Not in MY McNuggets!

Red flags unfurled and waved wildly in my mind when I saw this article from Food Safety Magazine: “High Arsenic Levels Found in U.S. Chicken.”  The original article can be viewed here: http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/news/high-arsenic-levels-found-in-us-chicken/.  Now, arsenic can be a deadly thing; after all, it’s often the poison of choice in melodramas.  Just a small amount can be lethal: an oral dose of 60 mg is fatal to the average human (Minnesota Department of Health, 2012).  However, would companies really sell chicken meat that contains a known poisonous substance?  And just how reliable is the research that this article quotes?  Let’s take a closer look at the facts:

The Food Safety Magazine article alludes to “Arsenic species in poultry feather meal” published in a 2012 volume of Science of the Total Environment.  Rather than testing arsenic levels in chicken meat that would be directly eaten, the researchers looked at arsenic levels in feathers, which are not directly eaten by consumers.  The researchers reasoned that since feather meal is often used a protein source for fertilizers and animal feeds, the use of arsenic-tainted feather meal for these purposes could have harmful effects on humans.  This is a well-intentioned but perhaps unnecessary concern.  After all, the researchers found the concentration of inorganic arsenic in their samples was approximately 2 parts per billion (National Chicken Council, 2013).  The maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).  The average level of arsenic in soil is 3-4 parts per million (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2011).  Therefore, the chicken feathers contained less arsenic than may be found in both water and soil.

*             *             *

Another issue with the Science of the Total Environment article is the reference to the product roxarsone, allegedly added to the diets of broilers (chickens raised for meat production).  However, the researchers admitted that no connection between roxarsone and the presence of inorganic arsenic in feathers could be found:   

“In this study we had no information on the precise contribution of roxarsone to inorganic arsenic exposure in feather meal.” (Nachman, Raber, Frcesconi, Navas-Acien & Love, 2012).

Still, the researchers expressed their continued concern about the use of this product:

 “However, given the common use of roxarsone in poultry production, the increase in inorganic arsenic exposure in livers of chickens fed roxarsone, and the likely accumulation of inorganic arsenic in feathers, inorganic arsenic measured in feather meal in this study may have originated from the practice of administering roxarsone to broiler chickens in the context of industrial poultry production.” (Nachman, et al., 2012).

However, this concern is virtually unfounded today: since June 2011, roxarsone has no longer been used to supplement the diets of broilers (National Chicken Council, 2013). 

*             *             *

The last detail to raise doubt in this study is the relatively small sample size from which arsenic levels were determined.  Samples of feathers came from twelve locations: one each from Tennessee, Pennsylvania, California, and Idaho; two from Arkansas, four from Oregon, and two from China (Nachman, et al., 2012).  However, the specific locations and suppliers from whence the feathers came were not mentioned.  Basing analyses on such a small sample and not disclosing the origins of the sample materials is ill-practice in the world of peer-reviewed journals (Hofacre, 2012).  These samples might have all come from farms raising “free-range” broilers experiencing greater contact with soil and unregulated water sources, or from farms raising conventional broilers living in a controlled, indoor environment.  Such different rearing methods could arguably result in different levels of exposure to arsenic.

In conclusion, since arsenic is present in the air, water, and soil, it’s not surprising a small amount would end up on chicken feathers.  But remember, the arsenic levels found on the feathers were extremely low, and if contaminated feathers might pose a problem when added to fertilizers or animal feeds, they would not be added.  Given the thorough processing feathers endure before they are included in fertilizers or feeds, there is adequate time to check for feather quality and the presence of any contaminants (Moritz & Latshoaw, 2001). But again, the arsenic is appearing on feathers, not meat.  In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture monitors chicken meat for arsenic levels, and in the past 20 years has found zero samples that violate the level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (National Chicken Council, 2012).  With strict guidelines in place for levels of components in meat, milk, and all manner of animal products, the U.S. food supply is kept as safe as possible. 

