plant reopened over the summer, only to close again just weeks later with a further recall of contaminated meat.

When it comes to matters of global human health, surely honesty and transparency must always prevail? Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. We know that during the 1970s the tobacco lobby fought blood, tooth and nail to protect its own corporate interests, despite overwhelming evidence that they were killing their customers. In its fight for survival, we can expect the industrial farming lobby to do all it can to protect itself.

The State of the Plate DC (www.StateofthePlateDC.net) daylong conference is set for Monday, October 17, 2011 at George Washington University’s Marvin Center and will feature a series of panels and notable speakers, focused on sharing best practices, information, and strategies. The event is designed for chefs, restaurateurs, distributors, farmers, ranchers, food leaders, students, faculty and those interested in the topic.

Ultimately, producers want to sell meat and restaurants want to buy it. This event will allow both producers and chefs/restaurant owners to discuss the terms of the trade via lively discussions, and then potentially engage in actual deal‐making that satisfies the needs of both groups. Designed to share information in a positive format, focus will be on sustainable farming, animal product preparation, the myths and realities of food labeling, and supply chain management.

This event is organized by Animal Welfare Approved, the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range according to the highest welfare standards. The co‐organizer is Educated Eats (the education foundation arm of RAMW), dedicated to creating the next generation of culinary professionals. The George Washington University’s Urban Food Task Force is the event’s key collaborator.

“DC chefs are increasingly renowned for their commitment to top‐quality, sustainable, healthy, and delicious foods. I’m delighted to see more of them entering the dialogue about sustainable and high‐welfare farming. State of the Plate DC fits well with the mission of George Washington’s Urban Food Task Force; it offers hands‐on opportunities for chefs and producers to work together in advancing the conversation about food policy and action,” says Diane Robinson Knapp, Chair, The George Washington University Urban Food Task Force.

Animal Welfare Approved program director Andrew Gunther added, “We believe that attendees will gain a better understanding of the challenges and rewards of developing sustainable food supply chains, but even more importantly, participants will have the opportunity to meet with and taste products from farmers already delivering solutions.”

“Educated Eats is thrilled to be working with our partners on this sustainable meat conference, continuing our series of seminars for our members,” says Gregory Casten, Chairman of the Board of RAMW. “We look forward to raising awareness for chefs and restaurateurs about the many benefits of sustainable farming practices‐‐including raising animals outdoors on pasture or range. Using sustainably raised animal proteins can help improve a restaurant’s image, efficiency and performance.”

Tickets: $55 includes continental breakfast and boxed lunch from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Advance registration is required. Seating is limited so be sure to register early. To register online visit www.StateofthePlateDC.net. From 5:00‐6:30 pm a sustainable meat tasting reception will bring together members of the RAMW with farmers, distributors and processors.

Location: The conference will be held at the George Washington University’s Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, Washington, DC 20052.

Questions: Contact Laura Colombi with questions at (202) 446‐2138.

Members of the press are encouraged to contact Beth Hauptle at (202) 446‐2155 to reserve complimentary press passes.

On July 29, the U.S. Department for Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a nationwide outbreak of a deadly strain of Salmonella food poisoning that is resistant to multiple antibiotics. According to the FSIS, the cases of Salmonella Heidelberg were associated with the use and consumption of ground turkey. No supplier or source of the outbreak was provided. No names, no brands, no source – just advice on cooking and handling meat properly.

Then on August 3, the multinational food monolith Cargill announced the largest ever Class I recall of tainted meat. In a press release Cargill stated that based on information from public health officials the company was ”voluntarily” recalling 36 million pounds of fresh and frozen ground turkey produced over a seven month period beginning in February 2011 at one of their meat processing facilities at Springdale, Arkansas. According to a spokesperson, while there was no conclusive proof about the source of the Salmonella Heidelberg contamination, Cargill was recalling the meat out of “concern for what has happened, and our desire to do what is right for our consumers and customers.” Consumers were urged to return specific fresh and ground turkey products. Hidden in the list of recalled products are 40-pound chubs (catering packages) of ground turkey.  These chubs are used in the food service industry and combined with other food products—and thus, presumably, are now well beyond the reach of this recall. Processing at the Arkansas plant was also suspended, although production at Cargill’s four other meat processing plants would continue unaffected.

