The USDA Permits The Dangers Lurking in Animal-Based Foods

Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD

Progressive Radio Network, November 22, 2024

For over 70 years, the USDA has shaped the dietary framework for Americans, crafting food guidelines to maintain the nation’s health. Alongside the FDA, it bears the responsibility of regulating food safety and ensuring that our diets comprise balanced proteins, fats, and carbohydrates from trustworthy sources. Yet, as we reflect on the health landscape of previous generations, a stark contrast emerges between then and now, underscoring a disturbing trajectory in public health and dietary norms.

Baby boomers and Gen X, who came of age from the 1940s through the 1960s, recall a time when childhood illnesses like measles, mumps, and chickenpox were common but typically resolved without significant complications, leaving children with lifelong immunity. Schools emphasized USDA nutritional guidelines through home economics classes, and children led active lives, fostering physical fitness. Victory gardens in backyards exemplified a cultural norm of cultivating fresh produce, and the concept of body pollution—the cumulative impact of environmental toxins on health—was largely unheard of. Obesity, autism, asthma, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, and chronic inflammatory illnesses were rare or virtually non-existent.

In stark contrast, today’s youth face an epidemic of obesity and nutrient deficiencies, including critical vitamins and minerals such as C, D, E, zinc, and magnesium. Obesity alone contributes to 335,000 deaths annually, accounts for over $260 billion in healthcare costs, and is linked to millions of disability-adjusted life-years lost. Predictions published in The Lancet forecast a grim future: by 2050, 80% of adults and nearly 40% of youth aged 15–24 will be overweight or obese. Teenagers, increasingly unfit, struggle to participate in sports or qualify for military service. Shockingly, many of today’s children may not outlive their parents.

Equally troubling is the surge in mental health crises among the young. Teen suicide rates continue to rise, with 20% of teenagers contemplating self-harm—a phenomenon rarely, if ever, remembered by earlier generations. The proliferation of serotonin-inhibiting drugs has done little to stem the tide, pointing to deeper systemic issues.

A primary culprit is the denaturalization and industrial over-processing of food. Today’s diets are rife with harmful additives, excessive salt, unhealthy sweeteners like high-fructose corn syrup, and a host of contaminants, including forever chemicals. microplastics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Regulatory agencies such as the USDA and FDA have repeatedly supported and protected these questionable practices, often with the backing of advisory panels riddled with conflicts of interest. Private industries, wielding immense wealth and power, dictate what Americans consume, perpetuating diets devoid of fresh, nutritious ingredients.

This crisis highlights a troubling pattern of leadership at federal health agencies, often staffed by medical professionals from prestigious institutions who have failed to enact meaningful reforms. Despite their credentials, these leaders have been unable—or unwilling—to challenge the corporate capture that dominates our food supply and undermines public health.

Enter Robert Kennedy Jr., whose unique qualifications and decades-long career as a legal scholar and activist position him as an unparalleled candidate to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Unlike his predecessors, Kennedy brings a history of identifying and combating institutional corruption, the very force at the heart of America’s health crisis. While he may lack traditional medical or academic titles, he possesses a deep understanding of the systemic issues plaguing federal health agencies and the vision to champion transformative change. His leadership could address not only the regulatory failings but also promote healthier lifestyles and stricter oversight of the nation’s food and agricultural policies.

In light of this potential, examining the dangers posed by the animal-based foods that dominate the American diet is a critical step toward understanding the broader health implications. These staples, laden with toxins and chemical residues, have far-reaching consequences for public health, as we will explore in the following discussion.

The Dangers Lurking in Animal-Based Foods

Meat Additives

For lack of a better word, the meat sold in this country’s grocery stores and restaurants is from animals so “shot up” with hormones, antibiotics, tranquilizers, preservatives, additives, and pesticides that it is almost more pharmaceutical than nutritional. These added toxins have been linked to negative long-term effects onhealth. Here’s just one example: the highly toxic organophosphates and brain damage. Human electroencephalograms showed that a single exposure could alter the electrical activity of an infant’s brain for years and possibly cause abnormal behavior and learning patterns. The study, conducted by Harvard Medical School concluded “there is a dangerous possibility that organophosphate pesticides have the potential for causing long term brain damage.” As a side note, organophosphates also decrease sex drive, impairconcentration, and cause memory loss, schizophrenia, depression, irritability and more; plus, the US Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to limit their availability to the public.^[i]

One group—the most egregious in some ways—is colored dyes used to beautify meat. Perhaps their use is the industry’s implicit acknowledgment that they would lose flocks of consumers if they tried to sell their meat in its untouched-up state, as slimy, brownish green, rotting flesh. Like morticians, meat packers artificially treat this organic material to give it the colors of life. Red and violet dyes are added to beef and pork, while yellow dyes are put into chicken feed to enhance the color of the chickens’ flesh. 

The majority of synthetic colorings used by the food industry are coal-tar derivatives. Some dyes, even when labeled “US Certified,” meaning they meet minimum government standards, have not been sufficiently tested for safety, and some of these have been correlated with increased incidence of cancer andreproductive damage leading to birth defects, stillbirths, and infertility in animals. Red 40 (Allura Red AC) used in processed meats such as hot dogs and sausages, has been linked to childhood hyperactivity, hives and has shown to be potentially carcinogenic in animals. Carmine, a natural dye derived from crushed bugs and also used in processed meats, is associated with a wide range of reactions including erythema, angioedema, bronchospasms, allergic bronchiolitis, etc. 

A much more necessary group of chemicals from the meat industry’s standpoint is preservatives such as two petroleum derivatives: butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and butylated hydroxyanisole (BRA). They prevent the fat in meat from becoming rancid. They are found everywhere –from lard, chicken fat, butter, cream, bacon, sausage, cold cuts, milk, vegetable oils, potato chips, peanut butter, shortening, raisins, breakfast cereals, and chewing gum. Though the industry depends on them to prolong their products’ shelf life, they are hardly safe, with their toxicity being associated with skin blisters, fatigue, eye hemorrhaging, and respiratory problems.

Other problematic additives: 

·      Artificial flavorings, some which have proven to be carcinogenic

·      EDTA, used to prevent the oxidation of fats and oils, in large enough amounts can kill cells

·      Monosodium glutamate (MSG): a flavor enhancer that can cause the popularly titled “Chinese restaurantsyndrome” contributes to headaches, tightness in the chest, impaired concentration, and fatigue; there is also evidence that MSG, in any form, exacerbates cancer,^[ii] and when manufactured using acidhydrolysis contains cancer-causing substances.^[iii]

Antibiotics

Overuse of antibiotics is prevalent throughout medical care and the meat and fish industries. While most of us think of antibiotics as “good” in that they can save lives from threatening harmful bacteria, we erroneously don’t think of them as dangerous to our bodies when, in fact, they are if used in excess.

Those who pay attention to the news will know that the overuse of antibiotics in both animals (cattle, pigs, chickens, etc.) and people has generated new, more resolute strains of bacteria that put up severe resistance to drugs meant to cope with them. Organisms’ ability to adapt to environmental conditions is acontinuous and ongoing activity, which is why much of science is regularly organizing itself around a new “bug” or “pest” (think pesticides) to fight. This is how drug-resistant bacteria and “superbugs” come into existence in our foods.

Because antibiotics are prevalent in animal-raising, if you consume these products three times a day, as the typical American does, there is an accumulation of these toxins in your bloodstream and tissues over time. A person eating such a contaminated animal may also be consuming the antibiotic-resistant bacteria that developed in the animal, increasing a person’s risk for illness.