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  (March 3, 2011).  Toxic substances portal – arsenic.  Retrieved from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=18&tid=3#bookmark03

Environmental Protection Agency.  (May 21, 2012).  Basic Information about arsenic in drinking water.  Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/arsenic.cfm

Hofacre, C.L., (2012, April 24). Bloomberg chicken study is flawed.  The Baltimore Sun.  Retrieved from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-24/news/bs-ed-chicken-study-letter-20120424_1_peer-review-chicken-samples

Minnesota Department of Health.  (November 21, 2012).  Arsenic.  Retrieved from http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/arsenic.html#health

Moritz, J.S. & Latshaw, J.D.  (2001).  Indicators of nutritional value of hydrolyzed feather meal.  Poultry Science, 80, 79-86.

Nachman, K.E., Raber, G., Francesconi, K.A., Navas-Acien, A., & Love, D.C.  (2012).  Arsenic species in poultry feather meal.  Science of the Total Environment, 417-418, 183-188.

National Chicken Council.  (September 18, 2012).  Arsenic & chicken? No need to worry.  Retrieved from http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/arsenic-chicken-no-need-to-worry/

National Chicken Council.  (May 11, 2013).  NCC responds to misleading Johns Hopkins study; says arsenicals no longer fed to broilers.  Retrieved from http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/ncc-responds-to-misleading-johns-hopkins-study-says-arsenicals-no-longer-fed-to-broilers/

Minnesota Department of Health.  (November 21, 2012).  Arsenic.  Retrieved from http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/arsenic.html#health

It's NOT a "Jungle" in There

   This last week I had the privilege to tour several meat processing facilities, and I was utterly amazed at what I saw.  If I had any notions of dirty, dank, blood-flecked rooms, they quickly vanished on the first tour.  Such unsanitary conditions would not be in harmony with the respect every decent meat product business holds for the needs of consumers.  After all, who wants to make food that makes a person sick?  This attitude of respect has caused a great revolution in the meat industry since the days of the infamous Chicago stockyards.  Now, companies strive to attain the greatest levels of cleanliness to ensure high-quality products are made on their grounds.  At each stage of meat processing, from procuring ingredients to shipping products, the highest standards of care are followed to optimize product wholesomeness.

  Prior to each tour through the facilities, my group’s tour guides provided us with attire meant not only to keep us safe but also to avoid contaminating the facility and meat products.  We removed our jewelry and watches and donned hairnets, hard hats, ear plugs (safely attached to the hard hats by a cord), safety glasses, frocks, and rubber overshoes.  We took every tour backwards: first we saw the shipping department, then packaging, then cooking, and lastly formulation.  If any little buggies happened to hop on us at the shipping department and hopped off in the formulation area, they would be killed as they ventured on raw product through the cooking process.  At strategic points we washed our hands and shuffled through white sanitation foam or across boot-scrubbing machines.  We DID NOT touch the machinery or products as we followed our guides through the plant.  As products moved from one phase to the next, they were scrutinized by trained workers looking for defects.  At certain stages, ingredients or products were removed for quality tests.  Quality assurance teams were on site to check for both product quality and safety.  Products were frozen or stored in modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) to ensure their safety as they traveled to consumers.  If a product looked suspicious at any stage in this process, it was removed from the line and dealt with accordingly.

   In addition to striving for product safety and quality, we saw that companies are making great efforts to reduce waste, be environmentally friendly, and treat workers fairly.  No company wants to make a person sick, and at each facility we saw innovations to improve the wholesomeness of meat products.  These clean, well-lit, inspected places were far cries from the filthy and foul factories portrayed in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.  Modern facilities are filled with personnel and equipment to ensure that every product made will nourish and satisfy the customer.  Also, consumer handling instructions are applied to every package to inform the consumer on how best to prepare the product.  When companies respect the consumers’ needs for safe products and consumers follow the companies’ advice, everybody wins.

How Not to Be a Sheep

The meat industry is a favorite target of popular media, but unfortunately most stories covering it seem more bent on fear-mongering than fact portraying.  When you read or hear a story in the newspaper or on the news, question it before you decide to back away from bacon or hate hot dogs.  Here are some ways to do that:

Take time to digest

After you read a story, reflect on it.  Did anything seem far-fetched or against logic?  Did it seem sensational?     

Did it match up with other news you've heard?  Seek out other resources for a second opinion.  Contact a professional in the field of interest.  Discuss the story with friends and family.   

Decide if it's "bread" or "cake"

Bread: A story packed with statistics and historical facts backed up by credible references.

Cake: A story filled with buzzwords and vague statements and lacking references.

