The Benefits and Risks of Food Steroids, Antibiotics, Sprays in the Eye of the Food Manufacturers - Research Paper Example

? The Benefits and Risks of Food Steroids, Antibiotics, and Sprays in the Eye of the Food Manufacturers and the Consumers Dakota Wood English Comp. II Bethanie Frank 19 October 2012 Outline I. Introduction II. The benefits derived by food manufactured in using food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays. A. Production cost is low. B. Food-animals are healthier and more robust. C. Supply of food-animals in the market is abundant. III. Public health advocates argue that food manufacturers are killing the consumers by using food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays in their manufacturing process A. Diseases that can be acquired from eating processed foods with food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays. 1. Cancer 2. Diabetes 3. Heart Diseases B. The routine use of antibiotics was a contributing factor in the surge of drug-resistant bacteria. C. Research of different scientists showing the risks of using food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays to humans. IV. The role of the government in the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and food sprays by food manufacturers. A. The research done by the National Research Council as commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). B. The regulations and guidelines issued by the government 1. The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act 2. The Animal Drug Availability Act C. The recommendations of the government for the food manufacturing industry for the safety and health of consumers. I. Introduction Additives such as antibiotics, steroids and other sprays were created for food for a reason. Providing food quickly and cheaply to a rapidly expanding population was not an easy task for the food industry over the past century. The short shelf life of most products made storage costly, and adverse weather conditions, animal sickness, and other environmental challenges maintained a high risk of losses to the industry. A way out for combating these challenges was offered by scientific developments: the use of pesticides to kill pests that destroy farms, antibiotics to ensure the health of livestock, and steroids to make the livestock reproduce fast enough to meet the growing demand for meat. These interventions made food more affordable, accessible, and helped reduce losses (National Research Council). However, they also brought a new series of challenges to the table. As scientific knowledge grew, so did the concern about possible ways that additives in food could harm the people consuming them. In particular, were concerns of how the chemical effects on food may promote obesity and lead to heart disease. Agricultural chemicals, pesticides, and veterinary drugs are now included among the most significant chemical hazards in food (Lawley, Curtis and Davis, 4). This paper will discuss the benefits, potential harmful effects, and governmental policies regarding the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays in food manufacturing. It shall also discuss how the government can help resolve the conflict between health advocates and the food industry. The thesis for this paper is as follows. The government should implement strict guidelines on the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays in the production process instead of banning their use in order to balance the claims of the food manufacturers as well as the advocates of public health of the benefits and risks of these food enhancers. II. The benefits derived by food manufactured in using food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays. D. Production cost is low. Mathhew Perrone has reported that early studies on antibiotics in the 1940’s and 1950’s showed that adding antibiotics to animals’ diet reduced their feeding costs, and made them ready for consumption faster. Feeding takes up about 70 percent of the cost of raising animals, and the use of antibiotics was thus a windfall for farmers. This led the FDA to approve the use of antibiotics for farm animals in the 1950’s. No harmful effects of this policy were known until then. Since the calls for banning antibiotics’ use in farm animals, some groups have advocated pursuing our current policy. Some industry groups have projected costs for farmers would rise by $1 billion over 10 years if the use of antibiotics were stopped, although those estimates have not been backed by other authorities. However, in Europe, meat prices have not risen dramatically since the EU’s ban. Danish authorities estimate the total costs for pig farmers increased by just 1 percent, or about $1.35 for every pig slaughtered. Therefore, the costs of banning antibiotics may not be so high in the U.S. E. Food-animals are healthier and more robust. Antibiotics are described as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the 20th century, since their first use for humans began in the 1940s. Soon after their discovery, studies were done to investigate their effects on the health of animals, and it was found that animals recieving drugs in their feed put on more weight in less time than animals on a traditional Matthew Perrone has explained the viewpoint of farmers – they add antibiotics to animals “to keep them healthy and meet America’s growing appetite for cheap meat”. If they had not felt its use necessary, they would themselves have chosen to avoid the huge expense of buying and feeding antibiotics to the animals. Liz Wagstrom, chief veterinarian of the National Pork Producers Council, has said that: “The modern farming system is designed to keep animals healthy, and produce large quantities of meat. The bottom line is that if these products go away, it may result in sicker pigs, more expensive food, and