In one study, grocery store products in Minnesota were tested and showed resistant bacteria in meatsamples, especially turkey. Consumers would be alarmed to learn that their “food” is infected with Listeria, E coli, and Salmonella, three of the most serious contaminants in inexpensive meat products over the past two decades. Not only do these bacteria withstand the antibiotics meant to suppress them, but also they often escape lax quality control processes at large factory farms. Thus, the presence of Salmonella, norovirus,botulism, and E.coli have been reported in meat products across the country in such trusted brands as Safeway, McDonalds, Walmart, and Arby’s. As a side note, sadly, children and the elderly—many of whomhave struggles with nutritional deficiencies, unhealthy living environments, and heavy dosages of medications, including vaccines—are especially susceptible to these bacteria-infected meats.

Typically, when people take an antibiotic, they are bombarding themselves directly while adding to the antibiotics that have already accumulated in the body’s tissues. At the same time, the physical body’s ability to fight-off other pathogens is weakened, which then requires more powerful antibiotics. In time, through ongoing assault, the body’s system fails—it could be a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, or bacterial infection or virus that cannot be contained.

The CDC estimates that 48 million people fall ill, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases annually.^[iv] A report in the New England Journal of Medicine linked 18 cases of food poisoning, which claimed one life and hospitalized 11 people, to hamburger meat riddled with a drug-resistant form of Salmonella. The contaminated beef was traced to a cattle farm in South Dakota where the livestock were consuming grain that had been over treated with the antibiotic tetracycline.

The price of utilizing these antibiotics in animals to the extent that they are today in the US is extremely high. Eighty percent of all antibiotics used in the US are for farm animals.^[v] Swine accounts for the highest percentage (43%) followed by cattle (41%). 

Is there a problem with the vast tonnage of antibiotics used in food animals? Certainly. Perhaps this is why the FDA has been sued over its refusal to release data on antibiotic use in animals. The alarms havebeen sounded because the saturation of our food supply and human population with antibiotics is the primary cause for the staggering explosion in cases of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infection. Approximately 1.2 million hospitalized Americans are infected by MRSA per year,^[vi] and colonized MRSA infections have a 36 percent mortality rate.^[vii]

As the numbers suggest, the hard-nosed business people that run these factory farms do not administer antibiotics to their livestock lightly, or in a careful and controlled manner. They have become beholden to these drugs for the survival of their businesses. The antibiotics are given as a regular course to stave off the disease that would otherwise be rampant in the close, unsanitary, injurious conditions in which meat and dairy animals are forced to live. If they did not dose these animals with a bumper load ofpharmaceuticals, these owners would have far fewer “healthy” animals for slaughter. In the case of young cattle, however, there is a second reason for the dosing. Some animals are deprived of iron and rendered anemic in order to yield the white, pale meat preferred by those who prepare and eat veal. Being sickly, the calves are prey to all sorts of infection, which the antibiotics help to stave off.

Consequently, Americans are consuming antibiotics through their food multiple times daily, which ismuch higher than that found in Europe where control on drug use in animals is tighter. In addition to being using prophylactically, antibiotic drugs are also supplied when an animal comes down with a specific disease,such as, leprospirosis, parvovirus, erysipelas, E.coli infection, atropic rhinitis, gastroenteritis, C. perfringens, and pseudorabies.

One of the more notorious of the new resistant agents is Enterococci. In one study, a high percentage of Enterococci bacteria found in food products, including meat, dairy and poultry, were resistant to suchcommon antibacterials as tetracycline (over 30% of the strains were resistant), erythromycin (over 20% resistant), and streptomycin (over 10% resistant). Even more shocking, a small 0.7%, were resistant tociproflaxin, one of the strongest antibiotics on the market.

Things are getting so bad with the growth of antibiotic-resistant pathogens that the World Health Organization has issued a warning directive claiming that infectious diseases will soon outstrip our ability to contain them with any existing medicines. Antibiotic resistance is one big contributor to this trend, and feeding antibiotics to farm animals, which then gets into meat-eaters’ diets, plays no small part in this tendency toward developing super-resistant pathogens.

Let’s quickly note some other grim results of the overuse of drugs—antibiotic and otherwise—inanimals. For one, many additives given to animals are not tested for their safety to people, since it is erroneously assumed that if the administration of antibiotics is discontinued well before the animal isslaughtered, then traces of it will not remain in the meat. Take the hormone Carbadox, used to enlarge market-bound pigs, and removed from their diet a month or so before the animals are killed; or the drugPaylean, which is given to pigs to shift their biochemistry from fat production to meat production. Neither hasbeen evaluated for its effect on humans, which is beneficial, of course, for enterprising drug companies and the governmental regulatory bodies they control.

Most shocking of all considerations, if these antibiotics and other drugs don’t reach meat eaters throughland-animal flesh, they may unknowingly be getting them from the sea. Industrial runoff and dumping enable drugs to drain into the oceans, and, due to this, catches of sea life are more toxic than ever before. So fish and other seafood may be contributing to the current antibiotic resistance we are experiencing since theycan be contacting traces of antibiotics in the water that they breathe.

Unfortunately, the meat and dairy industries are not required to inform consumers which products have been treated with antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, and which have not.^[viii] For that matter, they don’t even have to inform us if the meat comes from factory manufactured cloning.

The first question one might ask about all this is: why is it that the government agencies that are chargedwith protecting our health don’t do something about this?

Believe it or not, they actually have tried. In 1977, the FDA tried to ban antibiotics in the animal industry, but their efforts were shot down by the successful lobbying of the powerful livestock and drug companies, such as the then largest manufacturer of livestock antibiotics, American Cyanamid.^[ix] It’s a sorry story of thegovernment lying down to wealthy, free-spending companies, who used the same argument then as they donow, which is—as the pro-industry American Farm Bureau Federation puts it—curtailing the widespread useof antibiotics will cause a jump in the cost of meat. And we know they are not figuring in the gigantic tally of health bills run up by those suffering unnecessarily from additional illnesses attributable to the widespread use of these chemicals. Of course they are not, because it is not in their interest to do so.

One more recent antibiotic candidate is bambermycin widely used in chicken feed. The National BroilerCouncil says this item poses no health risk. By the way, this is the typical response you get from industry advocates who know little about human health and how the body works. However, when they are introduced, no one knows with certainty the short or long-term health risks of these drugs. A biochemist at the NationalResources Defense Council believes “all antibiotics [even the newer ones] can cause resistance to occur eventually.”^[x] And one of the newer ones, chloramphenicol, even in low doses has already been shown toinduce aplastic anemia in humans, a deadly disease that prevents the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow.^[xi]

We can now better understand why the meat industry can boast: You no longer need to go to the doctorwhen you have an infection. Just take a bite of one of our products and you’ll get a full spectrum of antibiotics.

Hormones

No discussion of meat safety would be complete without mentioning that at one time the FDA allowed the synthetic hormone DES (diethystilbestrol) to be used in the meat industry. DES rapidly increased the size andweight of cattle. On average, a calf weighs about 80 pounds and needs to grow to anywhere from 700-1,200 pounds for sale in just 14-16 months. In contrast, according to Homestead Organics, it takes 2-4 years fornatural grass-fed cattle to go to market.^[xii]14 It may be remembered that the FDA also approved DES to be prescribed to women to reduce the risk of miscarriage and premature births. There was a 40-fold increase inrare vaginal tumors in women and girls that were exposed to this drug in utero. There was also a significantrise in breast cancer. The FDA banned the use of DES in women in 1971 and later in cattle feed in 1972 for the same reasons. However, the FDA permits the use of synthetic steroid hormones in cattle like estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone to name a few. We now know after many human trials that these very same hormones, which are prescribed to millions of women for treating menopausal symptoms, have been shown to increase the risk of certain cancers, cardiovascular disease, and dementia. 

Hormones are one of the main additives used in the US for regulating breeding, and to tranquilize andpromote weight gain. The downside for us, if not for the meat sellers, is that synthetic hormones can cause cancer in the recipient animals. This is not a downside for the business side of animal agriculture since it usually doesn’t affect the marketability of the meat.

