Tagged with Health

Horrific Conditions for Factory-Farmed Chickens Exposed

Originally published on Care2.

Kreider Farms is hell on earth for egg-laying chickens. The Humane Society of the United States released a mercifully short video summarizing its investigation of the conditions at Kreider.

According to HSUS, the investigation revealed:

  • Birds were severely overcrowded in cages more cramped than the national average; each hen received only 54–58 square inches of space on which to spend her life.
  • Injured and dead hens, including mummified bird carcasses, were found inside cages with living hens laying eggs for human consumption.
  • Hens were left without water for days when a water source malfunctioned, causing many to die.
  • Hens’ legs, wings, and heads were found trapped in cage wires and automated feeding machinery.
  • A thick layer of dead flies on the barn floors caused a crunching sound when walking on it.

Nicholas D. Kristof reports in The New York Times that Kreider produces “4.5 million eggs each day for supermarkets like ShopRite” — it is no fly-by-night operation, and its policies condemn millions of chickens to lives of unrelenting suffering.

Kristof reports that Kreider crams so many birds into small cages that they can hardly move for their entire lives. According to Kristof, HSUS’s investigator reported that the stench and filth in the barns are so repulsive that workers spend as little time in them as possible. Sadly the birds don’t have the option of walking out the door.

Kristof quotes Ron Kreider, president of Kreider Farms, as saying, “The reality of food processing can be off-putting to those not familiar with animal agriculture.” Not exactly reassuring words for those who care how animals raised for food are treated.

Since there is no government regulation guaranteeing that any label (like “organic” or “cage-free”) guarantees humane treatment for fowl, the best way to ensure that no birds were tortured in the production of your eggs is not to eat any.

Photo credit: Ethelred

Tagged , , ,

Superbug Meat: Factory Farms Weaken Antibiotics

Originally published on Care2; Open Salon Editor’s Pick

We’ve all heard about the antibiotic crisis: overuse has led to bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, opening the door to superbugs for which we have no cure. Those superbugs cause infections that are fatal in 30-60 percent of cases.

What we haven’t heard as much is that the biggest abuser of antibiotics isn’t human patients and their doctors: it is factory farms, which are responsible for 80 percent of antibiotic use. They spike livestock feed with the medications to make “meat animals” grow faster. Seven million pounds of antibiotics are sold for human use every year, while 28.8 million pounds go into cows, pigs, turkeys, sheep and chickens.

Lawsuit Against the FDA

Recently the government moved a couple steps closer to ending this lunacy. First, in a lawsuit called Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. vs. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, federal Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz ordered the FDA to reintroduce a draft rule it first proposed 35 years ago but never acted on.

The rule would require that “an antibacterial drug fed…to animals must be shown not to promote increased resistance to antibacterials used in human medicine.” The rule would not prohibit giving animals medication to treat disease. The Court’s order would obligate the FDA only to give the public (i.e. agribusiness) a chance to contribute its two cents (i.e. big fat political donations) on whether the proposed rule should be adopted. Legally, the Court can’t make the administration adopt the rule.

The FDA Asks Agribusiness, Pretty Please, to Take Antibiotics Out of Feed Voluntarily

Second, the FDA announced after Magistrate Judge Katz’s ruling that it is “proposing a voluntary initiative” to end the use of antibiotics to speed the growth of animals raised for meat, while permitting the use of the medications to treat disease under a veterinarian’s supervision.

The new initiative, being voluntary, is toothless. The Center for Science in the Public Interest called it “tragically flawed” because it relies “too heavily on the drug industry and animal producers to act voluntarily in the best interest of consumers.”

The FDA practically boasted in its press release that it had worked “to ensure that the voices of livestock producers across the country were taken into account.” These are the same producers who have dictated the government’s non-action on this issue for three decades and it is no surprise that they are still running the show.

