SOLE food … and politics?

Trying to bring a little soul into the political arena? Is that akin to building snowmen in Hades? What’s going on with our so-called leaders? American politics have been too much show and too little substance for as long as I can remember. And when George Junior was calling the shots, I was pretty relieved to be living abroad, despite my homesickness for Maine. We really believed that when Obama was elected things would change for the better – and the timing meshed well with other things going on in our lives – so we set the wheels in motion that took us from this:

the river through town in Gouda, the Netherlands

to this:

the river through town in Machias, ME

But a new Presidential election looms on the horizon. Have I mentioned how sickened I am by not only being sold out by the government but also being told that it’s in my best interest? Like this story appearing just before Christmas about the FDA refusing to limit the amount of antibiotics used in livestock feed. As Steve Roach (director of Food Animal Concerns Trust,  points out, ”The evidence was there way back in 1977, actually before then. They made a political decision. And since then, the FDA has failed to act.” So because of a “political decision”, the adverse affects from which have been known for 35 years or longer, Americans are (often unknowingly) eating a diet of meat that can literally kill them. We all know that overexposure to antibiotics creates so-called superbugs that are resistant to the medication developed to kill them – that’s what MRSA is. Who hasn’t gone to a care facility such as a nursing home or hospital and encountered questions and concerns about exposure to this potentially fatal bacterial infection? It isn’t only by consuming too many antibiotics ourselves that puts us at risk – it is consuming meat that has been infected by the same microbes due to heavy regimens of unnecessary antibiotic dosing by factory-style livestock producers:

Giving animals antibiotics in their feed can cause microbes in the livestock to become resistant to the drugs. People can then become infected with the resistant bacteria by eating or handling meat contaminated with the pathogens.

The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture is an acknowledged danger, and yet it continues? Why is our government allowing this to happen when they are supposed to be protecting us? Agricultural use of antibiotics accounts for “70 percent of the antibiotics and related drugs used in the United States, and … they provide resistant bacteria with a direct route into people’s kitchens.” (Emphasis added by me.)

The shift in feeding and maintenance of livestock, which really took off back in the 60′s and 70′s, carries a price tag that we don’t see on our supermarket slips. Overexposure to antibiotics is a recognized and acknowledged danger. “Scientists believe antibiotics also may have contributed to the explosive rise in asthma and allergies in children over the last 20 years.”  ”Every year, 100,000 Americans die from bacterial infections acquired in the hospital,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter, the author of legislation that seeks to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of human disease. ”Seventy percent of these infections are resistant to drugs commonly used to treat them. I wonder how many lives could have been saved if these proposals were adopted in 1977 as they should have been.” (Quote taken from here, emphasis added by me.)

Why are livestock animals routinely dosed with antibiotics, whether they are ill or not? Because the conditions under which livestock is bred, born, raised, and butchered is often inhumane, immoral, and unsafe. “Animals live in close confinement, often standing or laying in their own filth, and under constant stress that inhibits their immune systems and makes them more prone to infection.” And not only are the animal bodies themselves the problem – what comes out is also a huge issue: “Industrial livestock operations produce an enormous amount of concentrated animal waste - over one billion tons annually—that is often laden with antibiotics, as well as antibiotic-resistant bacteria from the animals’ intestines. It is estimated that as much as 80 to 90 percent of all antibiotics given to animals are not fully digested and eventually pass through the body and enter the environment, where they can encounter new bacteria and create additional resistant strains. With huge quantities of manure routinely sprayed onto fields surrounding CAFOs, antibiotic resistant bacteria can leech into surface and ground water, contaminating drinking wells and endangering the health of people living close to large livestock facilities.” (Both quotes taken from here.) The interplay of the different ecological elements that are in play once you start considering (1) the animal exposed to antibiotics, (2) the human or animal that eats the exposed animal, (2) the waste produced by the exposed animal and the waste produced by those who have consumed the animal, (4) the effect upon crops grown in fields fertilized by waste from the exposed animal, (5) water contamination from wastes of the exposed animal and those that have consumed it … and so on, to a dizzying level, are discussed in this very readable article.