One of the estrogen hormones commonly fed to livestock may increase women’s chances of contractinguterine and breast cancer, and may cause children to enter puberty prematurely. Add Raigro to this list, an estrogen-like compound; Lutalyse, a prostaglandin (often given to an entire herd so that they will ovulate atthe same time), which may disrupt women’s menstrual cycles and cause pregnant women to miscarry; and, finally, the hormone androgen, which may cause liver cancer.

DDT and Other Additives

By cooking meat, a chef creates chemicals (HCAs) that are health hazards. This could be avoided by, for instance, eating beef raw, as is done in some cultures. But it is a terrible and potentially deadly idea due to worms, parasites, and life-threatening bacteria. Furthermore, there is nothing that can be done (short of abstention from eating meat) to guard against the chemicals that are put into it, such as food coloring, antibiotics, and hormones as well as add-ins that are introduced into livestock at the breeding phase. Throughout their existence, livestock and dairy cows are fed large amounts of chemically treated feed. To judge whether a particular meat has traces of these additives would be difficult, not only because meat is difficult to analyze, but because the government offers little help, allowing the use of over 500 chemical additives while very lightly monitoring how these chemicals are administered.

As an example of the noxious chemicals that contaminate meat, let’s look at DDT. This pesticide is so dangerous it was banned in 1972, following on the heels of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which brought topublic notice the cancer-causing properties and other dangers associated with this pesticide. The chemical became popular in the ’40s, and was used extensively for nearly three decades. Many people don’t know that the DDT that got into plants came not through what had been sprayed on them to kill bugs but through the soil. After plants were dosed with it every year for decades, our soil became saturated with DDT. That means that even when farmers stopped spraying the plants, its presence would remain, and for up to 2 to 15 years.^[xiii] Next step, livestock eat the crops and concentrate the chemical; then we eat the livestock, DDT and all. DDT is extremely persistent and can still be present in crops and soil in other parts of the world in their agricultural practices and in disease-control programs.^[xiv] This is something to be mindful of when purchasing non-organic products outside of the US.

DDT is a substance that inadvertently gets into animals through the food chain, but many other unfriendly chemicals are purposely given to livestock. The food additive sodium nitrate, used as a color fixative in most processed meats, including hot dogs, bologna, cured meats, bacon, meat spreads, sausage, and ham, is terribly detrimental to health. When ingested, nitrates form potentially cancer- causingsubstances called nitrosamines. While vitamin C has been found to block the formation of some nitrosamines, and some bacon producers have added vitamin C to their products to make them less of a cancer threat,about two-thirds of C’s power is lost during cooking.

And meat is not the only animal product that shows the effect of these pharmaceuticals. The chemicalsfed to and sprayed on milk cows pass into their milk while those given to chickens appear in their eggs. So,with any animal product you eat, you can’t help getting a side order of drugs.

Other Miscellaneous Additives

One particular additive used in poultry farming is ionophores, such as monensin and salinomycin. These drugs are commonly used to control coccidiosis, a parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Eimeria. They are also used to improve feed efficiency, although not to promote growth in the same way as antibiotics. Poultry farmers are supposed to allow for a withdrawal period in order for ionophore residues to be removed from the meat before it reaches consumers. Excessive exposure through chicken consumption containing high ionophore residues can pose serious health risks to humans such as cardiac arrhythmias and neurological issues due to the way ionophores affect cellular ion transport. These compounds disrupt normal ion gradients that affect muscle function and heart rhythm. Farmers are solely responsible for following the FDA guidelines for proper withdrawal periods. But this is wishful thinking when a typical large factory farm or processing facility can slaughter anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million chickens a day and the largest facilities, such as Tyson Foods, can process 2 million per day during peak production.^[xv]

Rather than go further down the list of health-weakening additives that go into animal products, it is important to underline the idea that the effects of toxins in animal products are not quickly evident. One doesn’t eat a slab of bacon and get sick the next day. The toxins work slowly but insidiously as Dr. Rudolph Ballentine explains. He writes that illness begins with toxicity at the cellular level. Cellular toxicity and deathprogresses from the organelle stage, to the cell stage, to the organ stage. “When a great enough number of the cells that constitute an organ die, then the organ becomes diseased.”^[xvi]

Glyphosate and Genetic Modified Feed

Glyphosate, better known as Roundup, is a widely used herbicide in genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation. The herbicide has been shown to pose significant health risks when consumed by humans either directly or indirectly through animal meat from livestock fed GM grains like soy and corn. Depending upon soil quality, temperature and microbial activity it can have life of several months and accumulate in the animal tissue, notably fat, liver and kidneys. Studies show that the meat and organs from livestock fed on GM grains with high glyphosate residues will retrain these chemicals when consumed by humans.^[xvii]

Robert Kennedy Jr. played a pivotal role in several groundbreaking lawsuits against Monsanto, the producer of glyphosate, and its link to cancer. He helped secure landmark verdicts, including cases where juries awarded multi-million-dollar damages to plaintiffs suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after prolonged glyphosate exposure. Among the most notable victories was the case of Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after prolonged exposure to glyphosate. The jury awarded Johnson $289 million in damages (later reduced), citing that Monsanto acted with malice and failed to warn consumers of glyphosate’s carcinogenic risks. Internal company documents revealed Monsanto’s deliberate attempts to suppress scientific research and manipulate regulatory agencies. His legal efforts highlighted Monsanto’s long history of suppressing evidence and manipulating public opinion about glyphosate’s safety.^[xviii]

In addition to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers, glyphosate has been shown to contribute to gastrointestinal disorders by disrupting the gut’s microbiome leading to dysbiosis, a condition associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease and leaky gut syndrome.^[xix] According to Cedars-Sinai, the prevalence of IBS has been steadily increasing in American children and adolescents. It affects approximately 10-15 percent of children largely due to diet and adverse gut microbiome alterations.^[xx]

The herbicide also has been shown to interfere with hormone signally pathways that may disrupt normal development and reduce fertility.^[xxi]  Approximately 10 percent of American children are affected by some type of endocrine disruption, for example impacting the onset of puberty, that is certainly associated with the abundance of environmental and dietary chemical endocrine disruptors.^[xxii] In addition, pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease has surged by 30 percent since 2020 and chronic kidney disease now affects 1 in 1,000 children. This condition too is associated with dietary toxins, glyphosate bioaccumulation, poor diets and metabolic syndromes.^[xxiii]

Similarly, animals fed on glyphosate-rich GM grains accumulate higher residues in their meat. The altered protein profiles found in GM grains can induce allergies and disrupt the gut’s flora by amplifying pathogenic bacteria.^[xxiv]

Glyphosate and GM grain-fed meat represent significant risks to human health and, therefore, highlights the urgent necessity of dietary and policy reform to improve public health. Consuming organic, non-GMO-fed animal products can mitigate exposure to glyphosate residues and their associated risks.

Pesticides… and the Link to Our Water Supply

Pesticides are no small health problem. The US uses over 1 billion pounds of pesticides every year on farms, in home yards, places of business and in parks. According to the watch organization Beyond Pesticides, “UA farms used 2.6 million pounds of three neonicotinoids (neonics) on corn and soy, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid. Farma applied nearly 1.5 million pounds solely to animal feed production.”^[xxv] It is estimated that over 100,000 people in the United States are subjected to pesticide poisoning annually—and not only farmers and farm workers, but a countless number of other individuals whounknowingly ingest pesticides in their daily diet. The most common pesticides contaminating meat and dairy areglyphosate, atrazine, dicamba, 2,4-D, neonicotinoids and bifenthrin

So how many of these pesticides are we getting and where are they coming from?

