This is why Shelby Grebenc of Broomfield, CO, is such an inspiration. Shelby is founder of “Shelby’s Happy Chapped Chicken Butt Farm,” located about 20 miles outside of Denver. And at just 12 years-old, Shelby is also the youngest Animal Welfare Approved farmer to date. Shelby represents a beacon of hope for the future. Her dedication to high-welfare farming is an inspiration to all of us – regardless of age.

Although she’s only 12, Shelby has a maturity and determination well beyond her years. When she was 10, an age at which most children are asking their parents for allowance money and still assume that eggs come from grocery stores, Shelby approached her grandmother for a $1,000 loan to launch her own pasture-raised egg business. Shelby’s mother Nancy, who has multiple sclerosis, was in a nursing home at the time and Shelby wanted to start selling eggs to expand the family’s income.

Shelby first started learning to raise laying hens when she was just six years old, looking after the family’s small flock of chickens on their four acres. Her father gave her specific chores to carry out, such as watering, feeding, and letting out the hens. She clearly learned a great deal from this experience because now Shelby manages a flock of around 130 pasture-raised hens, which produce between 28–56 dozen eggs a week. It takes her about an hour each day to feed the hens, put out fresh water, and collect and clean the eggs. She sells most of her eggs to neighbors in Broomfield. Customers can call her or look for the big yellow sign she places at the end of the driveway when she is available to make sales, although she and her dad can also deliver eggs within one mile of their home.

Shelby first learned about the Animal Welfare Approved program from a neighbor and decided she would like her hens to have the distinction of being raised with the highest animal welfare standards. Supporting young farmers who aspire to provide us with the healthiest, safest and most sustainable food for future generations is something that I passionately believe in. In fact, we specifically amended our policies to allow Shelby to sign the forms and become the named farmer. As we require an enforceable agreement with our farmers, Shelby’s father had to co-sign the agreement, although we work directly with her. Following the on-farm audit last September, Shelby’s flock was officially certified as Animal Welfare Approved, a certification and food label that lets consumers know that the chickens on Shelby’s farm were raised in accordance with the highest animal welfare standards in the U.S., using sustainable agriculture methods on an independent family farm.

So what do her school friends think about Shelby’s entrepreneurship? She says that some are astonished that she goes to the bank and, using her Colorado state-issued ID, withdraws money to buy chicken feed. But while some friends think it is pretty cool, many just don’t understand farming. “Some kids don’t even realize the leather on their shoes came from a cow somewhere,” she recently explained. “As my dad says, it’s a part of life, but it is our job to make sure animals have the best, most enjoyable life possible while we have them. I love my animals and I make sure they are happy but I also understand the outcome.”

We know that the industrialization of farming has had a devastating impact on the environment and animal welfare. But it has had a devastating impact on our U.S. family farming heritage, too. According to the National Commission on Small Farms, “Independent farm families are being forced out of business to make room for further corporate consolidation. As a consequence, rural communities in agricultural areas have suffered decades of economic and social decline and decay.” Hardly the kind of future career we’d want for our children. However research from the United Kingdom shows that pasture-based sustainable farming systems not only provide more job opportunities on the farm, but they are also attracting more young people into farming. If we can encourage more kids like Shelby to explore sustainable farming as a real career choice we could help regenerate agriculture as a major employer once again, with a major role in the rural economy – and a rightful place in our hearts.

Commenting on the intensive farming of caged hens, Shelby recently said,“I think it is important that chickens get to be chickens. They have to be able to fly, scratch, peck, take dirt baths and react with one another. If chickens don’t get a chance to do these things they are not going to be happy.” Wise words from a 12-year-old – and I couldn’t agree more.

I wish Shelby all the luck in the world for her Shelby’s Happy Chapped Chicken Butt Farm business and I am proud that she chose our program. If Shelby is representative of our farmers of the future then I think we are all in pretty safe hands, wouldn’t you agree? And if you are in Broomfield, CO, and you see the yellow sign outside her drive, please try some of Shelby’s eggs. You won’t find a tastier, more healthful egg in town.

For while the FDA’s decision to curb the use of cephalosporins in food animal production beginning April 2012 has been hailed as positive step in the right direction, I’d say it’s more a shuffle forwards – and a very reluctant one at that.

“We believe this is an imperative step in preserving the effectiveness of this class of important antimicrobials that takes into account the need to protect the health of both humans and animals,” pronounced Michael R. Taylor, the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, in the FDA press release. Now, as regular readers of my post will already know, I am passionate about the urgent need to curb the misuse of antibiotics in intensive farming systems. So what’s my problem with the FDA’s recent actions? After all, surely this is good news?