So far, the contamination has resulted in one death in California and at least 79 illnesses across 26 states. According to reports, it appears the outbreak “officially” began in March 2011, when a growing number of cases of Salmonella Heidelberg were noted. However, the FSIS didn’t issue a public warning until July 29, and even then this was a broad statement about potential links with ground turkey. Questions are already being asked about the significant time lag between the March detection of the spike in cases, the FSIS announcement in late July, and Cargill’s voluntary withdrawal in early August. But I have far graver concerns about this outbreak.

Cargill’s statement read, “It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry. We go to great lengths to ensure the food we produce is safe and we fully understand that people expect to be able to consume safe food, each serving, every time.” But these are hollow words indeed; for in almost the same breath, Cargill abdicated responsibility saying, “We all need to remember bacteria is everywhere, and we must properly handle and prepare fresh foods wherever they are served.” The American Meat Institute has also leapt to Cargill’s defense, reassuring U.S. consumers that the turkey supply is safe, especially if standardized safe handling and cooking procedures are followed.

As a consumer I can’t help but find this insulting. The safe handling instructions should be there to protect the consumer – not the multinational corporation. Safe handling instructions are meant to be common sense guidelines for consumer safety, but have now been co-opted as the fail-safe for appalling production practices. While I am the first to accept that good food hygiene is important when handling raw meat and that bacteria are ubiquitous in our environment, please forgive me for screaming about the enormous elephant that is running riot round the room. My grave concern is that this outbreak is yet another stark warning that we are on the verge of something very scary indeed: A world where antibiotics will no longer work, and where common bacterial diseases will once again kill unabated, returning us to the medical equivalent of the 18th century.

While any outbreak of food poisoning is horrific, and the immediate focus must be to treat those affected and identify the source, few people seem to be discussing the larger public health issue: this particular strain of Salmonella is resistant to multiple antibiotics. Scientists around the world link this resistance to years of misuse of medicinally important antibiotics by the intensive farming industry. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. receive low levels of antibiotics throughout their lives as growth promoters to help maximize production. While this lowers the price tag on industrial protein, the practice encourages bacteria to quickly become resistant to antibiotics – the same antibiotics we use to treat ourselves. In fact, some dangerous bacteria are now resistant to multiple antibiotics. This means that when we get infected, there are fewer and fewer options for treatment. And we are fast running out of options altogether.

On the same day that the FSIS officially announced the outbreak of multi-antibiotic resistant Salmonella Heidelberg, a paper published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases warned of the discovery of yet another (and separate) multidrug-resistant strain of Salmonella, Salmonella Kentucky, which has a high-level resistance to a number of medicines, including a key antibiotic, ciprofloxacin. Ciprofloxacin is one of the last remaining antibiotics that can still combat severe cases of Salmonella in humans. The authors suggest this new strain is most likely due to the inappropriate use of a group of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones (which include ciprofloxacin) in poultry production in Nigeria and Morocco, and call for urgent global action to limit its spread.

This all comes hot on the heels of the deadly outbreak of E. coli O104:H4 earlier this summer in Europe, which left at least 52 dead and over 4,000 people sickened. Again, what particularly concerned scientists was that the E. coli O104:H4 strain was resistant to several key antibiotics, and the consensus is that the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming systems was to blame.

In early June 2011, a paper from Cambridge University scientists in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal confirmed the emergence of a new strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in British dairy cows, which can also cause life-threatening illness in humans. Once again, the scientific consensus is that the routine use of antibiotics in dairy farming is to blame for this highly dangerous new strain.

Urgent pleas to address this issue are mounting – this is a scientifically grounded concern that is recognized as a serious public health threat throughout the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has been warning for years that the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is one of the gravest threats known to human health. In recognition of this threat, on World Health Day 2011, which was themed “Antimicrobial resistance: no action today, no cure tomorrow,” the WHO introduced a six-point policy package to combat the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Among the key targets was the urgent need to regulate the use of antibiotic medicines, including in animal husbandry, and to reduce the routine use of vital antibiotics in food-producing animals. The message cannot be any clearer.