For the average American’s daily pesticide intake is between 2.5-5.0 mg, which accumulates to over 1.8 grams every year.^[xxvi] Of this, about 4 mg are stored in fat tissue and can lead to toxicity symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, muscle aches, and fever. Meat advocates might object, since even vegetarians may begetting these deadly residues through plant foods. Consider, however, that when a cow consumes soybean and corn feed containing pesticide traces, much of the poison permanently settles in the animal’s fat tissue.The person who comes after and devours a T-bone from this cow is getting concentrated amounts of toxic residues. By contrast, if the pesticide-treated soybeans were eaten directly, the toxins would be much less concentrated.

A government report estimates that one-sixth of all meat and poultry eaten in the US contains “potentially harmful residues of animal drugs, pesticides or environmental contaminants.” The report goes on to note that of the nearly 200 known drugs and pesticides found in meat and poultry products, “42 are known to cause or are suspected of causing cancer, 20 of causing birth defects, 6 of causing mutations, 6 of causing adverse effects on the fetus, and others of causing similar toxic effects.”

These poisons also pollute the water supply through runoffs into lakes, streams, and rivers. This enormous leakage infiltrates “63% of rural America, [home to] some 39 million people, who are drinking water that may be unsafe,” according to The New Farm magazine. This same water is given to the animals being readied for slaughter and consumption.

Moreover, further studies reveal that the beleaguered, pesticide-tainted, water- drinking population is spread across our country. Three-quarters of rural Western populations are quaffing this excessivelycontaminated beverage; 65% in the Southern and North-Central states; and 45% in the Northeast. To makematters worse, along with these pesticides are several other health-destabilizing substances such as the following:

·      Lindane: a noxious insecticide that affects the central nervous system

·      Mercury: known to cause kidney and neurological damage

·      Cadmium: a toxic metal associated with high blood pressure and kidney damage

·      Lead: known to damage the nervous system and kidneys

·      Nitrates: the chemical precursor of cancer-causing nitrosamines

After perusing these contaminants in our meat and dairy supply, we might suggest to federal health officials that they create a replacement food pyramid, upon which they highlight the “features” of the products they are selling. Instead of such categories as meats and dairy, they would have to add pesticides, dyes, antibiotics, and preservatives, too!

 “Natural” Toxins

We should not ignore the possibility of bacteria getting in the meat and think of other contaminants.

Animals, like humans, continuously eliminate waste products from their tissues and cells to the surrounding blood. This natural process comes to an abrupt halt when the animal is slaughtered; the waste material then present remains intact, and we ingest it when eating its flesh. You might say that our bodies’ various organs of elimination—lungs, bladder, kidneys, sweat glands, and liver—should be adept at disposing of such wastes, but is it wise to add to their workload, which is already consumed with ridding our bodies of worn-out cells and the by-products of digestion? Our organs may well respond, if overloaded, bydeveloping any of several degenerative diseases.^[xxvii]

There are known dangers of meat remaining for too long in the digestive tract; it begins to putrefy, whichcan cause noxious gas, headache and lethargy, among other symptoms. However, meat can also putrefyoutside before it is consumed. Unlike fruits and vegetables, meat starts to degrade the moment the animaldies, and continues to degenerate during processing, packaging, and transportation to the market orbutcher. After slaughter, a steer is sectioned and moved into cold storage. Some cuts may then be aged for a time to increase tenderness. The meat may be stored in a warehouse before finally being sent to a supermarket for packaging. Of course when it is refrigerated degeneration is slowed, but for parts of its processing time it is not kept cool.

It is important to note that for any of the time that the meat was left out of refrigeration, the bacteria were proliferating like mad. Each gram of sausage stored at room temperature for 20 hours has its live bacteria count increase by 70 million, each gram of beef by 650 million, and each gram of smoked ham by awhopping 700 million. The Michigan State University Department of Human Ecology once issued a warningthat reheated food could contain the toxins of bacteria previously in food, and it warned that though cooking may kill the bacteria, the toxins could still be present.^[xxviii]

Even worse, some bacteria form spores that are not killed by cooking. Then, once the leftovers are setaside, the spores germinate and grow. The new bacteria may be strong enough to survive a second heating.Moreover, even if new bacteria do not grow, the toxins they release may stay around to inflict damage. Dr. Al Wagner of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service backs this notion by saying of certain bacteria, that “although cooking destroys the bacteria, the toxin produced is heat stable and may not be destroyed.”^[xxix]Bacterial toxins left in meats can shut down the body’s immune response by affecting a cell mechanism essential to attacking threats such as viruses and bacteria.^[xxx]

More than the dangers that face us through ingestion of animal products is an even greater danger—our inaction toward a healthier plant-based lifestyle that does not include a diet of animal products. Yes, there are very practical health reasons for putting an end to current factory farming practices, but every citizen has it within their own means to reduce their meat intake to lessen risks of dietary related illnesses. 

Dairy Additives

At this point in history, the presence of natural hormones in cow’s milk and their effect on us seems almost minor compared to the dangers due to the over-industrialization of animal-raising today. Another pollutant ofmilk and dairy products that accompanies the raising of livestock industrially is recombinant bovine growthhormone (rBGH), which is routinely injected in dairy cattle to increase milk production.

For years, Monsanto (now Bayer)—perhaps the world’s wealthiest and largest agro-developer and food industry lobbyist—has marketed rBGH under the trade name Posilac. The company created a global monopoly on the manufacture and sale of this dairy additive before selling it to Eli Lilly for $300 million. Earlier,  Monsanto lobbied aggressively with the FDA and the National Dairy Council to sustain its freedom tosell Posilac to dairy farmers. Many voiced health concerns about the use of the hormone. There became suchan outcry that, in 1999, the United Nations Food Safety Agency, representing 101 nations, ruled unanimously on a moratorium against Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormonal milk.^[xxxi] Nevertheless, the United States didn’t adopt the ban, and rBGH remains a standard fare in the raising of dairy cows. However, many countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc, banned rBGH years ago. 

Why is there such alarm over rBGH’s use? One thoroughly investigated health concern is that a comparison between milk of cows with or without the hormone has shown that rBGH leaves more bacteria in final milk products. It also aids in preserving traces of antibiotics if any were used to treat infections that appeared following injection of the hormone.

But that’s not the main fear over the hormone’s health threats. The primary reason for the UnitedNation’s decision against Posilac use is that it has been linked to colon, breast, and prostate cancers. One agent that may well take part in the development of cancer and other diseases is IGF-1, a biomolecule associated with severe inflammatory illnesses, which is found in rBGH treated milk. IGF-1 levels can be as much as ten times higher in this milk than in untreated milk. Also, it appears that the IGF-1 in treated milk is more potent, because it binds more strenuously to human proteins than that in cows’ milk that didn’t receive the hormone.”^[xxxii] There is evidence that this IGF-1 molecule, and hence the rBGH that carries it, plays a major role in diabetic complications and during the early stages of diabetic nephropathy—kidney damage resulting from high protein in the urine.

Samuel Epstein, M.D., author of What’s in Your Milk, did extensive research on how the health threats of rBGH occur. He writes that traces of rBGH “are absorbed through the gut… supercharged with high levels of… IGF-1, which is [also] readily absorbed through the gut,” where “excess levels of IGF-I have been incriminated as a cause of… colon cancer.” The molecule weakens the body’s defenses since “IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.” And not only does IGF-1 appear to allowfor the emergence of colon cancer from its stronghold in the gut, Epstein warns that IGF-1 can also cause breast and prostate cancers.^[xxxiii]

When a cow is administered rBGH, it is followed by administration of a sulfur- based drug to preventinfection due to injection of the growth hormone. Traces of this antibiotic may be found in the milk, and these sulfur drugs may cause cancer.

