1
Given the WHO's focus on public relations efforts, it shouldn't be too surprising then to hear the ubiquitous food poison lawyer Bill Marler spout the same message when he addressed Congress on the subject of food safety. Marler testified that "the nation requires education about the benefits of irradiation of all mass-produced food including produce. Resistance to this practice seems to be rooted in public perception, not science." [27] Actually, it's the other way around: Resistance to the practice is rooted in science, and public perception is being manipulated by vested interested and their useful proxies.
The Center for Food Safety, however, recognizes how irradiation can be used as an economic weapon, describing to us how it contributes to consolidation of the agriculture industry and the globalization of food.
Demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the issue, The Center for Food Safety explains that "American food processing companies see the use of irradiation as a potential means of boosting profits. In fact, the motivation for expanding irradiation to additional categories of food may be less about getting rid of disease-causing organisms, and more about increasing market share in international trade. Irradiation can dramatically increase the shelf life of food. This gives corporations more flexibility in marketing and transportation, making it easier for large companies to move some operations to countries with lower labor costs and lower sanitary and safety standards. As in many other "outsourced" industries, American workers, farmers and ranchers, could lose their jobs. In other words, food irradiation supports globalization at its worst, where concerns over long-term health risks carry less weight than the lure of expanded markets. Additionally, since irradiation has become a tool for the globalization of U.S. food production, food irradiation procedures are modeled for large, centralized operations. This furthers the consolidation of "Big Ag" companies and contributes to the destruction of small U.S. family farms-- further degrading the security and diversity of our food supply."[28]
What Does Prevention Really Require?
FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in her recent statement to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that one of the key questions to ask about the food safety legislation is "Does the legislation refocus the system to place greater emphasis on prevention?"[29]
The answer to her question is no. The legislation before the Senate does not refocus the system to place greater emphasis on prevention. If it did, we would be addressing the source of pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 and that issue has been assiduously avoided by Taylor's legislation.
If we want to take preventive measures, then we must talk honestly about the unwholesome nature of the way we raise livestock animals and the speed and manner with which we dispatch them to their fate.
It's an astonishing accomplishment to assemble a piece of legislation that purports to prevent the spread of E. coli O157:H7 without ever examining its source. We can only conclude that it is an act of purposeful neglect.
A lot has been said about pathogens not being visible to the eye, and therefore, it is argued, we need to institute testing protocols to prevent them from entering the food supply. But what some players would like us to forget is that pathogens are found in feces, and feces are not invisible to the eye (assuming of course, animal carcasses aren't flying by too fast along the rail). The other thing some players would like us to forget is that USDA's FSIS inspectors no longer have the authority to correct problems they see on the line. Instead, Taylor's MegaRegs require that they "let the system work," a proposition that lands too many people in the hospital each year and some in an early grave.
Were Taylor and those supporting the food "safety" legislation truly following a science-based approach to our food-borne illness problems, they would trace the outbreaks back to the practices of confined area feeding operations: Cattle fed a high grain ration have levels of E. coli O157:H7 100 times higher than cattle allowed a roughage-based diet.[30]
What we feed to animals has a direct impact on their digestive systems and their health.
Cattle normally have a neutral pH level in their digestive system, but when they are fed grain, their systems' pH level changes, becoming more acidic. And it is in this acidic environment that E. coli 0157:H7 thrives.
If people eat meat or produce contaminated with normal E. coli, it would most likely be killed by the acidic environment in their digestive system. However, if people eat meat or produce contaminated with the more virulent strain of E. coli O157:H7, that bacteria actually thrives in our acidic digestive environment, causing systemic sickness and sometimes death. So, if we want to prevent E. Coli O157:H7 illness, we had best turn our attention to returning cattle to the diet they're evolved to eat. Doing so would also improve cattle health, reducing the diet-caused illnesses they experience due to grain consumption, which range from diarrhea, ulcers, liver disease, and a weakened immune system, to feedlot bloat, a life-threatening condition. Cattle, like people, don't thrive on the western, industrial diet.
Truth and Consequences
If we allow Taylor to get away with inappropriately applying HACCP to raw foods again -- this time to raw produce -- we'll see, under the pretext of food safety, a less safe food supply, greater market consolidation, and an increased dependence on imported fruits and vegetables.
Furthermore, the local food movement will be crushed by the weight of onerous regulations, costly new testing requirements for CAFO-generated pathogen pollution and business-busting, ineffective HACCP protocols. While some produce farmers who sell more than half of their crops directly to consumers may be spared these burdens, the remainder will find themselves playing against Big Ag under rules designed for long-distance international trade. It's a game they can't win -- by design.