we don’t think it will improve public health.” F. Supply of food-animals in the market is abundant. The Unites States is the biggest global consumer of meat. The easy affordability of meat in the country was brought about by using antibiotics. Other regions, such as Europe, where antibiotic use for farm animals is banned, also have a much lower consumption of meat, as it becomes more expensive in those areas. This is reported by Matthew Perrone. III. Public health advocates argue that food manufacturers are killing the consumers by using food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays in their manufacturing process. Mike Adams reported how obesity is a very serious health risk today. He argues what has made obesity an epidemic is the regular consumption of processed food that consists of mainly carbohydrate, and very little minerals or any other nutrients. An example is white flour. A viewpoint of public health advocates is showcased by the words of Mr. Levy, who is co-founder and president of the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a nonprofit advocacy group that favors restrictions on the drugs. He said, “Why did no one act on it (evidence of the risk of antibiotics in farm animals)? Because there was a strong lobby. They said, `Well, show us the deaths. Show us the real problem. Otherwise, this isn’t so terrible.’” Some authors like Pauli Poisuo have only to complain of the way that food is manufactured appears gross, without being able to prove how that unnatural processing is actually bad for humans. He quotes how cellulose is an important component of many foods today, although cellulose is not harmful. He also describes how ammonia is used to process hamburger meat, but again, there is nothing wrong with using ammonia. Orange juice and similar products, however, are mixed with flavor packs of chemicals, and these may be potentially harmful. Also mentioned is how blueberry muffins may contain no actual vlueberries, just food color. Other critics of the food industry have some valid points. Charles Margulis has talked about how doctors warn that genetically engineered foods could pose immediate and long-term risks to our health, while the biotech industry goes about contaminating the entire food supply with its genetic experiments. It is said that once the genetically engineered organisms are released in nature, they cannot be contained or controlled. Therefore, the Greenpeace group is focusing on genetically engineered crops, which are aimed at improving the yield, taste, quality and durability of foods. Greenpeace aims to stop multinational companies from carrying out this grand food experiment. Some time ago, Greenpeace was able to successfully pressure Gerber to eliminate all genetically engineered ingredients from its products – after Gerber baby food tested positive to contamination of genetically modified corn and soy. Janet Raloff has discussed how steroids are given to animals to fatten them up and increase economic returns by farmers. There are concerns that trace remains of the steroids in the meat may affect consumers. Also, the excreta of the livestock appears to contain these hormones, and may pollute the soil and water, and could be affecting the general public at large in ways not yet understood. A. Diseases that can be acquired from eating processed foods with food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays: 1. Cancer Sodium nitrite is a known cancer-causing substance that is often added to processed foods. 2. Diabetes According to Mike Adams, processed foods contain large amounts of what is called ‘metabolic disruptors’ – items such as fructose corn syrup, monosodium glutamate, hydrogenated oils, and homogenized fats. These foods promote the development of diabetes, among other diseases. 3. Heart Diseases Mike Adams reported how the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation recently labeled body fat as ‘the new tobacco’, meaning that fat is now the leading cause of heart disease. They foundation has therefore tried to ban junk foods, which are basically processed food made by animal products involving steroids and antibiotics. B. The routine use of antibiotics was a contributing factor in the surge of drug-resistant bacteria. Matthew Perrone has explained the viewpoint of farmers – they add antibiotics to animals “to keep them healthy and meet America’s growing appetite for cheap meat”. However, there is a serious health consequence of using antibiotics in farm animals – as early as in the 1970’s, researchers began to show that the regular use of antibiotics was contributing to the emergence of drug-resistant germs, that would make the antibiotics powerless against deadly infections. C. Research of different scientists showing the risks of using food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays to humans. In Matthew Perrone’s report, one prominent study was done by Professor Stuart Levy of Tufts University in 1976, who showed that highly drug-resistant E. coli bacteria could be transmitted from chickens to the farm workers in just a few weeks. This bacteria could then cause deadly disease in humans, a huge concern. However, data also point to the contrary. A 2004 estimate conducted by scientists consulting for the meat industry, placed the likelihood that antibiotic would not work in a human due to animal use at 1 in 82 million. According to Margaret Guthrie, Food scientist Tony Jin is currently working on research to develop antiobiotic-coated food packaging and antibiotic spray coatings for containers. This is an effort to prevent outbreaks of bacteria through contaminated food, which occasionally lead to deaths. There is currently no potential risk known of using antibiotic-coated packaging. Regards to steroids, steroid hormones given to animals may persist in the animal product, as they