I hate to be the voice of doom and gloom, but the advice of “cook it properly and everything will be OK” just doesn’t cut it. A report from the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General points out that while cooking meat properly can destroy pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella, no amount of cooking will destroy antibiotics and other residues in meat. In some cases, heat may actually break antibiotic residues down into more harmful components. So I think I’ll pass on that double turkey burger with Salmonella to go – even if it has been grilled to a crisp.

The point is that the likes of Cargill and Co. need to clean up their act. Our farming industry is already five years behind the European Union, 15 years behind Denmark and 25 years behind Sweden in banning non-therapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics in farming. The U.S. intensive farming lobby claims that such a ban would devastate U.S. farming and dramatically increase food costs. But European farmers have survived, and the changes have not reduced efficiency of meat production nor directly increased the cost of food. In fact, one Danish study shows that the ban led to lower mortality and higher growth rates in pig farming.

All this leads me to ask: is cheap meat really worth it? The gravity of the threat we face cannot be overstated – we are literally about to lose one of the most important medical innovations of our time. We need to act and we need to act NOW. I urge you to support Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in her drive to introduce The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in U.S. livestock farming so that these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. Surely preserving the usefulness of vital medicines that we all depend upon is more important than eating cheap, tainted meat and short-term corporate profits?

Now, in a report that anyone with even a simple understanding of biology will react to by saying “…and it took you how long?” the FDA has admitted that arsenic does indeed remain in the body of birds fed this dangerous element. This discovery that arsenic persists in the livers of meat chickens has caused Alpharma, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., to voluntarily remove its arsenic containing feed additive Roxarsone from the market. As any high school student knows, the liver of birds and animals is effectively a filter working to remove unwanted contaminants from the body. And like all filters, the liver can become saturated or indeed fail completely if it is overwhelmed by toxins. So the discovery of arsenic in the liver of broiler chickens fed a diet containing this element is of no great surprise.

You might ask why arsenic is in poultry feed at all. When you look up one of the many drugs containing arsenic licensed by the FDA, the indications for use are “for the prevention of coccidiosis, for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency.”  Coccidiosis is a parasite caused by overstocking and intensive facility use. As it is so often with Big Ag, rather than fixing the system, it tries to mitigate it with drugs and poisons–the unintended consequences of Big Ag’s failure to look further than the bottom line when designing food animal systems. Most of the rest of the world recognizes that adding a known poison to something you are going to eat is not a great idea. For example arsenic is prohibited from being added to any animal feed in the Europe. This is not just because of the human health risks but also because of the known pollution problems. Think back to the FDA statement that arsenic will be excreted by the birds and animals it is fed to – where do you think that excreted arsenic ends up? Arsenic is a chemical element in its own right. It doesn’t break down or degrade – once it’s out there in the environment, it’s out there, destroying ecosystems and polluting watercourses.

This is another breathtaking example of the arrogance of the U.S.’s food animal production industry. For this industry, profit comes before everything. Once again we see misrepresentation and rhetoric exposing U.S. consumers to potentially life threatening food products. You want past examples? How about the fact that despite the rest of the world understanding the connection between shoveling antibiotics into animal feed and the same antibiotics becoming resistant to bacteria (and therefore worthless for human treatment) Big Ag stoically questions the science.   This proves again that Big Ag in the U.S. is unwilling to let facts get in the way of profit.

Despite stating that the use of arsenic in chicken feed had previously stopped, major chicken producer Perdue resisted a proposed bill to ban the additive in Maryland last year. Tyson Foods has made similar statements about the use of arsenic but it is estimated that around 2.2 million pounds of arsenical feed additives are used in poultry food each year. Exactly where has this vast mountain of arsenic been going I find myself asking? The FDA study was first available in February. It is interesting that it only seems to have seen the light of day now. Perhaps it was suppressed while waiting for Big Ag to work out a position to police itself.

For those of us with a healthy distrust of the power of Big Ag we are left relying on a voluntary withdrawal of one of the several available arsenic containing products rather than a complete and enforceable ban on all arsenic in feed. With the weight of growing evidence, a complete ban would hardly be groundbreaking – and in fact would just bring the U.S. in line with the rest of the modern world.  But, for now I suppose we’ll settle for the voluntary withdrawal.  I know my family and I will continue eating pastured poultry from Animal Welfare Approved farms.

