FDA's chicken farm report

webexplorer

New Member
Oh boy, here is FDA's report about our chicken farms in USA:

After years of sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one would notice, the FDA has now finally admitted that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, a cancer-causing toxic chemical that’s fatal in high doses. But the real story is where this arsenic comes from: It’s added to the chicken feed on purpose!

FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic | The Revered Review Vernon, NJ
 

sequoias

Active Member
Premium Member
That's why lot of people get cancer. I knew the govt do dirty work on us. FDA should be banning things that are dangerous/unhealthy for us.
 

DeafCaroline

New Member
That's why lot of people get cancer. I knew the govt do dirty work on us. FDA should be banning things that are dangerous/unhealthy for us.
And what's worse is that the agriculture industry has made it a law to forbid undercover investigations of their farms revealing any abuse. If they can make it a law that they don't have to reveal which foods is genetically modified, they can pretty much get away with anything. Agriculture is one of the top three industries of the US - it generates billions and billions of dollars for the economy so it's a very powerful sector with very powerful lobbyists.

While doing my research on industrial farming and browsing through government records, I've learned that things like animal protein, melamine, and kitty litter was considered acceptable as cattle feed. Cattle is vegetarian, they are not supposed to be eating meat yet majority of the fish caught on this planet is reserved for the pet food and agriculture industry.

About arsenic, it's no secret that there is some in animal feed, as well as other toxic substances. It's ironic though that the FDA had to admit anything because if you go to their website, this is what they say:

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires animal feed, like human foods, to

be pure and wholesome
be produced under sanitary conditions
contain no harmful substances
be truthfully labeled


As is also the case for human foods, the act does not give FDA the authority to require approval of animal feed, including pet food, before it is marketed. But the agency has the authority to take action against feed products that are in violation of the law. And FDA approves the additives or drugs that are used in feed products.

Animal feed manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that

feed is truthfully labeled
feed does not contain unsafe additives or contaminants
if the feed contains drugs, the drugs are approved by FDA for use in animal feeds


Federal and state regulatory agencies work cooperatively to provide the rules, guidance, and oversight to assist industry in producing and distributing safe animal feed and feed ingredients.

Truthfully labeled? Yeah right, it's the FDA who agreed that genetically modified foods don't have to be labeled as such.

If you want a list of exactly what's approved for animal feed in the agricultural sector - click here, you'll be repulsed by some of the ingredients that are allowed:

PubMed Central, Table 1: Environ Health Perspect. 2007 May; 115(5): 663

and a more detailed list can be found here: What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health

Also, a study had been done recently that revealed that nearly half of packaged meats in grocery chains contain staph which is not surprising at all considering the living conditions and diets of industrially farmed animals.
 

sequoias

Active Member
Premium Member
Yeah, their dirty work to make money from sick people going to hospitals. Look at the hospitals booming with new buildings and new expansions. Govt have many ways to take advantage of us, fuck the govt.
 

radioman

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
sigh .. you can say the government did it. As I raised chickens before- here gos. really its the pharmaceutical industry who did it. Its added to chicken feed as roxarsone as a growth enhancer. Its only a charming name roxarsone that was used to "market" to the damneed farmers who didnt know any better.

It was accepted practice as the chickens got bigger for more profit. Afterall when you shop for meat, its sold by the pound.

When the government announce they found this drug, then that means it was "uncovered" as an attempt to manipulate the drugs industry.

Once arsenic or "roxarsone" stops being added to feed, your prices will go up. :roll:

The farmers are being lied to since the roxarsone is added as a organic form, not the processed arsenic form that is more toxic.

Lets see - when the chickens poop- the farmers spreads it on the field since the chicken poop is like gold. it is rich in nitrogen.

SO everytime you eat chicken nuggets at mcds, think roxarsone or arsenic.:shock:
 

Jazzberry

Member
Arsenic in our food supply? How did that ever happen?! That got my attention! I found an interesting article at Mother Jones that gives some good background info.