are generally quite stable (Lawley, Curtis and Davis, 412). They may not be completely inactivated by cooking or pasteurization of food, causing unknown effects on the consumer. One of the steroids used, zaearalenone, was linked to causing toxic effects in some young girls in 1997. It was reported that early breast development occurred in a few girls in in Perto Rico in the 1980’s, although the evidence for this is not conclusive. Recent studies from the Food Standard Agency have also emerged, explained by Sean Poulter, about a link shown between the use of food additives and temper tantrums in children. IV. The role of the government in the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and food sprays by food manufacturers. Authorities in the U.S. government can regulate the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and food sprays by food manufacturers. They are the best intervening authority that can calm and gratify both sides of this heated debate. The role of the authorities would be to objectively review the evidence by research regarding the risks of food steroids, antibiotics, and food sprays, and to form regulating policies that minimize the health risks, and promote good health and nutrition. For example, studies on the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria in animals being fed antibiotics contributed to the FDA’s decision in the 1970’s to ban the nonmedical use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals. However, the farmers and drug companies pushed back, and the FDA decided not to enforce the rule. Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration has finally agreed to make plans to phase out the use of antibiotics in farm animals for nonmedical purposes over the coming three years. The FDA said it would ask drug manufacturers to voluntarily stop marketing antibiotics for nonmedical uses on their labels with a goal of completely stopping the practice in a few years. The U.S. National Chicken Council, however, warns that restricting use of antibiotics will result in sicker animals, and increase the costs for farmers as well as the price of meat and poultry for consumers. A. The research done by the National Research Council as commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The National Research Council admits that “A totally risk-free system of food production is an unreasonable and fundamentally unattainable goal.” It also admits that the magnitude of health risk to humans from food is difficult to assess. It has overseen two acts of legislation passed in this regard, outlined below. B. The regulations and guidelines issued by the government 1. The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act Two legislative actions have been taken in the U.S to regulate drug use for animals: the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act, which was passed in 1994, and in the Animal Drug Availability Act, which was signed into law October 9, 1996. 2. The Animal Drug Availability Act The Animal Drug Availability Act signed by President Clinton in October 1996, regulated the process to approve new drugs for animals. Its overall intent was to lessen the burden on the animal health industry while maintaining the protection of the public. The act eliminated some of the earlier strict requirements for field studies in animals, and made drug administration rules for animals more flexible (National Research Council). C. The recommendations of the government for the food manufacturing industry for the safety and health of consumers. The major concern in food safety has been the use of antibiotics in farm animals, which may lead to antibiotic resistance. Under the National Research Council, the Panel on Animal Health, Food Safety, and Public Health convened a committee to Examine the role of drugs in food-animal production, including accessibility and accountability in their use; summarize available knowledge on human health effects of drug use in food animals; evaluate the approval and regulatory process and delivery systems for animal drugs; and assess emerging trends, technologies, and alternatives to drug use in food animal production. The committee concluded and realized that improvements were needed in drug resistance monitoring, drug residue monitoring, drug use and alternative strategies, and an integrated, continuous, decision-making process with shared responsibilities of all stakeholders to enhance availability of needed drugs and to move toward global uniformity of this process (National Research Council). The committee developed the following conclusions and recommendations: The residue-monitoring process is critical to the protection of the consumer’s health—it must be effective and match the patterns of use for all classes of drugs in animal production systems. The drug approval process is critical to the availability and accountable use of allclasses of drugs used in animal production systems, and in the future this will include emerging issues such as genetic design strategies. If the drug-residue-monitoring system is effective, then the remaining risk–benefit issue of major proportion is microbial resistance to antibiotics. Based on this line of logic, and because of the urgent nature of this matter, it is treated more extensively than any other topic in this report. Conclusion The food manufacturers have their valid reasons in lobbying for the government not to ban the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays in the food industry. The public health advocates on the other hand, have solid grounds to encourage food manufacturers not to use food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays for the benefits of the consumers who are the main reason for flourishing profit of the food industry. It is then the intervention of the government by issuing strict guidelines on