At the time of writing the exact source of this E. coli outbreak is still not known, although almost all cases have occurred in Germany or were directly linked to travel there. But while the primary focus remains identifying the source of the outbreak and treating those affected, scientists have already expressed alarm at the fact that this particular strain of E. coli – E. coli O104:H4 – is resistant to several classes of important antibiotics. And the consensus is that one of the most likely reasons for the development of this multiple-resistant strain is the misuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming systems.

As if this devastating E. coli outbreak isn’t already damning enough, last week a paper from Cambridge University scientists in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal confirmed the emergence of a new strain of MRSA with multiple resistance to key antibiotics in British dairy cows, which can cause life-threatening illness in humans. Again, the scientific consensus is that the cause is the routine use of antibiotics in dairy farming, which are used to treat the cattle health problems associated with very high levels of milk production per cow.

So how did we get to this point – and what can we do about it now?

Whether it is dairy, beef, pig or poultry, almost all intensive farming systems rely on the routine use of low-dose antibiotics to maximize productivity at the lowest possible cost. These low doses of antibiotics are not given to animals because they are actually sick, but because they are managed in a way that encourages diseases to thrive. If you keep beef cattle in crowded feedlots and give them high levels of grain in their diets they are very likely to get stressed, reducing their natural immunity to diseases, and increasing the risk of liver abscesses, bloat and acidosis. This might not be enough to kill them, but it certainly doesn’t make them feel great. As a result, their growth rate will drop – meaning less profit for the intensive farm. Giving a daily dose of antibiotics in the feed or water counters the unhealthy effects of the farming system and keeps the animals alive and growing. And this is happening on a vast scale: During 2009 alone, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that 80% of all antibiotics produced in the U.S. were used for animals – that’s an incredible 28,820,000 pounds out of the 36,080,000 pounds produced.

The problem is that this regular administration of antibiotics can lead to a situation where the level of antibiotic is not high enough to kill all the bacteria and instead a small number survive with resistance to the drug. These antibiotic resistant strains can then pass on this resistance to other bacteria, which spread to other animals – and ultimately to humans. The first we may know about it is if we get sick and the doctors find that the treatments they once used no longer have any effect. Some estimates put the number of Americans suffering from MRSA infections at 90,000 per year – leading to nearly 20,000 deaths.

I have written many times about the misuse of antibiotics in intensive farming and the threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria (see The Defense of the Indefensible, Responsible Use of Antibiotics in Agriculture, or Antibiotics in Farming: Has Tyson Foods Shot Itself in the Foot?). Scientists and others have been warning the intensive farming industry and politicians alike of these very dangers for far too long. If this E. coli outbreak and the news of a new strain of MRSA fail to serve as a wake-up call to end the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in U.S. farming, then we only have ourselves to blame.

The rise of antibiotic resistance has already led to a ban in the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in a number of developed countries. The U.S. farming industry is already four years behind the European Union, 14 years behind Denmark and 24 years behind Sweden in banning the non-therapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in farm animal production. Those using and promoting intensive farming systems in the U.S. have not banned non-therapeutic use of antibiotics because such a ban would affect the way they have to farm. But isn’t preserving the usefulness of medicines we depend upon more important than cheap protein?

Danish and Dutch research has shown that over time, stopping agriculture from routinely using antibiotics that are important to human health reduces the levels of resistance. All of the countries mentioned previously have taken positive action to protect the long-term effectiveness of the antibiotics their citizens need in case of bacterial illness. And contrary to what industrial agriculturalists might want you to think, the ban on non-therapeutic antibiotics has not reduced efficiency of meat production or directly increased the cost of food. In fact, one study in Denmark showed that the ban led to lower mortality and higher growth rates in pig farming.