As various commentators – including Tom Philpott and Mary McKenna – have already pointed out, I am afraid that cephalosporins are nothing but small fry when it comes to overall antibiotic use in intensive farming. During 2009 alone, the 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. Yet cephalosporins amounted to just over 91,000 pounds of this total – less than half of one percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. The FDA’s latest figures also reveal that cephalosporin use has decreased even further during 2010 to just over 51,000 pounds. To make matters even worse, the FDA’s announcement is actually a (less strict) rehash of proposals that were first announced in 2008, and which were immediately recalled after the usual uproar from the intensive farming industry lobby.

So what’s the real outcome of the FDA’s recent action? Well, certainly some positive media fluff for the FDA for appearing to take a stand by banning a minor antibiotic that was clearly already losing favor within the industry, yet a minimal impact on the day-to-day workings of the intensive farming industry. A cozy coincidence? I wish it was.

This rather insignificant move forward comes after a pre-emptive giant leap backwards made on December 22, 2011, just as most of us were focusing on the upcoming holiday period. Notably without any accompanying press release or media fanfare in this instance, the FDA quietly announced in the Federal Register that it was withdrawing its long-standing intention to compel intensive farms to limit certain uses of the key antibiotics penicillin and tetracyclines for food-producing animals – an objective originally set in motion more than 30 years ago when government FDA scientists first began to fully appreciate the risks to human health from the laissez-faire non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in industrial farming.

We all know the story since then: over the years, the FDA has time and again cowed down to powerful political and legal pressure from the multi-billion dollar intensive farming industry lobby and its paid-up politicians, as antibiotic use in farming continued to spiral out of control in the pursuit of ever-cheaper protein and ever-increasing profit – not to mention the impact of intensification on animal welfare, our health and the environment. In its recent announcement the FDA warns that while it has not “ruled out” future regulatory action, it will instead “focus its efforts for now on the potential for voluntary reform and the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of public health.” I bet Big Ag’s CEOs are quaking in their boots.

Voluntary reform? Call me a cynic but the FDA has got to be kidding. Despite decades of mounting evidence and the emergence of a global scientific consensus that the routine non-therapeutic use of medicinally important antibiotics on industrial farms across the world is leading to the development of life-threatening multiple antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the powerful U.S. intensive farming lobby continues to aggressively dismiss the science and deny any possible risks to human health – just as the tobacco industry did in the 1970s.

While the FDA’s announcement of limitations for the use of cephalosporins in food animal production might well be a small step in the right direction, the FDA continues to show that it has no teeth when it comes to ensuring that the intensive farming industry puts human health before profit, so that these vital medicines can remain effective for as long as possible. Even the Government Accountability Office recently concluded that key government agencies – including the FDA – are simply not doing enough to combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria to public health, and that “antibiotic use in food animals contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria that may affect humans.”  Far from being the proud industry watchdog working on behalf of U.S. citizens, the sad reality is that the FDA is happy to play the role of Big Ag’s lapdog.

We’ve seen it happen with organic, where some of the rules that farmers and food manufacturers must follow in order to use the coveted organic label have been watered down or manipulated. This has happened to such an extent that many well-meaning organic consumers would now struggle to differentiate between some larger ‘organic’ operations and their industrial cousins. The same thing is now happening with the term “grassfed.” While the range of products, labels and brands that make grassfed claims grows day by day, the sad reality is that some of the grassfed meat, milk and cheese you can buy probably shouldn’t be labeled grassfed at all.

Fortunately, Animal Welfare Approved has just published an 18-page booklet called The Grassfed Primer to cut through the confusion surrounding the term “grassfed” and to help the public to understand the wide benefits that real grassfed farming systems can have for the environment, for farm animal welfare, and for our health.

The good news is that people across the U.S. are waking up to the hidden costs of cheap, industrialized meat production and damaging impact that intensive farming is having on the environment, on animal welfare, and on our health. Growing numbers of consumers are voting with their wallets and seeking out truly sustainable alternatives – including grassfed meat and dairy products.

And they would be right to do so: Scientists have shown that grass-based farming systems, where livestock eat a diet of 100 percent grass or other forage throughout their lives and have constant access to pasture or range, are far better for animal welfare and are less likely to cause environmental pollution. We know that grassfed farming has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As cattle and other ruminants graze pasture they stimulate the growth of grass, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere through its leaves and stores it in a mass of roots under the ground in a far more stable form of carbon – a process called carbon sequestration. Indeed, scientists now think that grazing cattle on pastures and restoring grasslands could play a vital role in slowing the global warming process. We also know that grassfed meat and dairy products offer real human health benefits in terms of higher levels of omega-3s, CLAs and vitamin E, as well as reducing the risk of E. coli food poisoning and the development of other antibiotic resistant bacterial diseases associated with intensive farming systems.

However, the bad news is that despite the apparent assurances that a grassfed label might offer, some of the so-called grassfed systems out there actually fall well short of our expectations because the requirements for keeping animals on pasture can vary significantly among the different grassfed labels.