Moreover, frequent antibiotic administration to animals in general tends to make bacteria drug resistant, and these bacteria often make their way into the milk. Moreover, in fighting the bacteria, which either from the hormone injection or in relation to the unhealthy conditions of the animal’s living quarters, pus forms in thecow as its body fights against the pathogenic intruders. When a dairy cow is infected with mastitis, more than 90 percent of her cells are the inflammatory cells that form pus.^[xxxiv] This is par for the course and acceptedby the FDA, which labels pus in milk as an accepted “additive.” After all, the FDA reasons, it is a natural by-product. With this in mind, the FDA permits 750 million somatic pus cells to be present in every liter of milk.^[xxxv] In contrast, the European Union allows for 400,000 cells per liter. 

Many antibiotics go into cattle but how does this affect our milk. As the Toronto Vegetarian Associationnotes, “Antibiotics, mostly penicillin, are given to cows for treatment of mastitis [an inflammation of the mammary gland]. Cows are not supposed to be milked for 48 hours after receiving penicillin. When this precaution is not followed [which is not an uncommon occurrence], the penicillin appears in the milk.”^[xxxvi]Consequently, these drugs end up in the dairy products we may be consuming. When Consumers Union andthe Wall Street Journal tested milk samples in the New York metropolitan area they discovered the presenceof 52 different antibiotics. Eat ice cream, yogurt, and cheese toppings, and you’re also consuming antibiotics.

Fish Additives

It may seem that while there can be negative health consequences to eating fish, but consider this: fish livein oceans and lakes that are so polluted that no person in their right mind would dare drink from them.

Because fish are floating in seas of pollutants, every time we eat them, we are ingesting, along with their meat, noxious chemicals, heavy metals, and disease- bearing organisms. This is a fact that has been noted by leading physicians, such as Neal Barnard, M.D., Director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), who has explained, “As a result of human pollution of aquatic environments, eating fish flesh has become a major health hazard.”^[xxxvii]

In more striking terms, as Richard Schwartz points out in his article, “Troubled Waters,” the fish we eat today are little more than “a mixture of fat and protein, seasoned with toxic chemicals.” During the course of a six-month investigation, the Consumers Union found that nearly half of all fish tested from markets in New York City, Chicago, and Santa Cruz were contaminated by bacteria from human or nonhuman feces, pathogenic worms, and parasites.^[xxxviii]

A number of health watch groups arrived at the conclusion that the risks of fish consumption outweigh theupsides. A National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine report found “seafood is the major source ofhuman exposure to methylmercury,” a potent neurotoxin known to cause cognitive impairment, memory loss, and coordination difficulties. An examination of the study noted, “Evidence suggesting that people who havesuffered heart attacks can reduce their risk of future heart attacks by eating seafood is weaker than previously thought, the committee concluded. It is also not clear whether consuming seafood might reduce people’s risks for diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, or other ailments.”^[xxxix]

In tuna fish—a favorite American food—there are traces of methylmercury. Vas Aposhian, a toxicologist and professor of molecular and cell biology and pharmacology at the University of Arizona, who served as ascientific advisor on mercury issues to the FDA and EPA, reported that mercury levels in albacore tuna are sohigh consumers should avoid the fish completely. “[Even] eating small amounts of some fish may beunsafe.”^[xl]

Unlike the agribusiness-sponsored scientists whose research always seems to discover positive things about meat and dairy consumption, Aposhian resigned his advisory position in protest when the FDA and the EPA issued “a national health advisory warning that children and women of childbearing age should limit mercury intake by eating no more than six ounces [one can] of albacore tuna a week,” a warning that Dr.Aposhian criticized as “dangerously lax.” As he saw it, the food industry had exerted influence to weaken the agencies’ mercury warnings.^[xli]

Another of America’s favorite fish is salmon. Salmon’s popularity has grown rapidly because of its reputation for being high in omega fatty acids. However it also deserves notoriety for being one of the mostpolluted fish. This is due to the high burden of PCB contamination as a result of agricultural runoffs, human andlivestock sewage, and industrial wastes.^[xlii] PCBs, known carcinogens, are used as coolants in waterproofing compounds, paints, and for many other industrial purposes. These chemicals have now become all-pervasive in factory and factory farm environments.

Eating wild caught fish is not the only problem. Many are raised in fish farms, living in tanks or otherenclosed areas, which poses the same risks as livestock feedlots. In fact the majority of fish sold in restaurants today come from unhealthy fish farms. This is not only done for the industry’s convenience and financial gain, but because wild fish stocks are rapidly being depleted, down as much as 90% for somespecies. At the current rate of wild-catch exploitation, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the world’s fish supply will be completely depleted by 2048. Fish in the depleted category are so few it is no longer feasible to try and catch them.

Adding to the problem of depletion is that much of the fresh fish caught in the world today are processed as fishmeal for pigs, chickens, and farm-raised animals. In 2024, The Fishing Daily reported “approximately half of all caught fish, ranging from 490 to 1,100 billion, are reduced to fishmeal and oil primarily utilized in farmed animal diets.”^[xliii]  The fishmeal fed to livestock is usually produced from small forage fish, includinganchovies and sardines, which are near the bottom of the ocean food chain as a major food source for largerfish, ocean mammals, and seabirds. Consequently, excessive small fish removal injures the species that feed on them. There are other concerns. These smaller fish could easily be consumed directly by humans as anutritional source, rather than shipped to farms to feed livestock. This is especially true for areas of the world where people rely on fishing for daily survival. Indeed, this is another example of the insanity of raising animals for food. 

There are obvious concerns about fish stocks collapsing, and alternative livestock feed would be anenormous help for struggling fish populations. But the problem is worse than we suspect. The scientific journal Nature reported that only 10% of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish,marlin as well as large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—were left in the sea.^[xliv]We might wonder about the implications of such a large depletion. One thing is for sure, fewer of today’s children will have the opportunity to experience fish in their natural environments, abundant, lively, andhealthy.

Similar to livestock, fish raised in aquacultures tanks are being overdosed with antibiotics. Due to thehorrible environmental conditions created for aquaculture, farmed fish are far more susceptible to a variety ofbacterial and parasitic diseases. To protect and preserve large aqua farms, fish raisers use vast amounts of antibiotics. According to one study, these antibiotics are not biodegradable and remain in the fishery waters for long periods of time, thereby generating the perfect conditions for new forms of pathogenic, drug-resistantpathogens to emerge.^[xlv]

Consumers ultimately ingest the antibiotics, along with any infectious organisms and bacteria that remain in fish. An additional example of these drugs’ presence is the fungicide and dye known as malachite green. Although banned in the 1990s because of its association with cancers, genetic mutations andendocrinal disorders it has still been used illegally in fish factories. But there are other legal artificial dyes to make fish more appealing to buyers with serious health risks. One is the synthetic dye canthaxanthin that has been linked to ocular and retinal damage and defects.^[xlvi] High doses can lead potentially to aplastic anemia, a fatal blood disorder.

In three separate independent studies of 37 fish pellet samples (animal feed made from fish) used in six countries, each sample was found to have PCB contamination, and an Environmental Working Group study reported that farmed salmon—which contains 52 percent more fat than wild-caught—is perhaps the most PCB-contaminated protein sourced.^[xlvii] These fish will store PCBs in their fat and ultimately be passed tohumans. An American study of fish filets sold commonly sold in grocery stores found that many had unwanted chemical additives and noted that two fish in particular had the highest levels of health-threateningchemicals, including PCBs: bluefish and rockfish.^[xlviii]

In order to raise cattle, huge amounts of land and feed crops are required. The same is true for aquaculture. What has evolved is an absurdly paradoxical cycle. Fish purveyors turn to aquaculture because they realize the ocean fish stocks are running out, but in doing so, they rely on fish taken from the seas to feed their in-house creatures—a practice that not only adds to further depletion of free stocks, but that isputting the American public at greater health risk.