the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays that could pacify the food manufacturers and the public health advocates who have a common ground – the consumers. Thesis: The government should implement strict guidelines on the use of food steroids, antibiotics, and sprays in the production process instead of banning their use in order to balance the claims of the food manufacturers as well as the advocates of public health of the benefits and risks of these food enhancers. Annotated Bibliography Adams, Mike. “The U.S. Food Industry, FDA, and USDA Are Highly Corrupt to Protect Profits, Not People.” Natural News. n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. The author takes its cue on the courageous step being undertaken by the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation in banning junk foods, which the FDA and USDA are not bent on doing since they are allegedly being corrupted by food manufacturers. The article identifies refined and processed foods with three properties that are critically alarming to the human health. First, processed foods are lacking in nutritional value since the natural fiber, minerals, oils and vitamins are stripped during the process of manufacturing. Second, processed foods contain metabolic disruptor ingredients like hydrogenated oil, sodium nitrite, aspartame, homogenized milk fats, monosodium glutamate, sodium nitrite and the like that can cause brain damage, cancer, and diabetes. Third, processed foods barely resemble the nature given food that they are due to over processing, overcooking, preserving with chemicals, pasteurizing, homogenizing and even irradiating. Simply put they are dead food that the human body no longer needs. “Does Giving Antibiotics to Animals Harm Humans?” Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, IL. April 30, 2012. Print. This article presents two arguments: from the farmers and from the advocates of public health. The farmers insist that they have to feed the animals with antibiotics to keep them healthy and in order to keep pace with the demands of the U.S. consumers for cheap animal meat. Public health advocates on the other hand argue that such practice of farmers is giving breed to germs in animals that are resistant to antibiotic which causes deadly diseases to the consumers. The intervention of the U.S. government in banning the use of antibiotic in animals in the 1970s did not materialize. The FDA has outlined plans to phase out the use antibiotics for non-medical purposes in animals in the coming years has yet to be seen. The author showed why the use of antibiotics in farm animals was approved in the 1950s as well as the research conducted in the 1970s showing the bad effects of antibiotics especially on E. coli bacteria. The strong lobby from farmers and drug makers for the continuance of use of antibiotics such as tetracycline and penicillin after the result of the research was released forced the ruling of the FDA to ban these antibiotics to be ruled out. It will take some time before FDA will take its final stand on banning the use of antibiotics on farm animals. More statistics perhaps showing human deaths related to antibiotic-fed animals? Guthrie, Margaret. “Fortifying Food.” The Scientist Vol. 22, No. 1. January 2008. Print. In this article, the author presents the research on antimicrobial coating for liquid and film containers being conducted by Tony Jin at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jin is using science to improve the appearance and longevity of food with polylactic acid and nisin, both are derived from cornstarch. The properties of these two components can knock out L. monocytogenes and E. coli. Jin’s current experiment includes the addition of his PLA/nisin film on the insides of bottles of orange juice and egg white, as well as on the packaging of sliced turkey. Jacobson, Michael F. “Tackling Salt.” Nutrition Action Healthletter Vol.35, No. 1. January- February 2008. Print. The article reiterates that 75% of the daily salt intakes of human are derived from the foods bought from the supermarkets or ordered at restaurants rather than on the impulse of shaking salt onto our food from the ever present salt shaker on our table. The cooperation of the processed food manufacturers and the restaurant industries are crucial to bring down the salt level intake of people. The move of the FDA in the 1980s to encourage companies to cut down by 50% the use of salt in their products did not work. The author theorized that it will take about 100 years to bring down to 50% the sodium content of the food in the market. But there’s hope gleaming in the horizon. Several companies including McDonald’s, General Mills, and Con Agra are already starting to cut down on salt. With petitions from concerned groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and a personal letter from every concerned individual to the FDA, the target of reducing salt intake to prevent heart attack and stroke will be achieved. Lawley, Richard, Laurie Curtis and Judy Davis. The Food Safety Hazard Guidebook. RSC Publishing. 