Tag Archives: food politics

Activism Healthy Living Real Food Toxin Alert!

Right to Know Rally & Rebuttal to ID Senator Mike Crapo re: Labeling GMO Foods

www.mypicshares.com
On Wednesday, July 18th in downtown Boise, ID, in front of Senator Mike Crapo’s office, citizens gathered for a rally organized by GMO-Free Idaho to protest the fact that our senators are not hearing our concerns about  mandatory labeling for GMO foods in our state. The photos in this post are all from the rally. I was part of this group and I felt like we made an impact on the awareness of people in our area.

Currently, 14 European countries have banned GMO foods, and did so over a decade ago without any government assistance.  It makes you think that with enough consumer education and grass-roots efforts, we could create enough resistance that food companies would have to discontinue their toxic practices.

Read why the majority of Americans want labeling for GM foods.

There is growing doubt in world communities about the safety and usage of GMO seeds and pesticides as is evidenced by various examples of communities rejecting GMO seeds such as Haiti who burned them, French, Spanish, and Indian citizens destroyed GMO fields and burned Bt cotton, Uganda and other locations which have rejected seed altogether.  There are also increasing numbers of allies in the real food community who question it.

www.mypicshares.com

In addition to various countries who have banned the usage of GMO substances in the food supply, other countries are requiring labeling, as India has recently done.

Jeffery Smith of The Institute for Responsible Technology has spent a great deal of time and effort educating and spreading the word. There is a Seeds of Doubt Conference happening on October 6, 2012 in Los Angeles, CA, where he and other notable and respected speakers and professionals in attendance.

Here is Senator Mike Crapo’s response to our protest in downtown Boise yesterday:

“I understand the concerns expressed by many who oppose genetically engineering food products and seek mandatory labeling for foods containing GE ingredients. However, I am also aware of the many benefits provided by GE crops, including increased yields and nutrition and reduced pesticides and herbicides used in the environment. The only vote in the United States Senate to date requiring mandatory labeling for these food products, an amendment to the 2012 Farm Bill, was defeated by a vote of 73-26.

The United States has one of the safest and most abundant food supplies in the world.  Consumer safety and a robust agricultural sector need not be mutually exclusive.  GE food products are a relatively new development in commercial food production, and I agree that it is important that we continue to study and monitor this new technology that has already demonstrated positive benefits.”

The truth is, I’ve sent letters to both of these senators and others in the past, and the answers given here are no different than anything I’ve heard them say to me in “personal” reply. Clearly they don’t have anything intelligent to respond back, because the same responses continually get recycled over and over again.

Here is my rebuttal to Senator Mike Crapo’s statement:

Increased yields

Increased yields are not happening with GMO foods. From the Natural News site, Eco-farming outperforms GMOs at increasing crop yields and growing more food, based on a new report showing that sustainable farming can double food production in 10 years.

From the article, eco-farming  ”allows the People to freely grow and harvest their own food, and take advantage of what nature freely offers them in order to do so. Within the GMO paradigm, however, farmers are controlled by companies like Monsanto that sell them self-destructing “Frankenseeds.” These seeds require heavy pesticide applications in order to grow, and represent an unsustainable system that has devastated the livelihoods of thousands of farmers while failing to deliver on its promises.”

The Institute for Responsible Technology has also published referenced information on this fallacy. From the report:

“Field tests of Bt corn showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than non-GM counterparts. In spite of these and other studies, the biotech industry continues to claim that GMOs are the answer to higher yields. Two reports have conclusively contradicted these claims.”

Read the Rodale Institute’s document on why GMO farming is simply a band-aid approach to fix long-term issues with short term solutions. There is also an in-depth discussion to the importance of a food system that can regenerate itself, and how the key to successful farming is healthy soil – which GMO farming destroys.

Better nutrition

Mr. Crapo claims there are increased nutritional benefits. The “benefits” of GM foods have also not been proven. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred.  Nutrition is supposed to fortify and support health. There are many connections to disease and health issues from eating GM foods: allergies, liver disease, infertility, digestive issues and cancer just to name a few. To my knowledge, there has never been any valid studies done to show that GM foods contain increased nutrition.