Microplastics in Animal Food Products

Microplastics, tiny plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in size, have become a catastrophic environmental and health issue. These fragments, which also include nanoplastics measuring less than 1 micrometer, are the result of the breakdown of larger plastic debris or are manufactured at microscopic scales for use in products like cosmetics. Once released into the environment, these plastics persist for decades due to their resistance to natural degradation.^[xlix]

The pathways through which microplastics enter the food chain are numerous and deeply concerning. They infiltrate aquatic ecosystems via improper waste disposal and illegal dumping, industrial runoff, and agricultural activities. Fish and other marine organisms ingest these plastics directly or indirectly through their prey. On land, microplastics contaminate soil, water sources and are often carried by airborne deposition. Livestock such as cattle, chickens, and pigs consume microplastics via contaminated feed, water or forage. Filter-feeding sea animals such shellfish are particularly vulnerable and accumulate significant amounts of microplastics due to their natural feeding methods.^[l]

The extent of contamination is staggering. Studies have shown that 30 to 60 percent of fish species sampled from both oceanic and freshwater environments contain microplastics. Popularly consumed species such as cod, tuna, and haddock are among the most affected. Shellfish exhibit the highest levels of contamination. Microplastics have also been detected in the gastrointestinal tracts of cattle and poultry; there is some evidence of accumulation in muscle tissues that eventually find its way into our food system.^[li]

Physically, these particles can obstruct gastrointestinal tracts leading to reduced feeding and malnutrition. Chemically, they carry hazardous substances such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), which are known endocrine disruptors. Furthermore, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) adhere to microplastics thereby amplifying their toxicity. These contaminants can accumulate in the food chain, posing significant risks to animal health, longevity, and reproductive systems.^[lii]

Unfortunately, humans are not spared from the health consequences of microplastic contamination. Studies estimate that seafood consumers ingest up to 11,000 microplastic particles annually. They accumulate in edible seafood tissues, particularly in smaller fish and shellfish that are consumed whole. The health implications for humans include gastrointestinal distress because these toxic plastics can disrupt gut microbiota and cause inflammation. The toxicological risks are even more concerning. Over time, chemical additives leached from plastics may increase the risk of cancer, reproductive disorders, and hormonal imbalances. Moreover, nanoplastics are capable of penetrating the bloodstream; this contributes to oxidative stress, immune suppression, and other systemic effects.^[liii]

The pervasive presence of microplastics in the food chain underscores the urgent need for more strict regulatory action to reduce plastic pollution. Addressing this issue will require concerted efforts to improve waste management, regulate industrial waste disposal practices, and reduce the production of single-use plastics. Protecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems from further contamination is not only essential for environmental health but also critical for safeguarding human health and food security.

Animal Foods: You Get Far More than You Bargained For

Millions of dollars are spent by the transnational food industry to convince us that it is healthy to eat anabundance of meat, dairy, fish and processed foods to remain healthy. Besides advertising, there is the cost of lobbying and contributions to politicians. In 2022, agriculture companies and industry groups spend a record $165 million lobbying.^[liv]  In 2024, total campaign contributions amounted to over $130 million^[lv]—all to ensure that their products don’t incur further federal regulations and continue to be seen in a positive light. This, of course, means that any health risks are underplayed and hostile legislation that might better protectcitizens are minimized.

Many might remember the headlines about an illness that emerged during Christmas in 1994. In the UK, 180,000 animals were infected with a disease that can be transmitted to humans who eat meat from sickened animals. One hundred and sixty five deaths were reported. When this outbreak occurred overseas, the beef lobby rushed to assure Americans that its beef was fine.

The outbreak of Mad Cow Disease was attributed in part to “rendering,” parts of slaughtered animalsbeing reprocessed into animal feed; a disgusting practice that turned grass eating cows into unsuspecting cannibals as well as turning herbivore animals into carnivores. The same feeding method was going great guns in the US. After the British panic and deaths, this practice was banned in the US. But this didn’t meanthat a seemingly sick cow would not be led to the slaughterhouse and sold. As long as it was checked anddidn’t have mad cow, it was good to go. Some state politicians were so deep in the meat industry’s pockets that laws were passed laws to stop activists from publicly talking about their fears of eating tainted meat that hadn’t been proven safe. 

Eventually, because of continual threats of mad cow disease, a ban on this practice became law in December 2004. Even though these sick or “downer” cattle are federally banned from our food supply, two major problems remain: some companies do not heed the ban, and a loophole exists that still allows young downer veal calves to be sent to slaughter. On the first issue, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) exposed the Westland Meat Co., in Riverside, California, one of the nation’s leading suppliers to the state’s school lunch program, for the illegal slaughter and sale of sick and downer cattle. This was in spite ofeight on-site USDA inspectors.^[lvi] Calves were nevertheless allowed to proceed to slaughter as long as theywere “able to rise and walk after being warmed or rested.”^[lvii] Sadly, this has led to food manufacturers using cruel and inhumane methods including beating, kicking, and the use of electric prods to get these sick animals to the kill room.

Propaganda from the meat industry doesn’t stop at downplaying the possible health hazards that are associated with its products. It also makes scientifically unsupported claims. For example, the question ofwhether meat has a lot or a little fat is hardly the only consideration that should occupy someone thinking about eating any meat.

Illnesses from Improper Meat Handling

According to CDC analyses of outbreak surveillance, animal food products are responsible for approximately 48 million foodborne illnesses annually. This includes 128,000 hospitalizations and over 3,000 deaths.^[lviii]The leading sources cover the full spectrum of the most popular meat-based sources Americans regularly consume: poultry, beef, pork and eggs. Poultry, a leading source of Campylobacter and Salmonellainfections, accounts for the most deaths. The bacteria linked to meat and dairy products are extremely dangerous to those with weakened immune systems. Listeria monocyotogenes, commonly associated with deli meats and read-to-eat products, is especially dangerous to people with autoimmune conditions. In fact, Listeria bacteria can survive refrigeration and even freezing.

Once someone has experienced food poisoning, there can be recurrent physical experiences after the initial bout. The University of Maryland Medical Center made a partial list of them:

·      After shigellosis, white blood cell problems and kidney problems

·      After E. coli infection, renal and bleeding problems

·      After botulism, long hospital stays (1 to 10 months) with fatigue and difficulty breathing for 1 to 2 years or, if worse, respiratory failure

·      After salmonellosis, Reiter syndrome (an arthritis-like disease) and inflammation of the heart lining

·      After campylobacteriosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (a nerve disease).

In addition, another seldom presented danger of food poisoning is that physical effects often don’t manifest till years down the road. Accoding to an Associated Press article:

“It’s a dirty little secret of food poisoning: E. coli and certain other food-borne illnesses can sometimes trigger serious health problems months or years after patients survived that initial bout. Scientists only now areunraveling a legacy that has largely gone unnoticed. What they’ve spotted so far is troubling. In interviews with The Associated Press, they described high blood pressure, kidney damage, even full kidney failurestriking 10 to 20 years later in people who survived severe E. coli infection as children, arthritis [coming] after a bout of salmonella or shigella, and a mysterious paralysis that can attack people who just had mild symptoms of campylobacter… For now, some of the best evidence comes from the University of Utah, whichhas long tracked children with E. coli. About 10% of E. coli sufferers develop a life-threatening complicationcalled hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, where their kidneys and other organs fail.”^[lix]

Furthermore, the list of bacteria contaminating milk and dairy products is similar to those associated with meat: Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria (frequently in cheese), Campylobacter, and Staphylcoccus.

Because these adverse lingering effects are so little known, people have not yet faced some of the most troubling consequences of contaminated food. Further, they may not even be aware that legal rights are suspended upon initial settlement. This means that should diseases present themselves down the road, thepatient could have no additional legal recourse. The majority of people who contract a foodborne illnessnever figure out the actual cause of their sickness.