Agribusiness Pretends to Play Along; Nobody Buys It

Agribusiness is trying to ward off meaningful government intervention with a charade that it is voluntarily slashing its use of antibiotics. For instance, as Reuters reports, “the poultry industry [says] it already has ratcheted down ‘by a large margin’ its use of antibiotics.” But agribusiness has been on notice since 1977 that the government disapproved of its massive overconsumption of antibiotics and didn’t try to fix the problem until now. It is awfully convenient to claim that it can self-regulate just when a federal lawsuit shines a light on its long-term failure to do just that.

The same Reuters article reports that the “director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, noted voluntary efforts to reduce antibiotic use and said, ‘We believe additional steps are necessary to have a real impact on this problem.’” In other words, the FDA admits that agribusiness is not and will not do enough to solve the problem voluntarily. Still, it chose to address the problem with a brand new voluntary initiative. That is an agency working hard to have no impact on anything.

The Science Says: Global Public Health Crisis

Contrast this sluggish inaction with the magnitude of the problem: the FDA itself told the Court that antibiotic resistance is “a mounting public health problem of global significance” and that dosing livestock with antibiotics “for production purposes…is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.”

There is no doubt that factory farms’ use of antibiotics is directly causing the rise of superbugs. The science is clear that feeding animals antibiotics just to make them grow larger faster threatens human health. In 1997, for example, the World Health Organization recommended a ban on feeding animals antibiotics for growth if the same antibiotics are used to treat humans. In 2010, the FDA reviewed this and other studies and concluded, as it had back in the ’70s, that factory farms shouldn’t feed antibiotics to animals. And just like in the ’70s, the FDA once again didn’t do a thing about it.

Why it has been necessary to sue the FDA to make them do what they already know they should do is a mystery. And this lawsuit isn’t even the first effort to roust the administration to action. In 2009 and subsequent years, as reported by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “hundreds of…health, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and humane organizations” supported a bill in Congress to address the problem. It didn’t pass.

Doctors Want to Protect Antibiotics

Doctors are on the front lines of the battle against antibiotic-resistant superbugs, and they have taken sides in the struggle to get antibiotics out of factory farm feed. Three antibiotics doctors commonly prescribe, penicillin and two forms of tetracycline, are at issue in the lawsuit. The American Medical Association endorsed the 2009 bill to reduce the amount of these medications fed to animals raised for meat.

The AMA’s newspaper quoted Dr. Brad Spellberg, associate professor of medicine at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California, as saying, “I’ve seen patients die of treatable infections. I’ve told their family, ‘I have no medicine to use.’ This is a catastrophic public health crisis. I don’t know how else to put it.

Our health is far more important than some extra profit for factory farming conglomerates. Please help convince our government of that by signing the petition to the Obama administration calling for an end to agribusiness’s abuse of antibiotics.

Photo Credit: NDSU Ag Comm

Tagged , , , ,

New Technology is More Reliable and Ethical Than Animal Experiments

Originally published on Care2.

If you want to know how to cure diseases in humans, you want to test experimental treatments on whatever else is most similar. For years scientists have tested their hypotheses on non-human animals, like mice and rats. But extrapolating the results of medical and other scientific research from non-human animals to humans is a dubious undertaking at best. Other animals’ biologies are not the same as ours. They have similarities, often more than we like to admit, but not enough to draw reliable conclusions about the safety of medical interventions in human beings.

As reported by the American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Acetaminophen, for example, is poisonous to cats but is a therapeutic in humans; penicillin is toxic in guinea pigs but has been an invaluable tool in human medicine; morphine causes hyper-excitement in cats but has a calming effect in human patients; and oral contraceptives prolong blood-clotting times in dogs but increase a human’s risk of developing blood clots. Many more such examples exist.”

Not only are the results of animal experiments of limited use (if not downright dangerous), they are also cruel, painful and kill most of their subjects. 95% of the over 100 million animals who suffer and die in laboratories — this includes not just medical tests but food, cosmetic, chemical, and purely academic experiments — have no protection from cruelty. The federal Animal Welfare Act, which ostensibly protects animals in laboratories, doesn’t cover mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals. As long as a lab-affiliated committee approves an experiment, the experimenter can do whatever he or she wants to these living, feeling creatures.

