Cheap Meat at High Cost - cont.

cont. from...In the case of poultry, the egg-layers are often housed in wire “battery cages”, each housing anywhere from three to ten hens. The hens live in intolerably cramped conditions, often having a third or half of their beaks and toes removed to keep them from cannibalizing each other from the stress of confinement. When the hens’ egg-laying cycle naturally begins to decline, they are stimulated to resume egg-laying by a process called “forced molting.” According to David Fraser in The State of the Animals 2001, during the forced molting process, the hens are deprived of feed, “usually for eight to twelve days or until they lose 30-35 percent of their body weight” (Fraser 89). The birds end up plucking out each others feathers in a desperate attempt to satisfy their hunger. This is despite the fact that, “In most states, intentionally depriving an animal of sustenance is recognized as cruel and punishable under the law as a misdemeanor or felony.” (Buyukmihci). Unfortunately, many of these animal cruelty laws do not yet apply to farm animals. According to Paige M. Tomaselli of the Animal Legal and Historical Center at the Michigan State University- Detroit College of Law:

In the US, the treatment of animals raised for food while on the farm is not regulated by a federal statute. Instead, it is left to the state anti-cruelty statutes to regulate. These statutes regulate only some animals on the farm because over half of the states a have exemptions for common husbandry practices. This means that in states where common husbandry practices are exempted, animals raised for food are basically without protection. These animals may be systematically abused without redress. Even in states where farm animals are not exempted from the anti-cruelty statutes, it is often difficult to get a case into court. The state district attorney is responsible for bringing animal cruelty cases. The district attorney often times has so many human cases to prosecute that animal abuse cases never reach the courtroom. (Tomaselli)

The consequences of “forced molting” are not only to the hens. The severe stress to the hens caused by starvation and pecking lowers “the cellular immune response and increases the chances of the hens contracting intestinal Salmonella enteritidis (Se) infection. In Buyukmihci’s article on forced molting, he quotes immunologist Peter S. Holt in World Poultry-Misset, “While unmolted hens usually have to ingest about 50,000 Salmonella cells to become infected, molted hens need fewer than 10.” The Salmonella cells are then carried into our grocery store eggs and poultry products, putting us at much greater risk for Salmonella poisoning.

Beef cattle are usually kept at pasture for most of their lives but dairy cattle are often limited to “tie-stall” barns “in which each cow is confined to an individual stall and held by a neck chain, strap, or stanchion such that she can lie down but not turn around” (Fraser 91). Although, according to an American University case study, there is already a surplus of milk production in the United States, almost all dairy cattle are injected with rBST, a man-made hormone that “makes the mammary glands of dairy cows take in more nutrients from the bloodstream, therefore, produce [ing] more milk (Falco 1). The unnecessary use of rBST increases the cow’s chances of mastitis, a painful udder inflammation caused by infection.

There are several concerns about the human costs of ingesting rBST in dairy products that are currently being debated. While the FDA has concluded that dairy products tainted with rBST are safe for human consumption, the European Union is very concerned about “the increase in the level of circulating insulin-like growth (IGF-I) in the target animal and its increased excretion in the milk as a consequence of the administration of rBST. There has been epidemiological evidence for an association between circulation IGF-I levels and the relative risk of breast and prostate cancer” (Botsoglou and Feltouris 426). Plainly stated, we are increasing our risks for breast and prostate cancer by consuming dairy products that come from cows that have been injected with rBST. The rumors that rBST may contribute to earlier onset of human puberty are unfounded as of yet.

Swine production too utilizes intense confinement practices that keep the pigs from engaging in normal animal behaviors. According to David Fraser, “During farrowing (giving birth) each sow is usually confined to a “farrowing crate” large enough to permit her to stand, lie, and nurse the piglets, but not large enough to turn around” (Fraser 90). These conditions make for very efficient environments for bacteria to grow. In addition, E Magazine cites that scientists have found a link between pork and not only salmonella, but also influenza (flu), which kills about 20,000 people in the U.S. per year (Gillette).

One of the most controversial issues regarding livestock and human health is in relation to antimicrobials. Antimicrobials are medicines placed in farm animal feeds to inhibit the growth of microorganisms that could potentially cause infection. Because the animals live in such overcrowded conditions, the risk of disease breakout becomes much greater so the medicine is fed to them as a preventative measure, rather than a healing one.

Such widespread use of antimicrobials in animals, sick or not, results in human intake of unnecessary medicines and the outcome is the resistance to the antibiotics that we take when we fall ill. The American Veterinary Medical Association recently reported that an “estimated that 80% of the estimated 2.5 million annual human cases in the Unites States of campylobacteriosis are food borne and that 95% if the 1.4 million annual human cases of nontyphoidal salmonellosis are food borne. […] If a significant percentage of Salmonella or Campylobacter become resistant to the antibiotics used to treat those infections in humans, there could be a significant impact on human health” (AVMA). The use of antimicrobials would not be necessary if the animals were not so overcrowded.

Recently, the constant stream of studies and press linking the meat we eat to the resistances to antibiotics and the illnesses we contract are making people take notice. Citizens are beginning to not only ask questions, but beginning to demand answers and new legislations to protect ourselves from the long-term health problems we appear to be headed towards. Letters to our government, the FDA and USDA, and to corporate farmers demanding the halt of “intense confinement practices” are beginning to cause extensive changes in farming and regulatory policies.