When you ask most people to explain what “grassfed farming” means, they will almost always describe a pastoral farming scene with animals grazing outdoors on pasture, rather than in intensive feedlots. The truth is that a number of the grassfed labels which have recently sprung up may actually hide farming systems that still allow farmers to confine cattle in feedlots for at least part of the animals’ lives.

For example, some well-known supermarket retailers have set up their own grass-based beef standards which require participating farmers to ensure their animals spend at least two thirds of their lives on pasture. This sounds great. But when you realize that this could mean that the cattle may actually spend a third of their lives in barren confinement on a feedlot system, the bucolic “grassfed” image of this label starts to fade, and you start to wonder if this beef should really be labeled grassfed at all.

What about the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition of grassfed, which was introduced in 2007 to protect consumer and farmer interests? Unfortunately, the USDA’s voluntary grassfed standards only require farmers to ensure their animals have access to the outdoors during the grass growing season. This means that farmers in some states could confine animals for as much as six months of the year in what is essentially a feedlot — yet still label products as grassfed — provided animals are fed trucked-in cut grass or forage.

Even more shocking is that the USDA also allows these grassfed farmers to feed a grain supplement to their cattle. In fact, the USDA sets no limit whatsoever on the amount of grain supplementation that is allowed, as long as the percentage of grain fed is stated somewhere on the grassfed label. Of course, this percentage could appear in much smaller print on the back of the packaging. Some of these grassfed labeling programs also permit highly questionable farming practices such as the routine use of antibiotics and do little to address other problem areas, such as environmental pollution.

So how can you be sure that the grassfed beef you are about to spend your hard-earned cash on really does meet your expectations? When you see the Animal Welfare Approved and the American Grassfed Association logos together on a label, you can be absolutely confident that the animal was raised according to the highest welfare standards, and lived its life on pasture eating a natural diet of 100 percent grass and forage. Animal Welfare Approved certifies truly free-range systems. No feedlot or confinement operation may use the AWA logo to sell its products — and that’s a guarantee.

We published The Grassfed Primer to help people to identify and purchase meat and dairy products from real grassfed farms. We hope that it helps to explain the problems with feedlot farming systems, but also the significant solutions that real grassfed farming can offer, and why it is important to choose a “grassfed” label that really means what it says.

Find out more about real grassfed farming and Animal Welfare Approved: download The Grassfed Primer here.

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.

As the only national nonprofit organization that audits, certifies and supports farmers raising animals on pasture, we are fortunate to have become the most highly regarded food label for sustainability and outdoor farming systems.

With an ever-growing family of certified farms, AWA helps consumers find sustainable, pasture-raised products and connect with the farmers that produce them. We encourage you to seek out AWA farms and purchase their products this holiday season as a way to support pasture-based farms. Please also use this forum and social media to share your thanks.

USE THE COMMENT BOX BELOW TO SHARE YOUR THANKS TO FAMILY FARMERS.  OR… to use Twitter to thank family farmers, use the hash tag #ThankAWAFarmers. On Facebook, use @Animal Welfare Approved to tag your message.  We will share all of these messages with AWA farmers!

Food is a central focus of any holiday, but it has impacts far beyond the table. While the majority of farm animals are raised in extreme confinement, numerous studies have shown that pasture- and range-based farming is better for the environment and brings a wide range of benefits to both animals and consumers.

Our farmers are providing good, healthy food from animals raised according to the highest standards and are moving us all towards a more sustainable future. Every animal we raise outdoors on pasture brings an environmental benefit to us all – in responsible nutrient management, soil conservation and lower environmental impact.

Join us in celebrating these farmers who work so hard to feed us and who are truly stewards of our planet.

Tips for a Sustainable Holiday Season

*    Support family farmers by choosing AWA meat, dairy and eggs for your holiday cooking

*    Use AWA’s online directory to find farms, restaurants and retailers in your area carrying AWA products

*    Ask for Animal Welfare Approved meat, dairy and eggs. If retailers don’t have AWA products this year, your request will encourage them to stock them for the next year!

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?

For years, black farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or that they were forced to wait longer for loan approval than other non-minority farmers. Some contended that they endured foreclosure and financial ruin as a direct result.

Following a class action lawsuit that was initiated back in 1997 – the so-called Pigford Cases – a U.S. Court has established that between 1983 and 1997 the USDA discriminated against black farmers who applied for farm loans and other assistance on the basis of their race, and that the USDA also failed subsequently to investigate or properly respond to complaints. Following this unequivocal ruling you would think that all efforts would now turn to addressing this injustice as swiftly as possible for the thousands of individuals and families who were wronged.