Superweeds

www.mypicshares.com

Mr. Crapo claims there are reduced pesticides and herbicides with GMOs.  There has been a widespread emergence of superweeds previously not in existence which are heavily resistant to most herbicides. This becomes a widespread problem for farmers and other citizens. These are invasive and difficult to remove. Then, stronger and more toxic herbicides must be used to do the same job that less toxic products were once able to control.

The cycle continues as more and more virulent superweeds are created. This is similar to the overuse of antibiotics in farming environments which cause resistant bacteria.  These plants are replacing non-resistant weeds as well as are spreading resistant genes to other plants through cross-pollination.

The safety of our food system and food recalls

To say that the U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world is to completely turn a blind eye to all the issues that are continually coming forth in media and health outlet reports. Food recalls are a normal occurrence now, and if you look on any given day you will find a large recall that has recently occurred. There are very few publicly-traded companies who have not had a product appear on recall lists.  Despite the many regulations and laws in place to “protect” consumers, our food supply continues to be riddled with pathogenic bacteria & undesirable substances which are making people sick and killing them.

You would think consumers, politicians, health officials, food producers, and others would make connections between industrial farming practices and the filth found in factory and commercial farming environments. Instead, the logic is that more regulations, fees, and laws need to be imposed. This gives license to big agriculture players who are more than able to get around the confines of the law and afford fines associated with breaking the law, but the government doesn’t shut them down. Instead, they simply continue with unsafe production and “farming” practices. Many of these products have GM ingredients.

If you look at food recall lists, you won’t find truly sustainable, small-scale farmers’ and food growers’ products on them, nor even hear reports about them in the news. Although smaller and sustainable farmers tend to use use healthier practices and safe farming methods that work in harmony with nature, these individuals have been the target of government raids and shut downs, and are being rendered unable to continue producing the safe, healthy food that U.S. citizens are now demanding due to the visibility of insidious problems in the commercial food sector.

The health dangers of glyphosate and pathogenic bacteria found in GMO seeds

Glyphosate, the active ingredient used in Monsato’s flagship product RoundUp, has been found in human urine samples of city dwellers. Doesn’t this say something about just how widespread this substance has become?

The toxicity of glyphosate has been widely documented.

Here are just a few more of those documentations:

Dr. Donald Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, has written and spoken out about the introduction of pathogenic bacteria into our soil from foreign DNA  inserted into seeds in the laboratory, and why it adversely affects not only the soil, but those consuming it, and describes how it takes up residency in our digestive tracts.

Watch Dr. Huber’s interview with Dr. Mercola:

I could give many more examples of issues with GMOs,  but it is particularly noteworthy to mention that recently, genetic engineers discovered and spoke up about the health hazards of consuming these substances.

One of the report’s authors, Dr. Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but strongly cautions against its use in the development of crops for human food and animal feed:

“GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.”

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Testing and the “safety” of GMOs

Mr. Crapo indicated that it is “important that we continue to study and monitor this new technology that has already demonstrated positive benefits.” Sure, let’s study it and prove the “positive benefits”, as long as Monsanto is paying to have those studies done (which is all that has ever been done to date), we’ll always receive the result that GMOs are safe to use.

Too bad that outcome has a strong industry bias.

He says, “we should continue to study and monitor this new technology”.  The FDA has not made requirements for mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based only on assurances from biotech companies like Monsanto that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts.

There is no amount of “un-biased” or third-party scientific testing or research that will ever prove to me that GMOs are a safe and effective way to produce food.  Not now. Not after all the  overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Here is Senator Risch’s statement (another Idaho senator):

“There are federal laws already in place to make certain our food is safe. There was no need to add this amendment, and in fact, it was rejected in bipartisan fashion with 73 “no” votes when it came up for consideration.”

Here is my rebuttal to Senator Risch’s statement:

Yes, the measure failed 26-73 votes. Here’s how the voting record came out.

Too bad many of those senators receive payments from Monsanto and other seed companies. Here is a list of those receiving financial support from Monsanto.

After looking at this data, it should be pretty clear that these politicians have reasons for their voting record.

The bottom line is: there is clear evidence that GMOs are a threat to our health, environment, and future.