Faulty Inspection Regimes

Several theories have been suggested as to why so much pathogen-infected meat appears in the animal produce Americans consume. One is that oil prices encourage greater ethanol production, a corn byproduct that increasingly is being used as cattle feed. This feed appears to make the animals’ digestive tracts evenmore hospitable breeding grounds for the toxic strain of E. coli bacteria. This was the opinion from KennethPetersen, an assistant administrator in the Office of Field Operations at the US Department of Agriculture.

Nevertheless, perhaps the primary obstacle for preventing the spread of foodborne bacteria, toxic E. coli in particular, is inadequate government inspection and meat-handling practices in slaughterhouses where contamination is most likely to occur. “Slaughter plants are the primary source of E. coli contamination, so theUSDA should be putting more resources toward recording and tracing back the original source of contaminated meat detected in test samplings at smaller down- line processing facilities,” stated John Munsell, former owner of a Montana-based meat packing and slaughter company who testified about beefcontamination at congressional hearings. Munsell owned Montana Quality Foods and got into trouble when the USDA discovered his firm’s hamburger was contaminated with E coli. He protested, however, that the meat was already contaminated before it came to his plant; and he even identified the source: ConAgra where it had passed USDA inspection. This experience soured him on meatpacking and turned him into an activist.

Other shortfalls in the safety system identified by experts include:

·      Carcasses can move through slaughterhouses at a rate of up to 390 per hour, making inspection difficult.

·      If meat tests positive for the bacteria, companies are allowed to cook it for sale in other products such as pizza or tacos. While thorough cooking should kill E.coli, diverting tainted meat creates an opening for cross-contamination, the transfer of germs to other meats before cooking.

·      Consumer illnesses, not government or industry testing, trigger recalls for the majority beef subject toE.coli contamination. In 2024, 83.5 tones of ground beef ffhad been recalled due to possible E. coli contamination, according to the USDA.^[lx]

In the largest call back in US history, 143 million pounds of meat were recalled. The vexing problem was not that the weak cattle had Mad Cow disease, which was never determined, but that the USDA had notdetected the likelihood that these animals were carriers, even in their enfeebled condition.^[lxi] It was ananimal rights group brought this to the nation’s attention, not USDA inspectors. The Hallmark plant was subsequently shut down, but that is not much comfort to those possibly ate the tainted meat its recall.

In January of 2015, Food Safety reported that in 2014 alone there were 94 meat recalls, and nearly half were because of undeclared allergens, while 16 were due to E. coli, Listeria, or Salmonellacontamination.^[lxii] In 2018, the JBS Tolleson beef recall amounted to 12.1 million pounds of Salmonella-contaminated beef products across 25 states.^[lxiii] CongAgra had 2.6 million pounds of canned meat products contaminated with botulinum toxin recalled in 2023 due to improper processing.^[lxiv]

Another factor that hampers livestock inspection is the speed of the “disassembly line,” which keepsbeing boosted by companies to increase productivity. With an average of only 1.25 inspectors per slaughterhouse, the sheer volume of animals being slaughtered daily threatens to overwhelm the inspection regime. The USDA work force hardly seems adequate to properly scrutinize the 2,850 slaughterhouses in the US that provide the billions of pounds of meat for food stores each year.  

The parasitic disease trichinosis caused buy undercooked pork is a dread illness for good reason. Trichinella spiralis larvae is first ingested in the intestinal tract, then later in active muscles—the calves, diaphragm, andtongue— which are weakened until the victim can barely move. Severe case can lead to heart inflammation, encephalitis and respiratory complications. Even non-pork eaters can pick up the illness, as this organism can getinto other meats by the intentional or inadvertent mixing of pork with chopped beef in supermarkets, butchershops, and restaurants. Despite federal oversight, and USDA guidelines for freezing pork to kill the parasite, there are still major gaps in monitoring hog farming and pork processing that have resulted in trichinosis outbreaks and recalls. In 2018, there was a trichinosis outbreak due to contaminated raw sausage resulting in the recall of 48,000 pounds of pork.

A couple of other deadly bacteria that have been detected in meats that made their way to the supermarket shelves or restaurant tables are listeria and salmonella. Listeria rarely infects humans, butwhen it does, it is quite lethal, with a 25% fatality rate. Once the bacteria invades a cell, it propagates by moving cell to cell, avoiding reentering the bloodstream where it might be detected by antibodies. Those most at risk are newborns, the elderly, pregnant mothers, and AIDS patients.^[lxv] Given its lethality, special biochemical detection assays have been developed to determine its presence in commercial food products.

Salmonella is an enterobacteria often associated with food-poisoning and food-borne illnesses. It is responsible for causing typhoid and paratyphoid fevers. There is no realistic hope of wiping out the possibility of Salmonella infections. As the National Academy of Sciences states, “Reluctantly, we are forcedto recognize the unfeasibility of eradicating salmonellosis at this time.” According to current CDC figures, each year there are approximately 1.35 million Salmonella poisoning annually, including 26,500 people requiring hospitalization and 420 deaths, many of them elderly or infants.^[lxvi] The symptoms of Salmonellapoisoning might appear less than life-threatening: nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; however, if the bacteria enters the bloodstream of an immune-compromised individual, severe conditions may include septic shock, meningitis, endocarditis and reactive arthritis or Reiter’s Syndrome.  

It should also be stressed that the presence of one pathogenic bacteria in a meat product does not preclude a second, third, or even more pathogenic intruders in the same product. Laboratory studies haveindicated that contaminated meat likely contains more than one disease-causing microbe. E. coli incultures taken from animals, for example, is often backed up by brother germs, such as Enterbacteriaceae, and Salmonella.

Even if meat leaves the factory farms pure, it will not necessarily reach your plate that way. There is still asecond line of hazards for someone eating in a restaurant or institution (such as a hospital or schoolcafeteria). According to the CDC, mishandling of food in such places is the major factor in outbreaks ofbotulism, a serious nerve toxin and form of food poisoning. The CDC identifies, among other factors that lead to food-borne illnesses, improper storage temperatures, inadequate cooking time, and poor personal hygieneof food handlers.^[lxvii]

---

^[i] Than K, “Organophosphates: A common but deadly pesticide,” National Geographic (National GeographicSociety), July 2013. 

^[ii]   Blaylock R (ed). “The Great Cancer Lie: It is Preventable and Beatable,” Blaylock Wellness Report. October, 2008.

^[iii]   Pommer K, “New Proteoloytic enzymes for the production of savory ingredients,” Cereal Foods World, 40 (1995):745-748.

^[iv] FDA. “Estimates of foodborne illness in the United States.” https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/index.html

^[v]   “Around 160,000 tons of antibiotics are fed to farm animals annually in 2020” The World Counts. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/consumption/foods-and-beverages/antibiotics-used-for-livestock

^[vi]   “MRSA: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus,” South Carolina Department of Public Health. https://dph.sc.gov/diseases-conditions/infectious-diseases/insect-or-animal-borne-disease/mrsa-methicillin-resistant

^[vii]  University of Florida. “Silent MRSA carriers have twice the mortality rate of adults without the bacteria.” UFHealth.  March 29, 2021. https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-silent-mrsa-carriers-have-twice-mortality-rate-adults-without-bacteria

^[viii] Barnard N. “Meat Too Tough to Eat,” The Hartford Courant, 28 Aug. 2006.

^[ix]   “Antibiotics Can Lead to Tainted Meat,” USA Today, 6 Sept. 1984.

^[x]   “Chloramphenicol Use by Cattlemen Said to Be Dangerous,” Vegetarian Times. September 1984: 6.

^[xi]   Ibid.

^[xii]   “From Field to Feeder: Beef Cattle,” Homestead Organics, 2003.

^[xiii]   “Pesticide Environmental Fate One Line Summary: DDT,” (Washington, DC.: US Environmental Protection Agency,1989); Augustijn-Beckers et al., “SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decisionmaking II,” Additional Properties Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 1994; Vol. 137.