Yet in a public attack that smacks of racism, Bachmann and a small number of Republican colleagues are alleging that the majority of applications being made by black American farmers under this ruling are fraudulent. According to Bachmann, this “mass fraud” is evidenced by the fact that the number of black American farmer claimants is far higher than the number of black American farmers who were on the agricultural census during the period concerned.

Bachmann’s outburst also reveals a shocking ignorance of the facts. Her apparent lack of rigor is made all the worse because we’re talking about someone who has put herself forward as a presidential candidate.

Bachmann and her cronies really should have done at least some homework before making such insulting allegations. Because the reality is that, through no fault of their own, many of the people who have made applications were left off the agricultural census at the time. In addition, many of the claimants are children of rightful recipients who have subsequently died, while some claimants are people who were driven out of farming altogether because they were unable to get a loan. These are individuals and families who have suffered discrimination because of the color of their skin and they simply want what is rightfully theirs.

Rather than jumping to conclusions that appear to be based on bigotry as opposed to fact, Bachmann and her team would do well to read a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from December 2010, entitled The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers. This enlightening 10-page document explains in very simple language why the number of people who have subsequently made claims may well be higher than the number of black Americans on the Census of Agriculture for the period concerned. It’s not rocket science.

First, it is important to note that before 2002 the Census of Agriculture only counted “principal farm operators” as part of the census process. So according to the 1982 Census of Agriculture there were 33,250 African-American operated farms; in 1987, there were 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. As the CRS report explains: “Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators…” But these statistics failed to recognize that many farms were (and are) operated by more than one farm operator.

Those of us who know how farms operate are well aware that subleases and rental agreements can allow many more people to farm, although they may not necessarily own the land or receive a census form to complete. So when the Census of Agriculture began to collect data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm from 2002 onwards, this new procedure immediately identified 29,090 African American farm operators, more accurately capturing the actual number of farmers, or “those who are actually engaged in farming.”

But, as the CRS report goes on to explain, a single farm may actually be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. A farm operator might also operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such cases, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm, yet they could be eligible to make a claim because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. It is these varying definitions of “farm,” “farm operator,” and “farm owner” that help to explain why the number of claimants was higher than the number of farms/farm operators in the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997.

Instead of making spurious allegations about mass fraud, Bachmann would do better to ask why this issue was not resolved years ago. Back in 1994, the USDA initiated a study to examine the treatment of racial minorities and women in the face of mounting allegations of endemic racial discrimination in its handling of applications for farm loans and grants. Looking at the period 1990-1995, the study found that minorities received less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans. Indeed, the final report found that the largest of the USDA loans went to corporations (65%) while another 25% of the largest payments went to white male farmers. In addition, 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers and less than 1% went to black farmers. The study also noted that, due to “gross deficiencies” in USDA data collection and handling, the reasons for the discrepancies in treatment between black and white farmers could not easily be determined. Again, these statistics come from the 1990s, not the 1950-60s.

Judge Paul Friedman’s proceedings from the Pigford Cases makes for very somber reading in this day and age, with countless graphic examples of racial discrimination experienced by black American farmers at the hands of USDA officials. From personal conversations I have had with a number of farmers affected it would seem the white farmers got their loan applications approved pretty much as they wanted, while the applications of numerous black American farmers were frequently ignored or delayed; subsequent complaints were just thrown into the garbage. John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA), even claims that he was spat at by a USDA official, who was later moved to a different office but continued to serve his time at the USDA without any further reprimand. The patience and tenacity of John and his fellow farmers in the face of such hostility is nothing short of remarkable, and I am proud that Animal Welfare Approved is associated with this ongoing fight for equality among family farms.

The settlement includes a process of application and review by a legal panel for each claim, so naysayers can rest assured that each and every application will be reviewed against a set of fair and unbiased criteria, and that each individual will be judged without prejudice. We should expect nothing less.

It’s just a pity that the same cannot be said for Bachmann.  Her unfounded allegation that the majority of applications were “fraudulent” has at best revealed a lack of rigor not becoming of a presidential candidate.  At worst it has revealed her true nature.

“In essence all three branches of the U.S. Government – legislative, executive and judiciary – have been involved in this case to some degree, acknowledging the bigotry that occurred within the USDA and the need to rectify it,” John Boyd said in a recent communication. “So it defies reason that these outrageous allegations continue. Bachmann is going to have a hard time proving to America that she is not racist if she continues to make these kinds of comments, and I hope the people of this great nation will see fit to ensure that no candidate for the highest office includes racism as part of his or her political campaign.”

Bachmann’s allegations of mass fraud are nothing less than an insult to the thousands of individuals and families who were directly and indirectly affected by racial discrimination at the USDA over the years. The very least that she can do is to issue an immediate public apology for ridiculing a group of people who have been victimized by the USDA and who simply deserve justice – nothing more, nothing less.