Big companies and government do not have our health or best interests in mind, and are motivated by profits.

This is  a citizen’s call to action!

  • Learn all you can about how GMOs affect us. At least 80 percent of processed foods contain them, and even some foods on the shelves that appear to be “whole foods”.
  • Tell everyone you know by making this post go viral. Let your congressmen and women and local communities know you won’t stand for not knowing what’s in your food supply!

More information: 

GMO-Free Idaho

Organic Consumers’ Association – Millions Against Monsanto

Busting myths about GMOs (genetically-modified foods)

4 ways to avoid GMOs in the foods you buy

Mom-turned activist launches national movement to boycott GMO foods

The Institute for Responsible Technology

1 in 4 meat packages tainted with pathogenic bacteria

Industrial meat & pink slime = more recalls, drug resistance

Photo credit, GMO-Free Idaho

 

Healthy Living Healthy Meat Toxin Alert!

Industrial Meat & Pink Slime = More Recalls, Drug Resistance

www.mypicshares.com
The dismal and horrifying reality of meat production in our culture is something most of us are removed from, both physically and mentally, as we sit down to eat breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

Factory farms or CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) produce high food volumes to feed a growing population, but at the cost of animal, human, and environmental health. The result of housing animals and birds in these facilities is pollution to the surrounding area, growth of pathogenic bacteria, and heavy use of antibiotics to “prevent” disease.

Just visiting one of these facilities and enduring the malodorous smell coming from concentrated cesspools of manure and the strong ammonia used to “contain” it, and the hydrogen sulfide gasses emanating from the area would forever affect the way you see and eat meat.

Meat recalls due to tainted meat are an unfortunate but frequent occurrence in the food supply, and have been on the news radar for the last number of years.  The most recent news reports of problems with commercial meat have appeared from pink slime in the public schools, grocery store chains, restaurants, and other places have the consumer and health publics up in arms.

Adding another element of contention to meat consumption are recent flawed findings that eating meat will decrease our life spans from the Harvard School of Public Health.

It’s no wonder fear and confusion about meat are in the minds of consumers.

In agricultural, political and government realms, there has been a lot of discussion about the need for improvements in the food safety sector. Large food producers aren’t motivated to make improvements due to the cost involved, so factory meat will always continue to yield problematic results for those who consume it. The nature of how it is produced all by itself is disease-inducing, and unless those methods and approaches to meat production and processing change, the hope of safe food ever coming from those sources is nothing but a fairy tale.

This reality greatly undermines the mantra of food safety officials, politicians, decision-makers, and health officials who have proclaimed with unwavering conviction: “The U.S. has one of the safest food systems in the world.”

It is situations like this which prompted the creation of one of the most insidious acts humanity has ever known: The Food Safety and Modernization Act, signed into law by President Obama in January of 2011.  This law supposedly puts the focus on “prevention” of the problem.  But what it will eventually do is strip away rights and abilities of smaller farmers, who are more likely to produce sustainable food, to make a living and produce the kind of safe products we want to consume. Smaller farmers have a much more difficult time meeting the requirements and satisfying fees that large-scale producers can, and these changes could be very bad for them indeed.

Tyson Fresh Meats, one of the largest subsidiaries of Tyson Foods, Inc. has the following changes planned for within the next year:

“The Dakota City project, which is already under way, is scheduled to be completed in mid-2013. It includes construction of a new beef slaughter floor that will incorporate the latest sanitation and production systems.

The company is also making improvements to the Dakota City plant’s beef carcass cooler, rendering and box handling operations, as well as employee lockers and cafeteria. Changes in the plant’s box handling system will involve the installation of additional conveyors and other equipment that will enable the facility to more efficiently handle the product mix.”

Every time you hear about a large corporation violating a law or regulation or having to recall product, those companies are never put out of business.  Generally they are fined and go on their way since they are able to absorb the cost of these fees without issue.

And, none of the improvements on the agenda call for making alterations to the way the meat is produced and raised; specifically, where the animals are raised, what feed they are given, the elimination of hormones, antibiotics, or pesticides, herbicides, and other harmful chemicals which cause the meat to become unfit for consumption in the first place. Everything is centered around the actual processing of the meat after it has been slaughtered – and many of those proposed changes will still employ dangerous methods. Until food manufacturers realize this and make changes accordingly, nothing will change.