The FDA just wrote a new policy regarding these issues. In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration revised a document stating that “FDA believes it is necessary to consider the potential human health impact of the microbial effects associated with all uses of all classes of antimicrobial new animal drugs intended for use in food-producing animals” (FDA). More recently reported by the Wall Street Journal, “The new policy is the FDA's biggest move so far to deal with an issue that has sparked world-wide debate. The agency will begin evaluating new drugs for livestock based on their possible impact on human health. If the effects are too strong, the FDA may refuse to approve it or restrict its use. The agency also plans to re-evaluate approved antibiotics using the same criteria” (Mathews).

Despite farmers’ arguments that the costs associated with updating farms to meet the new standards will drive up retail meat prices, consumer demand has begun to affect big business. On November 5, 2003, a news-story on CBS Nightly News highlighted McDonalds for their part in farm animal welfare. Journalist Wyatt Andrews reported that, “Quietly, both McDonalds and Burger King have become leaders in animal welfare, demanding improvements for the hens that lay the fast-food eggs and new standards for cattle and hogs destined to become sandwiches”. Companies must respond to the public outcry that corporate farmers are tinkering with our bodies and our children’s’ bodies for the sake of their own profit margins. Paying a little more for meat now is certainly better than battling cancer and other illnesses later. It seems a small price to pay to ensure our own wellbeing.

The same CBS news-story also highlighted a newly formed non-profit organization, Humane Farm Animal Care, which has recently formed in response to all of these concerns. Humane Farm Animal Care, which is based in Herndon, Virginia, has defined rigorous farming regulations that are based on the systems already in place in the UK. When Mad Cow disease decimated and contaminated much of the UK’s meat supply, they were forced to re-design their farming policies and today they have some of the strictest regulations in the world regarding farm animals. Here in the United States, this program is entirely voluntary and the farmers on the program include the “Certified Humane Raised and Handled” label on their products. Information from the Humane Farm Animal Care website, www.certifiedhumane.org, states that:

The Certified Humane Raised & Handled Label instantly assures consumers that a meat, poultry, egg or dairy product has come from animals raised in the kind of wholesome conditions that make wholesome foods possible. Food products that carry the label are certified to have come from facilities that meet precise, objective standards for farm animal treatment. […] Under the system, growth hormones are prohibited, and animals are raised on a regular diet of quality feed free of antibiotics. Producers also must comply with local, state and federal environmental standards (Humane).

It is unreasonable to expect that humans will stop eating meat all-together, as some fanatical groups demand, but it is not unreasonable to expect civilized, humane treatment of these animals when the cruelty is unnecessary. Corporate farmers’ greed has led to the use of “forced molting” for hens, and rBST hormones for dairy cows, and intense confinement practices for all of our food animals, putting us at higher risk for salmonella poisoning, and breast and prostate cancer. Because intense confinement practices are so detrimental to the animals’ health, it has led to industry-wide use of antimicrobials, which, in turn, affect us all by leaving us more and more resistant to the antibiotics we rely on to heal us.

Change is on the horizon and we are beginning to see the effects, but it is time for all American consumers to take a stand for our own long-term health. Retail power is the key. If consumers demand higher quality meat, raised under humane standards, then the grocers and restaurants will carry it. They want to sell us what we want to buy. The Humane Farm Animal Care website has pre-written letters that can be downloaded, personalized, and sent to your local grocers and restaurants requesting products and food raised and handled under the Certified Humane label. Simply put, raising our food animals in a healthy, humane environment is “the right thing to do” for both farm animals and human-kind.


Works Cited

Andrews, Wyatt. “Fast Food Embracing Animal Welfare”. CBSNEWS.com
5 Nov. 2003, 8 Nov. 2003

AVMA (The American Veterinary Medical Association). “Judicious Use of
Antimicrobials for Beef Cattle Veterinarians.” 2003. 6 Nov. 2003
http://avma.org/scienact/jtua/cattle/jtuabeef.asp

Botsoglou, Nikolas A. and Dimitrios J. Fletouris. Drug Residues in Food,
Pharmacology, Food Safety, and Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker,
Inc., 2001

Buyukmihci, Nedim C. “Forced Molting of Chickens Used for Egg
Production-Forced Molting in ‘Laying’ Hens – Fact Sheet.” Association
of Veterinarians for Animal Rights.
http://avar.org/forced_molting.html

Falco, Tish. “Case Name: Bovine Growth Hormone (rbST) and Dairy
Trade.” TED Case Studies. 7.2 (1997). 11 Nov.2003
http://www.american.edu/TED/class/all.htm#Jun1997

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Antimicrobial Resistance
Documents Available. 8 Dec. 1999, 6 Nov. 2003
www.certifiedhumane.com

Mathews, Anna Wilde. “FDA Announces Policy Designed To Curb Animal-
Antibiotics Use”. The Wall Street Journal. 24 Oct. 2003, 8 Nov. 2003
http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com

Tomaselli, Paige M. “Overview of International Comparative Animal
Cruelty Laws”. Animal Legal and Historical Center. Michigan State
University- Detroit College of Law. 2003. 10 April, 2004
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusicacl.htm