^[xiv]   “Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program: DDT,” US Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm.

^[xv]   USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Poultry Slaughter Report 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

^[xvi] Ballentine R, “Dietary Suggestions for Chronic Pain,”http://www.holistichealthservices.com/research/chronic_pain.html.

^[xvii]   Swarthout JT, Loiseau G, Laurent S, et al. (2021). Residues of glyphosate in food and dietary exposure. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2021; 20(5): 5226–5257.

^[xviii]   Gillam C. Dewayne Johnson’s Case Against Monsanto: A Landmark Trial Over Roundup Weed Killer and Cancer. The Guardian. 2018

^[xix]   Antoniou MN, Habib ME, Howard CV, et al. I”mpacts of dietary exposure to pesticides on faecal microbiome metabolism in adult twins.” Environmental Health, 2022; 21(1), Article 46.

^[xx]   Cedars-Sinai. “Study: Prevalence of IBS Exceeds Previous Estimates”. Cedars-Sinai Newsroom. 2022

^[xxi]   Schoeters G, Baeyens W, Colles A. “Glyphosate and AMPA in human urine of HBM4EU-aligned studies: Part B Adults.” Toxics, 2022; 10(10), Article 552.

^[xxii]   Kishi R. ”Environmental Chemical Exposure and Its Effects on Infants’ Reproductive Hormones”. Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi, 2018; 73(3): 313–321.

^[xxiii]   Małyszko J., et al. “Cognitive impairment in patients awaiting kidney and liver transplantation: A clinically relevant problem?” Brain and Behavior, 2024; 14(8), e3647.

^[xxiv]   European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Assessment of genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2012-109). EFSA Journal, 2021; 19(6), e06610.

^[xxv] “Pesticide use on crops for meat and dairy feed further threatens endangered species.” Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2022.

^[xxvi]   Swarthout JT, et al. “Residues of glyphosate in food and dietary exposure.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2021; 20(5), 5226–5257.

^[xxvii]  Liebstein AM, Ehmki NL. “The Case for Vegetarianism,” American Mercury (April 1950): 27.

^[xxviii]  Fraser A, et al., “What you can’t see, can’t hurt. Your kids and you! Preventing food-borne illness in your childcare center or day care home,” Michigan State University, 1995.http://web2.msue.msu.edu/bulletins/Bulletin/PDF/E2568.pdf.

^[xxix]   Wagner AB, “Bacterial Food Poisoning,” Texas A&M University. http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/poison.html.

^[xxx]   University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, “Bacterial Toxin Closes Gate On Immune Response,Researchers Discover,” Science Daily, 2008.

^[xxxi]   Epstein SS, “Monsanto’s rBGH Genetically Modified Milk Ruled Unsafe by the United Nations.”https://www.animallaw.info/article/you-are-what-your-food-eats-how-regulation-factory-farm-conditions-could-improve-human

^[xxxii]   Ibid.

^[xxxiii]   Epstein SS, What’s In Your Milk? Trafford Publishing, 2006.

^[xxxiv]   “Is there pus cells in milk and what are the health risks?”  GenV. February 22, 2022. https://genv.org/pus-in-milk/

^[xxxv]   https://www.foodprotection.org/upl/downloads/journal-archive/dairy-food-and-environmental-sanitation-1993-volume-13-issue-2.pdf

^[xxxvi]   “Cow’s Milk: A Natural Choice?” Toronto Vegetarian Association, 15 Mar 2005.

^[xxxvii]   Schwartz RH. “Troubled Waters: The Case Against Eating Fish,” Vegetarian Voice, 2004.

^[xxxviii]   Ibid.

^[xxxix]   Stencel C. “Consumers need better guidance to fully weigh possible benefits and risks when makingseafood choices,” The National Academies, 17 Oct 2006.

^[xl]   Lanou AJ, Sullivan P, “Something’s Fishy on Federal Dietary Committee,” Physicians Committee forResponsible Medicine, 13 Apr 2004.

^[xli]   Ibid.

^[xlii]   Hugan X, et al., “Consumption advisories for salmon based on risk of cancer and noncancer health effects.”Environmental Research, 2006; 101: 263-274.

^[xliii]   McBride O. “Majority of wild fish capture being processed as animal feed study claims,” International Fishing News. February 8, 2024.

^[xliv]   Seaweb. “Nature cover story: only 10% of all large fish are left in global ocean.” Eurekalert, May 14, 2003.

^[xlv]   Chu WL, “Study warns excess fish farming drug use promotes resistance” Drug Researcher.com, 21 June 2006.

^[xlvi]   “Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on the Use of Canthaxanthin in Feed for Salmon andTrout, Laying Hens and Other Poultry,” (Brussels: European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection, 2002).

^[xlvii]   “First ever US tests of farmed salmon show high levels of cancer causing PCBs,” Environmental Working Group. July 30, 2003.

^[xlviii]   Hayward D, et al., “Polybrominated dipheylethers and polychlorinated biphenyls in commercially wild caught and farm-raised fish fillets in the United States.” Environmental Research, 2007; 103: 46-54.

^[xlix]   Danopoulos E, Jenner LC, Twiddy M, et al. “Microplastic contamination of seafood intended for human consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 2020

^[l]   Dawson AL, Santana MF, M, Miller ME, et al. “Relevance and reliability of evidence for microplastic contamination in seafood.” Environmental Pollution. 2021

^[li]   Prata JC, da Costa JP, Duarte AC, et al. “Worldwide contamination of fish with microplastics: A brief global overview.” Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2020.

^[lii]   Zolotova N, Kosyreva A, Dzhalilova D, et al. “Harmful effects of the microplastic pollution on animal health: A literature review.” PeerJ. 2022

^[liii]   Mercogliano R, Avio CG, Regoli F, et al. “Occurrence of microplastics in commercial seafood under the perspective of the human food chain.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2020

^[liv]   McVan M. “Agribusiness spent a record-breaking $165 million on federal lobbying last year,” Investigate Midwest. February 16, 2023.

^[lv]   “Agribusiness Lobbying” Open Secrets. 2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?ind=A

^[lvi]   Lauto PA. “Meat Company Exposed For Illegal Slaughter And Sale To Schools Of Downer Cattle,” 2013. http://www.liattorney.com/scales-of-justice/meat- company-exposed-for-illegal-slaughter-and-sale-to-schools-of-downer-cattle

^[lvii]   “Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves,” USDA, Spring 2014. (9 CFR309.13(b)) http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201404&RIN=0583-AD54

^[lviii]   Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, et al. “Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2011; 17(1), 7-15.

^[lix]  Neergaard, Lauran. “Food poisoning can harm long term.” Associated Press, January 22, 2008. https://www.theledger.com/story/news/2008/01/22/food-poisoning-can-harm-long-term/25861115007/

^[lx]   Reiner M. “Over 83 tons of ground beef recalled nationwide, illnesses reported: USDA” WKBN (Washington), November 21, 2024. 

^[lxi]   Kim V. “Undercover tape of abused cattle being slaughtered at a Chino plant raises questions about inspection process.” Los Angeles Times, 7 Feb. 2008.

^[lxii]   Zuraw L. “2.5 Million Pounds of Meat, Poultry Recalled for Pathogen Contamination in 2014,” Food SafetyNews, January 2015.

^[lxiii]   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Outbreak of Multistate Salmonella Infections Linked to JBS Tolleson Beef Products.” CDC Investigation Reports. 2018.

^[lxiv]   Food and Drug Administration. “ConAgra Brands Initiates Recall of Canned Meat Products.” FDA Recall Notices (2023).

^[lxv]   “Listeria (Listeriosis),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 4, 2013.

^[lxvi]   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Salmonella Homepage.”

^[lxvii]   Sours HE, Smith OG, “Outbreaks of Foodborne Disease in the United States, 1972-1978,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1980; 142:122125.