Read between the lines

Are you picking up a subliminal tone or message?  It's difficult for writers to remain unbiased by their own or another person's agenda, beliefs, or emotions.  

And just remember, "All's well" doesn't sell.

Really Talking Turkey

   Recently, an article from the June 2013 issue of Consumer Reports magazine joined the never-ending parade of articles meant to make consumers think twice about the U.S.’s meat supply.  The study in the article entitled “Consumer Reports investigation: Talking turkey” (http://www.consumerreports.org/turkey0613) investigated raw products from turkeys raised in both conventional and “organic” manners.  The authors focused on the amount of bacteria and the antibiotic resistance of those bacteria found on the products.  At the end of the article, the authors strongly urged consumers to “buy turkey labeled ‘organic’ or ‘no antibiotics’.”  However, as most “organic” meat products can cost much more than products from conventionally raised livestock, buying the pricier goods is not an option for many families.  So should consumers be concerned about consuming non-organic turkey products sold at the supermarket?  Let’s take a closer look at the Consumer Reports article to see if its claims are worth the worry.

   The article begins with an ominous statement:

“In our first-ever lab analysis of ground turkey bought at retail stores nationwide, more than half of the packages of raw ground meat and patties tested positive for fecal bacteria.”

   The presence of bacteria on raw meat is a major concern, but fortunately bacteria on raw meat can be kept under control with refrigeration/freezing and separation of meat from other foods (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2013).  Plus, most bacteria can be killed when poultry meat is cooked until the internal temperature is 165^oF, making the food safe to eat (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2013).  It is important to remember that meat, despite its source, can harbor bacteria if handled incorrectly, and the Consumer Reports study found this to be true:

“Ground turkey labeled ‘no antibiotics,’ ‘organic,’ or ‘raised without antibiotics’ was as likely to harbor bacteria as products without those claims.”

   This is not surprising since, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, raising livestock “organically” must include “[y]ear-round access for all animals to the outdoors…” (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2013).  Exposure to the outdoors can greatly increase turkeys’ chances of exposure to fecal matter of other animals.  This fecal matter, which can host a multitude of bacteria, can be transferred to turkeys’ feet and feathers or even consumed by the birds.  This exposure can jeopardize the health of birds and, potentially, the safety of meat.

   This Consumer Reports article also focuses on the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria found on the turkey meat.  The authors mention the use of antibiotics in conventionally raising turkeys, and they express concern that this might accelerate the development of antibiotic resistance:

   “That practice…is speeding the growth of drug-resistant superbugs, a serious health concern. People sickened by those bacteria might need to try several antibiotics before one succeeds.”

   The authors seem concerned that if a person becomes ill from ingesting bacteria, he or she might need to try several drugs before recovering.  However, if a person unfortunately becomes sick by consuming viable bacteria, “[t]he only treatment needed for most foodborne illnesses is replacing lost fluids and electrolytes to prevent dehydration,” according to the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse (2012).  Most people recover from food poisoning with this simple treatment, and in the few cases with more serious complications, treatment options go far beyond antibiotics.

   In conclusion, while consumers are free to choose which type of meat to purchase and consume, they should remember that all federally inspected meat is meant to enhance and not endanger the quality of human life.  Consumers should have the confidence that, by purchasing inspected chicken or turkey and handling it carefully, they can enjoy safe, tasty, and nutritious meat.  After all, “[p]oultry processing conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements prevents, to the maximum extent possible, harmful bacteria from occurring on raw poultry products” (Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2012).  So shop smartly, cook thoroughly and enjoy that turkey!

This Consumer Reports article is also discuss on Meatingplace.com: http://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/41638.

References

Food Safety and Inspection Service (July 20, 2012).  Poultry Processing: Questions and Answers.  Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Poultry_Inspection_Questions_and_Answers/index.asp#15.

National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse (Aug. 10, 2012).  Foodborne Illnesses.  Retrieved from http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/bacteria/#8.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (Feb. 28, 2013). Safe Eats - Meat, Poultry & Seafood.  Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/HealthEducators/ucm082294.htm.

U.S. Government Printing Office (May 1, 2013). 7 C.F.R. § 205.239.  Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=4998d2c42d823eece460c8fc405eb26b&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.3.354.13&idno=7