It looks like originally, back in the 1940s, everyone thought that arsenic added to chicken feed in it's organic form would be safe. Roxarsone, the product that contains arsenic, was popular because:
* It killed a common parasite in chickens (coccidiosis)
* Made chickens grow larger
* Added a pink hue to the chicken flesh which consumers found attractive (it makes consumers think the chicken is fresh)

(I don't know if its the arsenic in the Roxarsone product that is doing this or other components in the chicken feed additive bundled with the arsenic. Anyone know?)

But eventually people became concerned that the arsenic in the chicken feed changed from an organic to inorganic form which is dangerous.

This caused the European Union to ban the use of arsenic in chicken feed in 1999 and Tyson (A US chicken processor) to voluntarily stop using it in 2004.

Due to the bad publicity, the manufacture of Roxarsone, Pfizer, has voluntarily stopped shipping this within the USA since June. They are still selling it outside of the USA and I haven't seen any articles that mentioned how much of it is still available in the distribution system and on US farms.

And, there are still many smaller USA companies using it. I don't know what it will take for the FDA to ban it.

I'm still trying to get more info, but based on what I've read so far, the real problem may not be the amount of arsenic in the chicken but the arsenic is present in the chicken waste also and eventually ends up in our water supply, and continues to increase.

I think a lot of the US govt regulations and advice (e.g. USDA dietary guidelines) about food is driven by economics. The regulators probably want a good percentage of the food available in the grocery stores to be as inexpensive as possible. Not only for political reasons but also for budgetary reasons -- if food costs goes up then allowances for food stamps, welfare programs,subsidized school lunches, and etc. would probably go up.

And then of course there is the fact that lobbyists have a lot of influence with polititicians and regulators which often means that policies are developed and carried out that are not in the interest of the majority of the US.



<snip>

For decades, the industry and its overseers assured farmers and consumers that poison-laced feed wasn't a problem, because the additive delivers arsenic in organic form, which is much less toxic than its inorganic state. But evidence has been mounting that the arsenic in roxarsone is anything but stable—it shifts from organic to inorganic form under anaerobic conditions, and probably in the intestinal tracts of chickens. Inorganic arsenic is vile stuff. According to Food and Water Watch, "Chronic exposure to arsenic is associated with increased risk for several kinds of cancer, including bladder, kidney, lung, liver and prostate." Moreover, "Arsenic exposure is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, as well as neurological problems in children."


As far back as 1999, concern about arsenic in roxarsone going inorganic spurred the European Union to ban its use; and the US poultry giant Tyson, no doubt fearing liability issues, stopped using it in 2004. But the broader industry kept right on dosing its birds with the arsenic-laced stuff, and the FDA and USDA did nothing to rein them in.

<snip>

Until this year, the US regulatory agencies have reacted to these revelations with silence. The FDA finally got around to testing supermarket chicken samples very recently, and found significantly higher inorganic arsenic levels in meat from roxarsone-treated birds. That finding prompted action: Pfizer's decision to pull its roxarsone within a month. But the action is completely voluntary, and Pfizer is the largest, but not the only, producer of it. According to Food and Water Watch, Pfizer's Alpharma division produces about half of the roxarsone used in the US. What about the other half? The FDA doesn't seem to have the appetite to force an outright ban. In its recent press release, the agency saw fit to sugarcoat its findings: "FDA officials stress that the levels of inorganic arsenic detected were very low and that continuing to eat chicken as 3-Nitro [Pfizer's product] is suspended from the market does not pose a health risk."

Also the FDA has a Q&A website on the arsenic product ( 3-Nitro (Roxarsone) ) here:
Questions and Answers Regarding 3-Nitro (Roxarsone)
 

Babyblue

New Member
That's why lot of people get cancer. I knew the govt do dirty work on us. FDA should be banning things that are dangerous/unhealthy for us.
Arsenic is found in soil. So just about everything that is grown or has to do with soil will have arsenic in it.

People used to spray arsenic on Tobacco to keep the mites from eating the leaves up. So anything grown, or raised where tobacco was grown will have high arsenic levels.
 

sequoias

Active Member
Premium Member
Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

Babyblue said:
That's why lot of people get cancer. I knew the govt do dirty work on us. FDA should be banning things that are dangerous/unhealthy for us.
Arsenic is found in soil. So just about everything that is grown or has to do with soil will have arsenic in it.