Happily, some scientists have turned their attention towards creating more effective and ethical alternatives to vivisection, like computer models and tissue cultures that have more in common with human physiology than any animal does. The Harvard Crimson reports that researchers recently developed a device that “simulates the microenvironment of the human intestine by creating a miniaturized three-dimensional scaffold that supports growth and development of a patient’s own cells—even including microbes essential for digestion and normal physiology.”

The lead researcher, Harvard University Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering Director Donald E. Ingber, said that one motive for his work is “the problem that animal testing really doesn’t accurately predict what happens in humans.” According to The Crimson, Ingber believes the new technology may allow scientists “to pursue a more comprehensive understanding of cellular pathways and medical prognoses.” It could be especially valuable for research into Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Harvard’s Assistant Director for Undergraduate Studies in Biomedical Engineering, Sujata Bhatia, said that the new device “does such a nice job of mimicking the actual environment of the intestine, it could be an amazing tool for both biomedical students and biomedical engineers.”

Ingber anticipates more devices that will improve upon and replace animal research, including technologies replicating human lungs and hearts and even the interactions among multiple organs. This is good news for animals and humans alike.

 

 

Tagged , , , ,

Prejudice Kills a Homeless Woman

Originally published on Care2; Open Salon Editor’s Pick

The national tendency to blame the homeless for their plight collided with the war on drugs to kill an innocent woman near St. Louis last September. 29-year-old Anna Brown, a homeless mother of two, went to the hospital seeking treatment for a sprained ankle and leg pain. After doctors dismissed her complaints and she refused to leave without treatment, Richmond Heights, Missouri police arrested and jailed her for trespassing at the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, she was dead of a blood clot that originated in her painful leg and traveled to her lungs.

Assuming that she was trying to scam drugs from the hospital, the police treated Ms. Brown like a criminal. They hoisted her from their car into the police station because the pain in her legs prevented her from walking. When they put her in the jail cell where she would die, they laid her on the concrete floor — right between two empty beds. Her ordeal from the hospital to the police car to the jail cell was captured on surveillance videos.

Ms. Brown was not a drug addict: according to the International Business Times, the autopsy revealed that she had no drugs in her system when she sought medical help.

Ms. Brown was also not lazy or a freeloader. She and her two children lost their home to a tornado, according to The Washington Post. Then Ms. Brown lost her job. Poverty eroded her family’s standard of living to the point that the government placed her children with Ms. Brown’s mother, and Ms. Brown herself became homeless.

Anna Brown represents a significant portion of our country’s homeless population: families that include adults willing to work but unable to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their children. Families with children are 41% of the homeless population. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, “declining wages have put housing out of reach for many families.” Even families with working parents can’t always afford housing.

Under fire for Ms. Brown’s death, the local police protest that they deferred to medical professionals’ determination that Ms. Brown was healthy enough to be arrested and jailed. The medical professionals who made that determination protest that in some cases blood clots cannot be detected and that Ms. Brown did not appear to have any, according to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. No one seems to have explained why they did not treat the visible swelling in Ms. Brown’s ankle, which corroborated her complaints of pain.

But this was not a case of a poor person being denied any medical care. The Washington Post reported that medical professionals examined Ms. Brown and performed ultrasounds on both of her legs.

It is the hospital’s refusal to take her complaints of pain seriously and the police officers’ willingness to arrest her for trespassing at the hospital, both based on the assumption that she was an addict seeking drugs, that reflect common assumptions about poor people and that led directly to her death. As Ms. Brown’s sister Krystle said, “My sister is not here today because people passed judgment.”

 

Tagged , ,

Judge Rules That Firing Woman Over Pumping Breast Milk Is Not Sex Discrimination

Lactation is not a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, and firing someone who wants to pump breast milk is not sex discrimination, according to a federal judge in Texas.