Pink slime

“Pink slime” has been in the news for weeks, and schools are now being given the choice to “opt out”.  Last week, news reports showed that various supermarket chains have chosen to stop buying this “meat” from producers. These are steps in the right direction, but it shouldn’t stop there. If more businesses selling meat would refuse to buy factory-farmed meat and support local, sustainable farmers, our economy would begin to move in the right direction and recalls would start to cease.

“Pink slime” is the substance dubbed by the media from a company named BPI, which uses ammonia mixed with ground up meat scraps and connective tissue (normally used in dog food or even discarded) and then mixed with ground beef to ensure the elimination of pathogenic bacteria.  These parts and connective tissue are not harmful because of what they are, but because they originate from factory-farm animals raised in the worst conditions and as such, are at risk for contamination from pathogenic bacteria such as certain strains of E. coli or Salmonella.

A news report from The Atlantic asks a very important question: “Is pink slime really any worse than pink cylinders like hot dogs, or yellow nuggets of mechanically separated poultry? Probably not.”

The answer denotes not only the stark reality that is the processed meat (and food) industry, but the fact that just because this recent event has been brought to our attention doesn’t mean that these issues are anything new.

But it confirms something loud and clear: Consumption of all processed and factory meats carries a high risk of illness and or death. 

And so, like a raging river of water from a broken dam, meat recalls and reports showing how dangerous conventional meats are, continue.

Drug-resistant bacteria

Last year, a flood of reports came out showing that 1 in 4 packages of meat was tainted with pathogenic bacteria.  Researchers found when testing a variety of raw beef, pork, turkey and chicken in grocery stores in various U.S. locations, nearly half – or 47% were found to test positive for a multi-drug antibiotic-resistant bacterium.

Cattle on CAFOs receive a regular diet of the following: grains, corn, soy, manure and other animal waste (including feathers, hair, skin, and blood), meat from diseased animals, plastics, chalk, and by-products from food, beverage, and candy factories, and silage.  According to Sustainable Table:

“Under current US agriculture policy, the government provides large subsidies to farmers that produce grains, particularly corn and soybeans. Livestock producers like to use corn and soy as a base for their animal feed, because these protein-rich grains fatten up their animals, and because they’re incredibly cheap as a result of the government subsidies. Livestock consumes 47% of the soy and 60% of the corn produced in the US.ii

It’s been estimated that factory farms get a discount of 7-10% on their operating costs because of the subsidies that the government provides for corn and soy.iii Although these cheap feed grains mean that meat and dairy prices are lower for consumers, they also result in lower nutritional content. In general, grain-fed meat, eggs and dairy are lower in omega-3 fatty acids (the “good” fat), and Conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA (CLA’s help to fight against cancer and cardiovascular disease), with higher levels of fat than products from animals raised on grass.iv”

The unnatural feed is not only missing vital nutritional components, it also makes the cattle sick. To combat this, they are routinely given subtherapeutic or preventative doses of antibiotics to “prevent” the generation of and spread of disease. Ironically, since antibiotics effectively destroy all bacteria, this wipes out the good bacteria too. The result? A weakened immune system of the organism receiving the antibiotics, and animals bodies’ are then susceptible to pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. Bacteria find ways to survive in the face of drugs which seek to wipe them out, and they become stronger and resistant to those drugs.

Researchers testing raw turkey, pork, beef, and chicken purchased at grocery stores in five different cities across the U.S. found that roughly 1 in 4 four of those samples tested positive for a multidrug antibiotic-resistant “superbug” bacterium: “We found that 47% of the samples were contaminated with Staph aureus, and more than half of those strains were multidrug resistant, or resistant to three or more antibiotics.”said Lance B. Price, PhD, director of the Center of Food Microbiology and Environmental Health at the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Flagstaff, AZ.

The other finding that came out of this research is that MRSA was found in about 2% of the meat samples. MRSA is a resistant-type of Staph (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a pathogenic bacteria). The bacteria usually enters a person’s body through a sore, cut, breathing tube, or catheter and often causes an infection, and can be fatal.