2008. Print. This guidebook will open the eyes of every reader to whether steroid hormones used for promoting growth in food animals will post any risk to the health of human. Studies that were conducted showed that steroid hormones in food were suspected to be the culprit in early puberty among girls. However, there is no known study yet linking the exposure to higher than normal levels of steroid hormones from hormone-treated animal food. The use of antibiotics in farm animals as growth promoter was also discussed. The side effects of antibiotics such as the resistance to Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, Campylobacter jejuni and enterococci were also discussed. The control options and legislation pertaining to the use of steroid hormones and antibiotics in meat producing animals were lengthily discussed in the book. Margulis, Charles. “Playing With Our Food: A Massive Food Experiment Already Underway.” Earth Island Journal Vol. 17, No. 4. Winter 2002. Print. The author wants the readers to know that thousands of products, including best-known brand name of foods, contain ingredients from genetically engineered (GE) crops. The consumers are not aware of this since these products are not labeled as such. It also tackles the move being done by the Greenpeace group to stop multinational companies in this grand food experiment. It is said that once the genetically engineered organisms are released in nature, they cannot be contained or controlled. These companies are considered the worst producers of pollution in the 21st century. The role of Greenpeace was also reckoned when it successfully pressured Gerber to eliminate all genetically engineered ingredients from its products – after Gerber baby food tested positive to contamination of genetically modified corn and soy. The campaign to stop food experiments with genetically engineered ingredients is widely spreading to consumers, and the advocates are seeing this as a remarkable step towards positive change. National Research Council. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Risks and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1999. Print. The book was conceptualized after public concern over food safety in relation to the use of drugs in food animals were received by the government. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instructed the National Research Council to examine and review the benefits and risks associated with drug use in the food animal industry. The study included the poultry industry, swine industry, dairy industry, beef industry, veal industry, sheep industry, and aquaculture industry. Disease control and prevention as well as trends in drug use were extensively studied. The book also includes the quality assurance programs to be implemented in the different food animal industries. Poisuo, Pauli. “The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry Is Feeding You.” Cracked. n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. This article lists down the ingredients in six foods that the consumers are not aware of that may be detrimental to their health. The cellulose wood pulp which provides texture to processed foods is 30% cheaper than the expensive ingredients that make food attractive. The worst part of this is that cellulose is not food at all, though it is edible and non-poisonous. The flavor pack in orange juice, the ammonia in hamburgers, the artificial blueberries are among the lies also included in the article. The truth in raising the so called termed free range chickens were highlighted as well as the health claims of food products such as the yoghurts. Poulter, Sean. “The Proof Food Additives Are As Bad As We Feared.” Mail Online. 18 May 2007. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. The article echoes the warning given by parents to their children to avoid artificial additives in drinks, sweets, and processed foods. The behavior problems among children associated with the different food additives were lengthily discussed. Among the food additives reported were Tartrazine commonly found in sweets, biscuits and mushy pies; Ponceau 4R found in sweets, biscuits, and drinks; Sunset Yellow found in sweets, drinks, and ice cream; Carmoisine found in biscuits, jelly, sweets and ready meals; Quinoline Yellow found in sweets, smoked haddock, and pickles; Allura Red found in soft drinks and cocktail sausages; and Sodium benzoate found in soft drinks, baked goods and candies. c” Science News Vol. 161, No. 1. January 5, 2002. Print. The article discusses the hormones such as androgens, estrogens and progestins fed to cattle to promote build up of muscles and weight gain. The cancer threat posed by the use of these hormones to animals that are in turn being consumed by humans was discussed in John A. Mclachlan’s studies on synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES). The concerns of different researchers like Bernard Jegou in a meeting in Copenhagen in May 2000 were also presented. The ban imposed by Europe and the regulation of the Center for Veterinary Medicine of the Food and Drug Administration was shown by the author. This article will give the pros and cons of the use of hormones to food animals. Works Cited Adams, Mike. “The U.S. Food Industry, FDA, and USDA Are Highly Corrupt to Protect Profits, Not People.” Natural News. n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. “Does Giving Antibiotics to Animals Harm Humans?” Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, IL. April 30, 2012. Print. Guthrie, Margaret. “Fortifying Food.” The Scientist Vol. 22, No. 1. January 2008. Print. Jacobson, Michael F. “Tackling Salt.” Nutrition Action Healthletter Vol.35, No. 1. January- February 2008. Print. Lawley, Richard, Laurie Curtis and Judy Davis. The Food Safety Hazard Guidebook. RSC Publishing. 2008. Print. Margulis, Charles. “Playing With Our Food: A Massive Food Experiment Already Underway.” Earth Island Journal Vol. 17, No. 4. Winter 2002. Print. National Research Council. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Risks and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1999. Print. Poisuo, Pauli. “The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry Is Feeding You.” Cracked. n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. Poulter, Sean. “The Proof Food Additives Are As Bad As We Feared.” Mail Online. 18 May 2007. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. Raloff, Janet. “Hormones: Here’s the Beef: Environmental Concerns Reemerge over Steroids Given to Livestock.” Science News Vol. 161, No. 1. January 5, 2002. Print. Read More