People used to spray arsenic on Tobacco to keep the mites from eating the leaves up. So anything grown, or raised where tobacco was grown will have high arsenic levels.
Then why put it in chicken in the first place? It did state to prevent some kind of disease.
 

Oceanbreeze

New Member
Rice, apple juice and grape juice also contains arsenic.
Arsenic is found in soil. So just about everything that is grown or has to do with soil will have arsenic in it.

People used to spray arsenic on Tobacco to keep the mites from eating the leaves up. So anything grown, or raised where tobacco was grown will have high arsenic levels.
I'm glad we have someone in this thread that is using their common sense.

First of all, look at the source of the OP article. That should tell you alot. If it's NON biased, then it's believable. If it's heavily biased one way or another, than it's probably overblown.

As stated by this poster, arsenic is found in low levels in soil. Its also found in peach pits (or maybe that's cyanide?). At any rate, we have low levels of toxic substances in a lot of things. Does that mean we should freak out about it?

And, if someone wants to brings up carcinogens... To that, I say that life itself is fatal! Quit worrying about this or that. You'll just make yourself nuts!
 

DeafCaroline

New Member
I'm glad we have someone in this thread that is using their common sense.

First of all, look at the source of the OP article. That should tell you alot. If it's NON biased, then it's believable. If it's heavily biased one way or another, than it's probably overblown.

As stated by this poster, arsenic is found in low levels in soil. Its also found in peach pits (or maybe that's cyanide?). At any rate, we have low levels of toxic substances in a lot of things. Does that mean we should freak out about it?

And, if someone wants to brings up carcinogens... To that, I say that life itself is fatal! Quit worrying about this or that. You'll just make yourself nuts!
So you would have no problems eating arsenic? if i gave some to you right now, you would consume it?

the issue is that if levels of arsenic was denied then that means it was not regulated which means we don't know exactly how much arsenic there is in the meat and that's the problem. how do we know if it's so little that it's not worth getting upset about?

and secondly, why was it ever deliberately manufactured by pfiziger (world's biggest drug company) and deliberately put into the feed? why?

and lastly, it must have been dangerous if FDA had to remove this ingredient from the feed. if it was so negligible, they wouldn't have done that.

So it does bear some concern and it does raise questions. it's scary that poison has to be added to meat to make it look appetizing. that's messed up.
 

dogmom

Well-Known Member
one of the things with this is, that all these drugs in higher concentrations, are much more likely in CAFO operations because the animals are all crowded in and under great stress, often forced to endure un-natural and painful circumstances. CAFO's can also un-fairly penalize farmers who work in them but have no say in how they are actually operated and don't own any of it.
 

Oceanbreeze

New Member
So you would have no problems eating arsenic? if i gave some to you right now, you would consume it?

the issue is that if levels of arsenic was denied then that means it was not regulated which means we don't know exactly how much arsenic there is in the meat and that's the problem. how do we know if it's so little that it's not worth getting upset about?

and secondly, why was it ever deliberately manufactured by pfiziger (world's biggest drug company) and deliberately put into the feed? why?

and lastly, it must have been dangerous if FDA had to remove this ingredient from the feed. if it was so negligible, they wouldn't have done that.

So it does bear some concern and it does raise questions. it's scary that poison has to be added to meat to make it look appetizing. that's messed up.
Give me non-biased data and I'll take a look at it. Otherwise, I'm not buying anything anyone says from a blog. Just because someone says "The FDA reports" doesn't mean that's the case. Show me the ACTUAL report.
 

Ausrider

Member
Premium Member
I'm glad we have someone in this thread that is using their common sense.

First of all, look at the source of the OP article. That should tell you alot. If it's NON biased, then it's believable. If it's heavily biased one way or another, than it's probably overblown.

As stated by this poster, arsenic is found in low levels in soil. Its also found in peach pits (or maybe that's cyanide?). At any rate, we have low levels of toxic substances in a lot of things. Does that mean we should freak out about it?

And, if someone wants to brings up carcinogens... To that, I say that life itself is fatal! Quit worrying about this or that. You'll just make yourself nuts!
I agree, life is too short to worry about if the chicken your eating had 10 or 12µg of arsenic that you would consume from eating a apple.
 
Top