In a study from University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, epidemiologist Tara Smith discovered that even pork labeled “antibiotic-free” still contained MRSA bacteria:

“For the new study, published this month in PLoS ONE, she and colleagues bought a variety of pork products—395 packages in all—from 36 different stores in two big pig farming states, Iowa and Minnesota, and one of the most densely populated, New Jersey.

In the laboratory, the team mixed meat samples “vigorously” with a bacterial growth medium and allowed any microbes present to grow. MRSA, which appears as mauve-colored colonies on agar plates, was genetically typed and tested for antibiotic susceptibility.

The researchers found that 64.8% of the samples were positive for staph bacteria and 6.6% were positive for MRSA. Rates of contamination were similar for conventionally raised pigs (19 of 300 samples) and those labeled antibiotic-free (seven of 95 samples). Results of genetic typing identified several well-known strains, including the so-called livestock-associated MRSA (ST398) as well as common human strains; all were found in conventional and antibiotic-free meat. (The label “antibiotic-free” is not regulated, and the products were not “certified organic.”)”

Health officials claim that because these bacteria are commonly found on human hands and human nasal passages, this bacteria is likely originating from the skin and body surfaces of meat processing plant workers. But, we are also told that to avoid harmful bacteria from meat we should cook it thoroughly during preparation. So which is it – does the bacteria primarily originate from animals or humans? Health authorities seem very unclear about this. And, do you really want to eat something that you have to cook all of the nutrients out of just to make it “safe”, and does cooking it really make it “fit” to consume?

The American Meat Institute has this to say about antibiotic use and its connection to drug-resistance: 

“There is a misconception that somehow consuming meat from animals treated with antibiotics will cause humans to become resistant to those antibiotics. This is simply not the case. When antibiotics are used in livestock and poultry production, strict withdrawal periods must be followed before the animals are processed for foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) monitors meat and poultry to ensure that in the unlikely event that antibiotic residues are present, they do not exceed the tolerance levels deemed unsafe by FDA and USDA.

The industry has a strong record of compliance in this area. Most informed scientists and public health professionals acknowledge that the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans is overwhelmingly an issue related to human antibiotic use.”

And yet the USDA confirmed in early 2011 that 80 percent of antibiotics in use are in animal agriculture, which is about 4 times the amount used in humans to treat disease.

Drug-resistance microbes are prevalent in soils according to a recent report on Food Safety News: 

“Mounting scientific evidence shows that animal antibiotics are contributing to a rise in drug-resistant bacterial diseases among humans. But a new study out of Poland has found high levels of these antibiotic-proof pathogens in the natural environment as well. And yet again, animal antibiotics seem to be the culprit.”

So despite the insistent claims from health and agriculture officials that consuming meat from animals administered antibiotics doesn’t cause resistance, we know better because:

Industrial meat causes sickness and death

There are countless stories of people who have consumed tainted meat, some whose lives were forever changed.

2001: One of the most heartbreaking stories is about a little boy named Kevin Kowalcyk, who died at the age of 2 years and 8 months…due to consumption of factory farmed meat during a family vacation. From the time he became sick to the day he died, 12 days passed. During that span of time Kevin was incredibly sick and suffered greatly, and so did his family.

The meat company that produced the ground beef which made Kevin ill had actually failed tests multiple times that were supposed to detect E. coli and Salmonella. During a long investigation and inquiry, Kevin’s family requested that records about the meat to match up to recall dates be submitted for examination. The company was “unable” to locate these records, and was protected by the USDA. Even after filing a lawsuit, the Kowalcyks were unable to obtain the answers they needed. Since then, his family has dedicated themselves to campaigning against foodborne illness in unsafe food.

2007: Stephanie Smith, a children’s dance instructor in her early twenties, ate a hamburger from her parent’s house and was hospitalized soon after with severe abdominal pain and bloody diarrhea. Her kidneys shut down and she had multiple seizures during the days that followed. Doctors resorted to putting her in a coma for 9 weeks. She is now permanently paralyzed from the waist down – all due to pathogenic E. coli in the meat she ate.

