The True Cost of Cheap Food
The True Cost of Cheap Food
87 percent of the US supermarket meat (including beef, pork, chicken, and turkey products) tests positive for normal and antibiotic-resistant forms of Enterococcus bacteria. Between 2003 and 2011, antibiotic use on US livestock farms soared from 20 million pounds per year to 30 million pounds - a jaw-dropping 50 percent leap. These facilities now suck in 80 percent of the antibiotics consumed in the United States. The great bulk of these drugs are used not to treat sick animals, but rather to make them grow faster and keep them alive until slaughter under tight, filthy conditions ➜ goo.gl/mHPRU
Facts and Numbers (Source → goo.gl/AWxnM):
● In 1998, the USDA implemented microbial testing for salmonella and E. coli 0157h7 so that if a plant repeatedly failed these tests, the USDA could shut down the plant. After being taken to court by the meat and poultry associations, the USDA no longer has that power.
● In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections. In 2006, the FDA conducted only 9,164.
● In the 1970s, the top five beef packers controlled about 25% of the market. Today, the top four control more than 80% of the market.
● In the 1970s, there were thousands of slaughterhouses producing the majority of beef sold. Today there are only 13.
● The average American eats over 200 lbs. of meat a year.
Related Article, Posts and Videos:
● Consumer Reports investigation: Talking turkey ➜ goo.gl/fVx6E
● What’s bugging your meat? Shit and antibiotics, probably ➜ goo.gl/U5Kzr
● The truth about your food with filmmaker R. Kenner ➜ goo.gl/y9mkg
● Pharm Foods ➜ goo.gl/B4vEB
● The video the meat industry doesn't want you to see ➜ goo.gl/IT2eN
● Antibiotics and the Meat We Eat ➜ goo.gl/wduUI
● US meat supply massively contaminated with superbugs ➜ goo.gl/g7IP3
● Whose kids do not eat fast food? ➜ goo.gl/zX2yl
Images by Food,Inc. (goo.gl/GqS3r) and CR (goo.gl/fVx6E)
Does the cost leap include things like inflation?
ReplyDeleteAre there no stats on the Quantity purchased (As the Value is a poor metric to use due to variance)?
And you may have done better to leave the emotives out of it ("until slaughter under tight, filthy conditions") , and kept it as pure data/information?
I am hopeful for in vitro meat! To me the whole meat industry just feels uneccesary. http://www.peta.org/features/In-Vitro-Meat-Contest.aspx
ReplyDeleteIt's a nice idea, but I don't see the anti-GM groups being happy with such alternatives ... and personally, I'd be a little worried about the possible negatives of "wall-meat" :(
ReplyDeleteBut, I think we'll get there, and eventually I think it will even be proven to be safe.
I'm not really into this topic, but I don't really see what arguments the anti-GM people can make against in vitro meat more then it being scary? Scientifically there really isn't anything to be worried about? If people got insight in both the production of real meat and in vitro meat I think a lot more people would choose in vitro...
ReplyDeleteIs it "organic"?
ReplyDeleteIs it "natural"?
No and no - it is engineered and it's man-made.
Further, if they go the (likely) road of "improving" it, there is every chance it will be "altered" to make it grow/develop faster than natural counter parts, and to have higher "yields", and possibly even "more nutritional" etc.
wow.......(><)""
ReplyDelete