Hand-Wringing Over E. Coli Begins in the U.S.
The Atlantic
As European powers bicker over who's to blame for some 1,500 illnesses and 18 deaths caused by the recent E. coli outbreak, American officials are starting to get nervous. The bug is on the move--the first case just emerged in Britain, and two U.S. citizens were hospitalized in Hamburg--raising fears that the mutant bacteria would cross the Atlantic. The Associated Press soothed no one with a report on the gaps in the American food safety system. Pointing out how it's impossible to test for every type of E. coli, AP medical writer Lauren Neergaard tracks the growing trend of "the other E. colis" infecting more and more people each year, and new regulations from the Department of Agriculture might arrive too late.
USDA, under pressure from consumer groups, already was working on a measure to address some of the other E. colis in beef, a policy being reviewed by the Obama administration. Researchers created tests to screen for the six strains considered most prevalent, before the toll in Europe revealed a seventh.
When it comes to fresh produce, a sweeping new law requires the FDA to set standards to guard against contamination of all sorts. The rules are expected to address such things as properly processed compost, worker hygiene, and keeping animals and their runoff from fields or irrigation water.
Even when the new law arrives, it may be a flimsy shield for the fierce bacteria that cause food-borne illnesses. "You never know what's around the corner that's just waiting to bite you," a former FDA assistant commissioner told the AP. "You cannot test your way to safety, you just can't do it."
No, you can't "test your way to safety", but you can ENFORCE many of the laws on the books to prevent the contamination in the first place.
Outbreaks occur and people DIE because someone decides to save a few bucks by cutting some corner on safety, or because powerful agribusiness corps repeal, or prevent laws that will cost them a fraction of a penny a share in earnings.
Remember "mad cow disease"? The major source of the problem was traced back to the practice of feeding ground up cows, pigs sheep and chicken to our cows, pigs, sheep and chicken. Now a "new" European Union study has come along and said this isn't the case, and we can go back to our the practice of forced cannibalism for farm animals.
Most E.U. farmers, to their credit, are horrified at the prospect, but what Big Ag wants, Big Ag gets.
To be fair, the EU study says that they are concerned about possible famines caused by diverting land to feed grains to animals instead of people.
The potential U-turn comes as concerns escalate about how the world will continue to feed itself against a backdrop of rapidly inflating food prices and a soaring population. At the moment, animal feed producers import vast quantities of soya from countries in South America, grown on land that could otherwise be used to feed people living there. Demand for soya-based animal feed is also fueling the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.
I would be inclined concede this point if I could ever remember a time where big business was ever concerned about poor people in the Third World beyond their use as a source of cheap labor, "spare parts", and sex slaves.
(And before someone brings up the argument that these are criminal enterprises, not corporations, the end buyer, whether it is kidneys or babies, are corporations who make money off the procurement of people and body parts).
Also, if the E.U. or the U.S. government for that matter, TRULY cared about famine, they would BAN all speculation in food commodities, which is a major factor in food prices. People will starve to death so some colostomy bag trader can make a killing selling grain futures.
Perhaps we are pushing cannibalism on animals (herbivores especially) because it makes us feel better about our own unique form of cannibalsim. Foreign Policy sums it it quite nicely in the linked article about trafficking in human organs and tissue:
Of course, every kidney, cornea, or pint of blood has to come from somewhere -- or, more precisely, someone. Forget the image of grass-skirt-wearing cannibals on tropical islands; no society has had as insatiable an appetite for human flesh as the developed world of the 21st century.
Blood alone is pretty damned profitable. While donors get paid either nothing (from the Red Cross) or about $35 a pint, the Red Cross sells blood for $130-$150, while private corporations (including hospitals, since the vast majority of hospitals in America make lots of money on the misery and death of fellow humans) are selling it for $300+ a pint.
The e. coli bugs are getting nastier all the time, and quite resistant to current anti-biotics, thanks to the ag industry practice of stuffing anti-biotics into food animals until they breed hardier new strains of bacteria impervious to our drug arsenal.
It seems to me that humanity is determined to choke on its own filth, either from carbon emissions, or the invincible fecal bacteria we are dinning on.
But hey, some of us will make a LOT of money while we die.