If there can be one positive outcome of this devastating E. coli outbreak it must be to raise public awareness of the misuse of antibiotics in intensive farming systems. On March 9, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter reintroduced The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which seeks to limit the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming so these lifesaving drugs will remain effective in the treatment of human illnesses. Congresswoman Slaughter first introduced this important bill in 2009, but the issues were publicly dismissed by the intensive farming lobby and its paid-off politicians. In light of these new developments, they will find it difficult to undermine this urgent effort to introduce essential controls on these harmful activities.

Use the following link to contact your representative now and demand that they support PAMTA.

The Soil Association published this news report today calling for the end of routine use of antibiotics in dairy farming.

Following a study published today on the discovery of MRSA in British milk, the Soil Association is calling for the end of routine antibiotic use in dairy farming.

A new type of MRSA bacteria was discovered by scientists from Cambridge University in samples of milk taken from cows with mastitis [1]. This is the first time that MRSA has been found in farm animals in the UK.

Collaborating scientists from the Health Protection Agency and the Scottish MRSA Reference Laboratory, who have published their findings in the same paper, subsequently found that the same type of MRSA had already been the source of infection in a number of people in England and Scotland [2]. Evidence available so far suggests that the new MRSA is most likely being transmitted from cattle to people [3]. The scientists have called their discovery ‘potentially of public health importance’.

MRSA has emerged on dairy farms because of the routine use of antibiotics to deal with the health problems associated with the extremely high levels of milk being produced per cow.

Of particular concern is the use of antibiotics known as modern cephalosporins. These drugs are widely used on farms and are most strongly suspected of promoting MRSA in both humans and farm animals [4]. Scientists from Liverpool University have called for a ban on their use in dairy farming, saying there is ‘no welfare case’ for their use since they simply act as a ‘prop for sub-optimal management and welfare’ [5].

A Freedom of Information request submitted by the Soil Association to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has revealed that the veterinary use of modern cephalosporins has more than quadrupled over the past decade, despite calls from the World Health Organisation, the European Medicines Agency and the former Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, to restrict, or even ban their use on farms [4].

The principal reasons for the increase in use are that they have been widely advertised in the farming press (something not permitted in any other EU country), and dairy farmers have been under considerable financial pressure because supermarkets have driven down the farmgate price of milk to below the cost of production

The Soil Association has already severely restricted the use of modern cephalosporins and banned the routine use of all antibiotics on organic farms it certifies. It is calling for similar restrictions to apply on all dairy farms [6].

In several other European countries, new strains of MRSA have been found in pigs and poultry as well as cattle. Many humans have been infected by these new farm-animal strains, and there have even been some deaths [7]. British pigs appear so far to be free of MRSA, but no testing has been carried out on poultry despite the fact that the UK imports live poultry from countries known to have MRSA in their flocks.

The Soil Association is also calling for:

• The urgent introduction of a comprehensive programme to test farm animals, farm workers, veterinary surgeons, milk, meat and farm waste for MRSA [8]. This would bring the UK into line with several of our EU partners.
• The Government to review its decision to continue to allow advertising of antibiotics to farmers. The veterinary profession backed this view in a recent consultation – vets are in the best position to prescribe and should not be influenced by farmers or drug companies when it comes to safeguarding human health. [9]

Commenting on the research, Helen Browning OBE, Director of the Soil Association said:

“This new evidence confirms our long-held view of the importance of absolutely minimising the use of antibiotics especially those closely related to antibiotics used by people. This requires excellent husbandry, and much reduced stress on our animals.

“In the relentless drive for increased per animal productivity, and under acute price pressure, dairy systems are becoming ever more antibiotic dependent. We need to get farmers off this treadmill, even if that means that milk has to cost a few pennies more. That would be a very small price to pay for maintaining the efficacy of these life-saving drugs.”

For more detail read the Soil Association briefing sheet: ‘MRSA in British cattle. A new farm superbug spreading to humans?’

Notes:

[1] Garcia-Alvarez L. et al., 2011. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a novel mecA homologue emerging in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: a descriptive study, Lancet Infectious Diseases

For further information on the findings, see sections 1 to 5 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet ‘MRSA in British cattle. A new farm superbug spreading to humans?’