This decision is a stumper. Lactation occurs because of and immediately following pregnancy and childbirth, which makes it “related” to them. Only women lactate, so firing an employee because she needs to pump does discriminate against her on the basis of her sex.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit against debt-collection agency Houston Funding on behalf of an employee whom the company fired, allegedly because she wanted to pump at work. The EEOC is considering appealing the decision by Judge Lynn Hughes (who is male).

Since the firing the federal government passed a law requiring employers to provide break time for new mothers to pump breast milk at work, but it does not prohibit employers from firing workers for pumping. One might have presumed that the anti-discrimination laws already had that covered, but now that is up in the air, and it will probably take years and opinions from higher courts to clear it up.

Tagged , , , , ,

All I Want for Christmas is Two Good Earplugs

As a Jew I don’t actually want anything for Christmas, but I do have a year-round wish to turn down the world’s volume knob, as regular readers know from “WOULD YOU TURN THAT DOWN?!!

In that spirit, here is a collection of quotes from fellow opponents of noise pollution. Two of my favorites:

“The sanitary and mechanical age we are now entering makes up for the mercy it grants to our sense of smell by the ferocity with which it assails our sense of hearing.”
~ Havelock Ellis, 1912, in Impressions and Comments (1930)

“I have terrible hearing trouble. I have unwittingly helped to invent and refine a type of music that makes its principal proponents deaf.”
~ Pete Townshend of The Who (2006 interview)

Music lovers, listen up: you now have Pete Townshend’s approval to wear earplugs at rock concerts.

Tagged ,

FDA Refuses to Limit Antibiotics Given to Animals Raised for Food

An update on my previous post, Factory Farms are Breeding More Than Cows: Agribusiness Antibiotic Abuse Creates Superbugs: the FDA has refused consumer advocates’ petitions to “limit the routine feeding of antibiotics to farm animals.” For an administration that claims it wants to improve health care, rendering some of our most important medications powerless is a funny way of showing it.

Tagged , , ,

Save Your Hearing

A while back I wrote about the damage that noise, such as the din in subways, concerts, and spinning classes, does to our hearing. This article describes evidence that noise is correlated to hearing loss.
Wear those ear plugs. The more people do it, the less silly we’ll look!

Tagged

Factory Farms are Breeding More Than Cows: Agribusiness Antibiotic Abuse Creates Superbugs

Article first published as Factory Farms Are Breeding More Than Cows on Blogcritics.
Antibiotics are overused, and as a direct result drug-resistant bacteria are developing that sicken and kill people (they are fatal in 30-60% of cases). This is old news. Doctors have responded by prescribing antibiotics less often and by emphasizing to patients the importance of taking all the pills prescribed to them. (If you don’t finish all your antibiotics, start doing so as of right now. Don’t be one of those cretins who stops taking antibiotics because they “feel better.” You’re bumping off antibiotics and aiding and abetting superbugs, and none of us appreciate it.)

What you may not have heard is that the antibiotics prescribed to people are just the tip of the superbug problem. Almost 80% of antibiotics administered in the United States are given to animals raised for food. Factory farms administer antibiotics to cows, pigs, and chickens preventatively (because the conditions they live in are so gross it’s hard to imagine they won’t get sick) and to foster unnaturally fast growth (because the more meat per day per animal, the more money for agribusiness).

28.8 million pounds of antibiotics are sold every year in the U.S. to feed to animals raised for food. Compare that to seven million pounds sold for administration to human beings. The numbers make it clear what we have to do: clean up factory farms so that animals aren’t trapped in filth so disgusting it would make them ill without medication, and give antibiotics only to animals who are sick. Both of these fixes require government to regulate agribusiness, which it is notoriously loathe to do.