If raising livestock in densely concentrated populations is unhealthy, why do we still do it? Well … McDonald’s burgers would taste a lot better if the cattle that made them were raised safely and humanely, but they would cost more. The driving force behind factory farming is to produce the highest output at the lowest cost. In short, one of the keystones of sound economic policy. The hang up? While this might work perfectly when you’re talking about machine parts on conveyor belts in a factory, it is not sustainable when the bits and pieces are living creatures. Life changes, adapts, and reacts in sometimes unexpected and even unexplainable ways – unlike computer chips, cathode ray tubes, or refrigeration units. And with living organisms, what affects one affects all. What was intended to be an economy of scale becomes, instead, unsustainable over the long run; and to keep maintenance costs as low as possible while forcing growth as quickly as possible, indiscriminate use of antibiotics has become the industrial farmer’s go-to solution. For a while, this seemed to work – prices stayed low, and of course that’s the number that everyone focuses on first.

Would price increases from clean stock – livestock raised in such a way that antibiotics are given only to ill animals that are removed from the source of supply – really cripple US agriculture? Would our McDonalds fixes double in price? If Denmark’s decade-long ban is any indication, the answer is a resounding no. During the decade that Denmark has banned growth-promoting antibiotics in their pork industry (bearing in mind they are the largest pork exporter in the world), “livestock production has increased and food prices have remained stable.” The European Union and South Korea have also banned the use of antibiotics in livestock feed. So I have to ask myself, why hasn’t our government?

Many factory farmers claim that regular dosing of antibiotics is necessary to maintain herd health – and to ultimately protect the consumer. Is that true, though? There are certainly studies that show otherwise, such as the one conducted by the University of Georgia that revealed “chickens raised without antibiotics were less likely to carry Salmonella bacteria in their bodies than chicken raised with antibiotics [5.8% vs 38.8% respectively].”

Exposing a definitive causality from antibiotic-laden feed through the animals’ exposure through the waste process and culminating in clearly-defined human health issues has been an explosively controversial area. This medical paper, which puts resistant bacterial strains caused by consuming exposed livestock to SARS and Ebola, explains how difficult the process is and calls for the use of mathematical models to develop a theory of the underlying complex causes. “The emergence of a new type of resistance is a highly random event, which can’t be predicted accurately, and may involve multiple steps that preclude perfect understanding even after the fact. Spread is equally complicated and may obscure the origins of resistance.”

In short, there isn’t an easy answer and the government will continue to use this to its advantage for as long as we are willing to put dollars and cents in front of our long-term health. Lack of clear or overwhelming evidence does not stop the government from deciding what’s best for us in other areas, though. Ironically, many of the areas that government is willing to step in have to do with our own self-sufficiency – such as banning sales and/or transportation of raw milk, convicting people for drinking milk from their own cows, and even suing organic farmers for being the victims of GMO cross-pollination.

I don’t claim to have all the facts or know all the answers, but I do believe “more government is not needed.  Freedom to grow, freedom to sell and freedom to eat locally without the intense intervention from Washington may be the only solutions.” We need to take back the control – and the responsibility – for our own health.  We can do that by growing a garden, raising livestock, buying organic, buying local, by asking questions and demanding answers, by refusing to take the easiest path simply because it provides the least resistance.

But now – on to the food! For this SOLE (sustainable, organic, local  and ethical) food challenge, I made good ol’ beef stew. What a treat on a cold winter’s night! We are fortunate to have a few sources of organic beef in the community and although we do not each much red meat, it is a powerhouse of protein. (I am so looking forward to having our own rabbits in the freezer next winter, though!) For six hungry people, I used one pound of organic stew beef from Olde Sow Dairy, about 2 pounds of potatoes, one pound of carrots, and about 4 small onions from David and Tigger’s gardens, organic butter from Moo Milk, and a tantalizing blend of herbs de Provence from  Heidi’s Herbals.

I sauteed the beef in a couple of tablespoons of butter, and once it was sealed, I added the chopped onions. When the onions were translucent, I added the sliced carrots, diced potatoes, and sprinkled a little bit of organic wheat flour from Aurora Mills over it for thickening. Then I poured water over it to cover and let it simmer until the veggies were tender. Partway through the process, I sprinkled some herbs de Provence and sea salt to taste. Couldn’t be easier – or tastier!