[2] The new type of MRSA found in cows cannot be confirmed as being MRSA with existing laboratory tests. Consequently, the scientists had to develop a new test which proved that the bacteria were MRSA. The new test was then applied to bacteria previously collected from human patients and held in the HPA and the Scottish MRSA reference laboratory databases. The fact that the new type of MRSA can only be confirmed as MRSA with this new test means that is has probably been around for some time already without being detected.

See sections 2, 3 and 4 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet.

[3] Transmission is most likely occurring through direct contact with farm animals, putting farm workers, vets and their families at risk, or through the environment (when manure is spread on the land, for example). Consuming pasteurised milk is unlikely to be a risk factor because pasteurisation will kill the MRSA.

See section 5 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet for evidence that transmission is occurring from cattle to people.

[4] The modern cephalosporins are classified by the World Health Organisation as ‘critically important in human medicine’ because they are frontline drugs in hospitals and there is evidence that some of the resistance to them is being transmitted from farm animals to humans.

For further information, see section 6 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet.

[5] Grove-White  D. and Murray R., 2009. Use of antimicrobials, Veterinary Record, 164: 727

See also section 7 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet.

[6] The Soil Association is not calling for a total ban on the veterinary use of modern cephalosporins. It believes that vets and farmers should be legally required to reserve them for life-threatening situations in individual large animals where the use of other treatments are unlikely to work, as is already the case for Soil Association-certified farmers. Such rules would probably have prevented the emergence of MRSA on dairy farms.

For further information, see section 7 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet.

[7] See section 8 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet.

[8] Since 2007, the Soil Association has repeatedly called for British farm animals to be tested for MRSA. Despite extensive surveillance in many other European countries, to date, the only tests that have been undertaken in the UK by government scientists have been on milk samples that we now know were incorrectly declared free of MRSA, and on dust samples from a number of buildings housing sows on pig farms, all of which were also declared negative.

[9] The Soil Association, and other NGOs like Compassion in World Farming, the Food Ethics Council and Sustain, have consistently campaigned for a ban on the advertising of antibiotics directly to farmers. During a consultation last year, the British Veterinary Association joined the calls for a ban. After the consultation, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate recommended to the Government that a ban should be implemented, but the advice was rejected after lobbying against the ban by the pharmaceutical industry and the farming press.

For further information on advertising, see section 6 of accompanying Soil Association briefing sheet.

Published in the latest Environmental Health Perspectives journal, the results suggest that prenatal exposure to OPs can have a lasting and damaging effect on our children. Researchers from the University of California, Columbia University, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine all found that children exposed to higher levels of OP while in the womb were likely to have significantly lower intelligence scores by age seven than children who were not exposed.

The studies began more than ten years ago. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, for example, followed 329 children from before birth, testing urine samples of their mothers for OP residues twice during pregnancy and then after birth from the children at regular intervals between ages six months and five years, before testing the cognitive abilities of the 329 children at age seven. All three studies found evidence linking prenatal OP pesticide exposures with adverse effects on cognitive function that continued into early childhood. According to Brenda Eskenazi, who led the U.C. Berkeley team, the impact on intelligence levels found “could mean, on average, more kids being shifted into the lower end of the spectrum of learning, and more kids needing special services in school.” Stark findings indeed.

OPs are still one of the most widely used pesticides across the world. They are commonly used as insecticides on grains, fruit and vegetables, as well as to control parasites on farm livestock and pets, and for fly control in industrial and commercial premises. I’m sure the danger that OPs present will come as no surprise to some of you.  After all, they were originally developed during World War II for chemical warfare as nerve gases.

But the fact that all three studies noted in the Environmental Health Perspectives reached this conclusion independently is highly significant – and will make the evidence even harder for Big Ag to ignore or dismiss: “As a group, these papers add substantial weight to the evidence linking OP pesticides with adverse effects on cognitive development by simultaneously reporting consistent findings for three different groups of children,” comments Hugh A. Tilson, editor-in-chief of Environmental Health Perspectives.

These disturbing results come hot on the heels of research published in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics last year, which revealed that exposure to OPs could result in a higher risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children, covered in an AWA blog.

As with the three studies noted in the Environmental Health Perspectives, the children involved in the Pediatrics research were not from rural areas or farming families (who might come into direct contact with excessive amounts of OP on farms). Once again, the science clearly shows that that exposure to OP is potentially harmful to our children in all walks of life. It’s worth noting that there is also a known link between OP toxicity and depression and suicide.