Industry is trying to stave off government regulation by giving the appearance of solving the problem itself. For instance, according to Reuters, “the poultry industry [says] it already has ratcheted down ‘by a large margin’ its use of antibiotics.” But self-regulation is never the right (i.e. effective/remotely successful) answer for agribusiness. The same Reuters article reports that “Bernadette Dunham, director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, noted voluntary efforts to reduce antibiotic use and said, ‘We believe additional steps are necessary to have a real impact on this problem.’”

Doctors favor regulation of antibiotics on factory farms. The American Medical Association endorsed a bill to reduce the amount of antibiotics agribusiness feeds to animals they raise for food (see below for more on the bill, known as PAMTA). The AMA’s newspaper quoted Dr. Brad Spellberg, associate professor of medicine at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California, as saying “I’ve seen patients die of treatable infections. I’ve told their family, ‘I have no medicine to use.’ This is a catastrophic public health crisis. I don’t know how else to put it.” (Emphasis added.)

The government knows what’s going on. The Food and Drug Administration acknowledged in 2010 that routinely feeding antibiotics to animals raised for food “is not in the interest of protecting or promoting public health.” But it has taken no action.

In 2009 Representative Louise Slaughter (D, NY) introduced PAMTA, The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would have phased out the use of “medically important antibiotics” for non-medical purposes on factory farms. The bill did not make it into law. If it ever does, it would accomplish one of the necessary reforms – not giving antibiotics to animals who are not sick; unfortunately, it would do nothing to clean up factory farms to prevent animals from becoming sick.

You can help support PAMTA: sign the pro-PAMTA petition, and call your Representative and Senators to ask them to help introduce and co-sponsor PAMTA.

A win on PAMTA would still leave the problem of repulsive and corrosive conditions on factory farms. “[T]he reason why antibiotics are fed to animals on factory farms is to keep them from dying in the filthy, crowded conditions that farmers force these animals to call home. Factory farms are prime breeding grounds for potentially deadly bacteria such as E. coli, salmonella, and campylobacter, and the conditions are so putrid that millions of animals die within a matter of weeks before they are even sent to slaughter, despite being shot up with drugs. Imagine how few would survive without them.” The best way to clean up meat, dairy, and egg factories: Go veg and put them out of business. It’s a matter of life and death not just for the animals, but for you too.

Tagged , , ,

WOULD YOU TURN THAT DOWN?!!

The CALM Act.  Sounds sort of Zen, maybe even a little flaky for Congressional legislation.  But CALM, or the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, is a significant recognition of a health risk few take seriously: noise-induced hearing loss.

 You have probably noticed that the volume of television commercials is louder than the volume of the shows they interrupt.  The CALM Act (which has passed the House and Senate, but has a few more legislative hurdles before it reaches the President) would require commercials to broadcast at the same volume as television shows and no louder. 

 On the Internet the comments about this legislation are leaning towards the dismissive, but noise is not trivial.  In non-industrialized societies older people have significantly better hearing than older people in industrialized societies because they have endured less noise.  In other words, the noise around us is making us deaf. 

 For instance, just 30 minutes on the New York subway can be enough to cause hearing damage.  Add to that the MP3 player turned way up so it can be heard above the subway din, and multiply it by two rides a day for the average commuter.  Then there are power tools, traffic, and music — in bars, at concerts, and even in spinning classes at gyms, where people pay for cardiac health with future hearing loss.

 I carry ear plugs everywhere.  I use them on the subway, in gym classes, in movie theaters, and at bars.  Usually I can still hear well enough to converse, and when I can’t, the people without ear plugs probably can’t hear each other either.  I may look silly, but I walk away without a headache from the noise or a sore throat from shouting.

 Television commercials aren’t the biggest culprit in the assault on our ears, but Congress’s acknowledgement that noise pollution causes hearing loss and that it is worthy of federal attention is a quiet though welcome step forward.  I hope there will be more progress on and awareness of this issue so that I won’t be the only one who can carry on a conversation at the nursing home.

Tagged ,