Summer 2011: Cargill recalled 36 million pounds of ground turkey. This incident killed one person and made more than 70 others ill from Salmonella poisoning. The USDA-FSIS released a public health alert reminding consumers to cook all meat thoroughly before eating.

September 2011: Tyson Fresh Meats recalled over 130,000 pounds of ground beef for potential E. coli 0157:H7 contamination in 14 states.

December of 2011: Tyson had another recall – this time, 41 thousand pounds ground beef from 16 states, from contamination of E. coli O157:H7.  Last week, Hannaford Stores, a Scarborough, Maine-based grocery chain, recalled an unspecified amount of fresh ground beef products that may be contaminated with a multidrug resistant strain of Salmonella Typhimurium.

There are countless other food recalls, this list is but a drop in the bucket. There are also food recalls which don’t involve meat, but involve produce or other foods from commercial farms. But these are related to factory meat farms…why? Because many of these foods receive contamination from runoff water from the meat facilities:

Pick a recall, any recall: where does the meat come from? Industrial, commercial sources. You may see big-name “organic” and “natural” meats sold in the grocery store on recall lists.  If you spot these recalls, read the reports and find out the details. You’ll likely learn that the recall was from a big name producer and involved large quantities of meats. These producers are not the same, and should not be confused with smaller, local, and sustainable producers. The reason why is because there are many larger corporations who have latched onto the terms “organic”, “natural”, and even “grassfed”, but are in fact still using some of the same practices as other large industrial companies. Animals are still on feedlots or enclosed buildings, just like with other conventional facilities, and are still eating corn, soy, and grain.

The only requirements for USDA organic are that no hormones, antibiotics, GMOs, or pesticides/herbicides are used. In the case of cattle which are ruminants, consuming soy, corn, and grain can cause health issues, and isn’t much different than the way conventional cattle are raised that are not organic. This will eventually lead to more sickness and meat recalls.

The solution: sustainable meat

Why not just stop buying meat from commercial producers and avoid the inevitable risks associated with eating these animal products? You will be hard pressed to find local, sustainable meats on recall lists or making people sick. In all the years my family has consumed local meat from sustainable, grassfed producers, we have yet to become sick. We’ve been eating this kind of meat for at least a decade – along with other real, traditional food. Besides the amazing difference in the flavor and texture of real meat, the other prominent change I’ve observed is the vast improvement of our collective health.

The farmers who raise the meat we eat care about animal and land stewardship. They also care about the health of the people who are eating the products they produce. Anytime I want, I can go out to these farms and visit the premises, and I know what I’ll find is a far-cry from the disease infested facilities I described in the beginning of this post. I love this interview on Our Natural Life’s podcast series (with Jon and Cathy Payne) with Kimberly Hartke of Hartke is Online! discussing the importance of eating sustainable meat and other foods, and how it is possible to produce our food in this way.

The reality is, if the consumer public continues to support toxic, dangerous corporations producing tainted meat products, we can expect nothing but more of the same. The FDA, CDC, and USDA certainly aren’t worried about shutting down these companies, and as long as consumers ignore news reports about meat recalls and pretend there isn’t a problem, none of those agencies will ever demand that anything change in the industry.

The choice is simple:  

1) Stop supporting large producers who don’t care about the health of the animals, the environment, and its own consumers.

2) Start buying meat and animal products from sustainable farmers in your area who use safe and ethical farming practices

It’s up to you. If you continue to buy garbage, you can expect recalls, drug resistance, and disease to continue. If you buy real meat from honest farmers, this situation will start to change…and the ability of large, bloated corporations who follow no rules but their own and rake in billions and billions of dollars from the sickness and death of our health and environment, will stop.

Since our federal and state regulatory agencies have failed in this task, it is up to the consumers to force our food producers to be accountable for their actions, and demand that they adhere to principles of sustainable farming and food production, or go out of business. 

More information:
1 in 4 meat meat packages tainted with pathogenic bacteria

Questions to ask your farmer: Know what’s in your food!

Huge FDA recall of 10,000 products – Another wakeup call to avoid processed foods

The grassfed meat challenge: Busting myths about meat

Deciphering egg and poultry labels

This post is part of Real Food Forager’s Fat Tuesday Carnival.