Remember that this research is looking at the impact of a single family of pesticides on our health. Yet there is mounting concern about the so-called cocktail effect of multiple pesticides on our health – and particularly the health of our children. Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a pathologist at the University of Ulster, Ireland, specializes in toxicology and the cocktail effect of pesticides and food additives on the human body. He is extremely concerned about the combined health effects of modern chemicals, such as pesticides, many of which have only been around for the last 50-60 years. He warns that official safety limits are only based on the potential impacts of single pesticides. “There are no toxicological tests of chemical combinations, despite the fact that studies have suggested that their combined impact, or cocktail effect, can make their impact much more powerful,” he explains. As a result of his studies, Howard is a strong supporter of organic food.

So what is the answer? Well, the most important thing is that we all continue to eat a balanced diet – and that includes fresh fruit and vegetables. Giving up all fresh fruit and vegetables will do us – and our children – far more short-term harm than good, that’s for sure! But this research is further evidence that we all really do need to think about where our food comes from and, above all, how it is produced. It’s no longer safe to just sit back and eat.

We all have the ability to educate ourselves to ensure that we can make the right choices when it comes to feeding our families. And we can all vote with our wallets and force Big Ag to change its farming practices by choosing safe, nutritious, wholesome foods.  If we all start doing it, they’ll soon listen.

At Animal Welfare Approved, we already prohibit the use of OPs on our farms for just these reasons. We are concerned about public health, but we are also concerned about the health of our farmers and their families, as well as farm animals. If you are unsure about whether or not your fruit and vegetables have been sprayed with OP insecticide, you should wash them thoroughly before eating them – using a soft brush, if possible. And if you can, always try to seek out meat, dairy and other products from programs like Animal Welfare Approved that prohibit the use of harmful OPs in farming. Together we can change agriculture for the better.

You may expect that animals on organic farms would be raised with the highest welfare in mind, with lots of space and free access to pasture. You may expect that all organic farmers would be caring and conscientious enough to allow organic animals to exhibit their natural behaviors.  You may expect that organic farms would be far superior to industrial farms and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Sorry to dash your hopes, but all organic farmers do not necessarily raise their animals with even Big Ag’s welfare standards as a base. It might surprise you to know that the United States National Organic Program (NOP) – the federal regulatory framework that governs organic food and farming in the U.S. – has no specific rules on the amount of space that organic farmers are required to give their animals whenever they are housed indoors. This obviously raises questions about animal welfare.

Fortunately, plans were announced earlier this year to remedy this regrettable situation. The Livestock Committee of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is responsible for making recommendations to ensure that livestock standards are implemented to maintain both organic standards for consumers and good living conditions for the animals. The Committee has now put forward a raft of changes to organic regulations that include new rules on space requirements for organic livestock.

One would presume that the NOSB’s recommendations would automatically represent a welcome step forward in terms of organic farm animal welfare. But the shocking reality is that the NOSB’s recommendations on space requirements for organic systems mean that some organic animals could actually have less space than you’d find in an industrialized intensive farming system, leaving consumer expectations – and the animals themselves – quite literally squashed.

In its recommendation document, NOSB notes that: “Animal welfare is a basic principle of organic production…it is our intention to create a comprehensive animal welfare program that benefits both livestock and farmers.” The document goes on to say: “Ultimately, the Livestock Committee would like the organic seal to be the gold standard, indicating the most nutritious food produced in the safest and most humane manner.”

At Animal Welfare Approved, we agree that the highest levels of animal welfare should form the very foundation of all organic farming systems. But if the NOSB’s starting point is the space recommendations proposed, the Board has a very long way to go before it can claim to have a program that truly benefits organic animal welfare – let alone sets the gold standard for humanely produced food.

When it comes to certified organic livestock standards, surely it isn’t too much to ask that the space given to organic animals is at least equivalent to the space given to non-organic livestock? That is surely a no-brainer, right? Wrong again.

