I gave a talk in South Texas recently on the environmental virtues of a vegetarian diet. As you might imagine, the reception was chilly. In fact, the only applause came during the Q&A period when a member of the audience said that my lecture made him want to go out and eat even more meat. “Plus,” he added, “what I eat is my business — it’s personal.”

I’ve been writing about food and agriculture for more than a decade. Until that evening, however, I’d never actively thought about this most basic culinary question: Is eating personal?

We know more than we’ve ever known about the innards of the global food system. We understand that food can both nourish and kill. We know that its production can both destroy and enhance our environment. We know that farming touches every aspect of our lives — the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we need.

So it’s hard to avoid concluding that eating cannot be personal. What I eat influences you. What you eat influences me. Our diets are deeply, intimately and necessarily political.

This realization changes everything for those who avoid meat. As a vegetarian I’ve always felt the perverse need to apologize for my dietary choice. It inconveniences people. It smacks of self-righteousness. It makes us pariahs at dinner parties. But the more I learn about the negative impact of meat production, the more I feel that it’s the consumers of meat who should be making apologies.

Here’s why: The livestock industry as a result of its reliance on corn and soy-based feed accounts for over half the synthetic fertilizer used in the United States, contributing more than any other sector to marine dead zones. It consumes 70 percent of the water in the American West — water so heavily subsidized that if irrigation supports were removed, ground beef would cost $35 a pound. Livestock accounts for at least 21 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions globally — more than all forms of transportation combined. Domestic animals — most of them healthy — consume about 70 percent of all the antibiotics produced. Undigested antibiotics leach from manure into freshwater systems and impair the sex organs of fish.

It takes a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of conventional beef. If all the grain fed to animals went to people, you could feed China and India. That’s just a start.

Meat that’s raised according to “alternative” standards (about 1 percent of meat in the United States) might be a better choice but not nearly as much so as its privileged consumers would have us believe. “Free-range chickens” theoretically have access to the outdoors. But many “free-range” chickens never see the light of day because they cannot make it through the crowded shed to the aperture leading to a patch of cement.

“Grass-fed” beef produces four times the methane — a greenhouse gas 21 times as powerful as carbon dioxide — of grain-fed cows, and many grass-fed cows are raised on heavily fertilized and irrigated grass. Pastured pigs are still typically mutilated, fed commercial feed and prevented from rooting — their most basic instinct besides sex.

Issues of animal welfare are equally implicated in all forms of meat production. Domestic animals suffer immensely, feel pain and may even be cognizant of the fate that awaits them. In an egg factory, male chicks (economically worthless) are summarily run through a grinder. Pigs are castrated without anesthesia, crated, tail-docked and nose-ringed. Milk cows are repeatedly impregnated through artificial insemination, confined to milking stalls and milked to yield 15 times the amount of milk they would produce under normal conditions. When calves are removed from their mothers at birth, the mothers mourn their loss with heart-rending moans.

Then comes the slaughterhouse, an operation that’s left with millions of pounds of carcasses — deadstock — that are incinerated or dumped in landfills. (Rendering plants have taken a nose dive since mad cow disease.)

Now, if someone told you that a particular corporation was trashing the air, water and soil; causing more global warming than the transportation industry; consuming massive amounts of fossil fuel; unleashing the cruelest sort of suffering on innocent and sentient beings; failing to recycle its waste; and clogging our arteries in the process, how would you react? Would you say, “Hey, that’s personal?” Probably not. It’s more likely that you’d frame the matter as a dire political issue in need of a dire political response.

Vegetarianism is not only the most powerful political response we can make to industrialized food. It’s a necessary prerequisite to reforming it. To quit eating meat is to dismantle the global food apparatus at its foundation.

Agribusiness has been vilified of late by muckraking journalists, activist filmmakers and sustainable-food advocates. We know that something has to be done to save our food from corporate interests. But I wonder — are we ready to do what must be done? Sure, we’ve been inundated with ideas: eat local, vote with your fork, buy organic, support fair trade, etc. But these proposals all lack something that every successful environmental movement has always placed at its core: genuine sacrifice.