While the NOSB’s recommendations for organic pigs require that  farmers provide both an outdoor area and an indoor area for their pigs, if you add these two areas together,  the total NOSB recommended area for an organic pig is actually less than the total indoor area that the National Pork Board requires for its non-organic, indoor, intensively raised pigs. Yes, you read that right: the NOSB’s recommendation on the space required for organically raised pigs is actually less than that required for many intensively farmed pigs.

Let’s take a closer look at those space recommendations for organic pigs. Under the NOSB’s recommendations, organic farmers would have to provide a twenty four pound pig with just one square foot of space indoors and 0.5 square foot outdoors. Think about just how small one square foot actually is. We’re talking about a space that is a little bigger than a sheet of letter paper. Is this seriously an example of the gold standard when it comes to animal welfare? Does the NOSB really think that this is the kind of space that consumers expect organic animals to have lived in?  It’s absolutely disgraceful.

Time and time again, the NOSB’s public statements are completely at odds with its recommendations. On poultry, the board says: “A minimum of 2 square feet per bird is required to protect the soil and to minimize parasite loads via paddock rotation.” And indoors the space required can be as little as 1 square foot per bird. At Animal Welfare Approved, we know that keeping appropriate numbers of animals in a given field space, combined with a strategy of moving animals regularly around the fields on the farm, can massively reduce the incidence of parasites and other health and disease problems, as well as allowing birds and animals to perform their natural behaviors. But allowing two square feet per bird is not nearly enough space to achieve these benefits. Not even close.

It is hard to understand why NOSB has made its recommendations so low. The organization states that: “The less space provided per animal, the more labor-intensive it may be to keep them clean and in good health…” and that “…outdoor access is important for all livestock to enhance muscle tone and relieve boredom.” Yet these good intentions amount to nothing if the recommendation that comes out of them means that organic pigs have less indoor space than non-organic intensively farmed pigs, or if organic chickens have only one square foot per bird for outdoor access.

Regarding the NOSB’s statement about the less space an animal has, the harder it is to keep it in good health…we wholeheartedly agree. It has been shown repeatedly that animals in cramped, stressful conditions are more susceptible to disease. Since organic standards prohibit the use of antibiotics – even when an animal is sick – you would think that the NOSB’s recommendations on the numbers of animals that farmers can keep indoors would be set at a level to promote health, not to actively compromise it.

Do these proposed stocking densities reflect the reality of what is actually provided for organic livestock? I know many certified organic farmers who are farming in the organic spirit, who pride themselves on the highest welfare standards, and whose livestock housing facilities already far exceed the NOSB’s inadequate recommendations. Many of these farmers are also part of the Animal Welfare Approved program – a clear statement of their dedication to providing their animals with the highest standards of welfare.

But while there are many reputable organic farmers who are passionate about the organic ethos, I am afraid that there are also some who are only interested in providing the bare minimum of space for their livestock. These businesses will certainly not want to make massive investments to increase their housing space, nor will they want to decrease their current stock numbers to meet any new space requirements. Is this what has driven the NOSB Livestock Committee to make such weak recommendations? Whatever the motivation, the NOSB’s recommendations are a disservice to the many thousands of real organic farmers out there. The NOSB should be ashamed at setting the bar so low and missing the opportunity to put pressure on those organic businesses that are failing to farm to the high standards that consumers reasonably expect.

Although the NOSB may claim to have great aspirations for organic livestock standards, its recommendations on animal stocking densities don’t even come close to meeting them. Until such time as they do, consumers should remember that countless Animal Welfare Approved farmers are already meeting the gold standard for meat and dairy products, farming under the most rigorous and progressive animal care requirements in the United States.

People put their trust in the organic label in the belief that it will provide farm animals with high levels of animal welfare. Yet in many cases this trust is being repaid with apathy and downright deceit when it comes to real standards that will benefit animal welfare. If, like us, you feel strongly about the NOSB’s inadequate proposals please let us know, and tell the NOSB before its next meeting at the end of April 2011.

You can submit your comments here on the NOSB’s proposed recommendations on animal welfare standards – including those on stocking densities –until April 10, 2011. It’s high time that we called on the NOSB to step up to the plate and create truly robust organic standards that consumers expect – and which farm animals deserve.