Until we make that leap, until we create a culinary culture in which the meat-eaters must do the apologizing, the current proposals will be nothing more than gestures that turn the fork into an empty symbol rather than a real tool for environmental change.

James E. McWilliams, an associate professor of history at Texas State University at San Marcos and a recent fellow in the agrarian studies program at Yale University, is most recently the author of “Just Food.”

Republished from The Washington Post

Horror stories about the food industry have long been with us – ever since 1906, when Upton Sinclair’s landmark novel The Jungle told some ugly truths about how America produces its meat. In the century that followed, things got much better, and in some ways much worse. The U.S. agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans. Those hidden prices are the creeping erosion of our fertile farmland, cages for egg-laying chickens so packed that the birds can’t even raise their wings and the scary rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among farm animals. Add to the price tag the acceleration of global warming – our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels, more than any other sector of the economy.

And perhaps worst of all, our food is increasingly bad for us, even dangerous. A series of recalls involving contaminated foods this year – including an outbreak of salmonella from tainted peanuts that killed at least eight people and sickened 600 – has consumers rightly worried about the safety of their meals. A food system – from seed to 7‑Eleven – that generates cheap, filling food at the literal expense of healthier produce is also a principal cause of America’s obesity epidemic. At a time when the nation is close to a civil war over health-care reform, obesity adds $147 billion a year to our doctor bills. “The way we farm now is destructive of the soil, the environment and us,” says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). (See pictures of what the world eats.)

Some Americans are heeding such warnings and working to transform the way the country eats – ranchers and farmers who are raising sustainable food in ways that don’t bankrupt the earth. Documentaries like the scathing Food Inc. and the work of investigative journalists like Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan are reprising Sinclair’s work, awakening a sleeping public to the uncomfortable realities of how we eat. Change is also coming from the very top. First Lady Michelle Obama’s White House garden has so far yielded more than 225 lb. of organic produce – and tons of powerful symbolism. But hers is still a losing battle. Despite increasing public awareness, sustainable agriculture, while the fastest-growing sector of the food industry, remains a tiny enterprise: according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), less than 1% of American cropland is farmed organically. Sustainable food is also pricier than conventional food and harder to find. And while large companies like General Mills have opened organic divisions, purists worry that the very definition of sustainability will be co-opted as a result. (See pictures of urban farming around the world.)

But we don’t have the luxury of philosophizing about food. With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil – which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills – our industrial style of food production will end sooner or later. As the developing world grows richer, hundreds of millions of people will want to shift to the same calorie-heavy, protein-rich diet that has made Americans so unhealthy – demand for meat and poultry worldwide is set to rise 25% by 2015 – but the earth can no longer deliver. Unless Americans radically rethink the way they grow and consume food, they face a future of eroded farmland, hollowed-out countryside, scarier germs, higher health costs – and bland taste. Sustainable food has an élitist reputation, but each of us depends on the soil, animals and plants – and as every farmer knows, if you don’t take care of your land, it can’t take care of you.

See 10 things to buy during the recession.

See the top 10 food trends of 2008.

The Downside of Cheap
For all the grumbling you do about your weekly grocery bill, the fact is you’ve never had it so good, at least in terms of what you pay for every calorie you eat. According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966. Those savings begin with the remarkable success of one crop: corn. Corn is king on the American farm, with production passing 12 billion bu. annually, up from 4 billion bu. as recently as 1970. When we eat a cheeseburger, a Chicken McNugget, or drink soda, we’re eating the corn that grows on vast, monocrop fields in Midwestern states like Iowa.

But cheap food is not free food, and corn comes with hidden costs. The crop is heavily fertilized – both with chemicals like nitrogen and with subsidies from Washington. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has poured more than $50 billion into the corn industry, keeping prices for the crop – at least until corn ethanol skewed the market – artificially low. That’s why McDonald’s can sell you a Big Mac, fries and a Coke for around $5 – a bargain, given that the meal contains nearly 1,200 calories, more than half the daily recommended requirement for adults. “Taxpayer subsidies basically underwrite cheap grain, and that’s what the factory-farming system for meat is entirely dependent on,” says Gurian-Sherman. (See the 10 worst fast food meals.)

So what’s wrong with cheap food and cheap meat – especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don’t receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories – some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s – but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it’s no surprise we’re so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin.

Our expanding girth is just one consequence of mainstream farming. Another is chemicals. No one doubts the power of chemical fertilizer to pull more crop from a field. American farmers now produce an astounding 153 bu. of corn per acre, up from 118 as recently as 1990. But the quantity of that fertilizer is flat-out scary: more than 10 million tons for corn alone – and nearly 23 million for all crops. When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of Mexico, it contributes to what’s known as a dead zone, a seasonal, approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and therefore almost no sea life. Because of the dead zone, the $2.8 billion Gulf of Mexico fishing industry loses 212,000 metric tons of seafood a year, and around the world, there are nearly 400 similar dead zones. Even as we produce more high-fat, high-calorie foods, we destroy one of our leanest and healthiest sources of protein. (See nine kid foods to avoid.)

The food industry’s degradation of animal life, of course, isn’t limited to fish. Though we might still like to imagine our food being raised by Old MacDonald, chances are your burger or your sausage came from what are called concentrated-animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are every bit as industrial as they sound. In CAFOs, large numbers of animals – 1,000 or more in the case of cattle and tens of thousands for chicken and pigs – are kept in close, concentrated conditions and fattened up for slaughter as fast as possible, contributing to efficiencies of scale and thus lower prices. But animals aren’t widgets with legs. They’re living creatures, and there are consequences to packing them in prison-like conditions. For instance: Where does all that manure go?

Pound for pound, a pig produces approximately four times the amount of waste a human does, and what factory farms do with that mess gets comparatively little oversight. Most hog waste is disposed of in open-air lagoons, which can overflow in heavy rain and contaminate nearby streams and rivers. “This creek that we used to wade in, that creek that our parents could drink out of, our kids can’t even play in anymore,” says Jayne Clampitt, a farmer in Independence, Iowa, who lives near a number of hog farms.

To stay alive and grow in such conditions, farm animals need pharmaceutical help, which can have further damaging consequences for humans. Overuse of antibiotics on farm animals leads, inevitably, to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the same bugs that infect animals can infect us too. The UCS estimates that about 70% of antimicrobial drugs used in America are given not to people but to animals, which means we’re breeding more of those deadly organisms every day. The Institute of Medicine estimated in 1998 that antibiotic resistance cost the public-health system $4 billion to $5 billion a year – a figure that’s almost certainly higher now. “I don’t think CAFOs would be able to function as they do now without the widespread use of antibiotics,” says Robert Martin, who was the executive director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.

See more pictures of what the world eats.

See photos from a grocery store auction.

The livestock industry argues that estimates of antibiotics in food production are significantly overblown. Resistance “is the result of human use and not related to veterinary use,” according to Kristina Butts, the manager of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. But with wonder drugs losing their effectiveness, it makes sense to preserve them for as long as we can, and that means limiting them to human use as much as possible. “These antibiotics are not given to sick animals,” says Representative Louise Slaughter, who is sponsoring a bill to limit antibiotic use on farms. “It’s a preventive measure because they are kept in pretty unspeakable conditions.”

Such a measure would get at a symptom of the problem but not at the source. Just as the burning of fossil fuels that is causing global warming requires more than a tweaking of mileage standards, the manifold problems of our food system require a comprehensive solution. “There should be a recognition that what we are doing is unsustainable,” says Martin. And yet, still we must eat. So what can we do? (See pictures of an apartment outfitted for goat-milking.)

Getting It Right
If a factory farm is hell for an animal, then Bill Niman’s seaside ranch in Bolinas, Calif., an hour north of San Francisco, must be heaven. The property’s cliffside view over the Pacific Ocean is worth millions, but the black Angus cattle that Niman and his wife Nicolette Hahn Niman raise keep their eyes on the ground, chewing contentedly on the pasture. Grass – and a trail of hay that Niman spreads from his truck periodically – is all the animals will eat during the nearly three years they’ll spend on the ranch. That all-natural, noncorn diet – along with the intensive, individual care that the Nimans provide their animals – produces beef that many connoisseurs consider to be among the best in the world. But for Niman, there is more at stake than just a good steak. He believes that his way of raising farm animals – in the open air, with no chemicals or drugs and with maximum care – is the only truly sustainable method and could be a model for a better food system. “What we need in this country is a completely different way of raising animals for food,” says Hahn Niman, a former attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. “This needs to be done in the right way.”

The Nimans like to call what they do “beyond organic,” and there are some signs that consumers are beginning to catch up. This November, California voters approved a ballot proposition that guarantees farm animals enough space to lie down, stand up and turn around. Worldwide, organic food – a sometimes slippery term but on the whole a practice more sustainable than conventional food – is worth more than $46 billion. That’s still a small slice of the overall food pie, but it’s growing, even in a global recession. “There is more pent-up demand for organic than there is production,” says Bill Wolf, a co-founder of the organic-food consultancy Wolf DiMatteo and Associates. (Watch TIME’s video “The New Frugality: The Organic Gardener.”)

So what will it take for sustainable food production to spread? It’s clear that scaling up must begin with a sort of scaling down – a distributed system of many local or regional food producers as opposed to just a few massive ones. Since 1935, consolidation and industrialization have seen the number of U.S. farms decline from 6.8 million to fewer than 2 million – with the average farmer now feeding 129 Americans, compared with 19 people in 1940.

It’s that very efficiency that’s led to the problems and is in turn spurring a backlash, reflected not just in the growth of farmers’ markets or the growing involvement of big corporations in organics but also in the local-food movement, in which restaurants and large catering services buy from suppliers in their areas, thereby improving freshness, supporting small-scale agriculture and reducing the so-called food miles between field and plate. That in turn slashes transportation costs and reduces the industry’s carbon footprint.

A transition to more sustainable, smaller-scale production methods could even be possible without a loss in overall yield, as one survey from the University of Michigan suggested, but it would require far more farmworkers than we have today. With unemployment approaching double digits – and things especially grim in impoverished rural areas that have seen populations collapse over the past several decades – that’s hardly a bad thing. Work in a CAFO is monotonous and soul-killing, while too many ordinary farmers struggle to make ends meet even as the rest of us pay less for food. Farmers aren’t the enemy – and they deserve real help. We’ve transformed the essential human profession – growing food – into an industry like any other. “We’re hurting for job creation, and industrial food has pushed people off the farm,” says Hahn Niman. “We need to make farming real employment, because if you do it right, it’s enjoyable work.”

See pictures of the global food crisis.

See pictures of the world’s most polluted places.

One model for how the new paradigm could work is Niman Ranch, a larger operation that Bill Niman founded in the 1990s, before he left in 2007. (By his own admission, he’s a better farmer than he is a businessman.) The company has knitted together hundreds of small-scale farmers into a network that sells all-natural pork, beef and lamb to retailers and restaurants. In doing so, it leverages economies of scale while letting the farmers take proper care of their land and animals. “We like to think of ourselves as a force for a local-farming community, not as a large corporation,” says Jeff Swain, Niman Ranch’s CEO.

Other examples include the Mexican-fast-food chain Chipotle, which now sources its pork from Niman Ranch and gets its other meats and much of its beans from natural and organic sources. It’s part of a commitment that Chipotle founder Steve Ells made years ago, not just because sustainable ingredients were better for the planet but because they tasted better too – a philosophy he calls Food with Integrity. It’s not cheap for Chipotle – food makes up more than 32% of its costs, the highest in the fast-food industry. But to Ells, the taste more than compensates, and Chipotle’s higher prices haven’t stopped the company’s rapid growth, from 16 stores in 1998 to over 900 today. “We put a lot of energy into finding farmers who are committed to raising better food,” says Ells. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)

Bon Appétit Management Company, a caterer based in Palo Alto, Calif., takes that commitment even further. The company sources as much of its produce as possible from within 150 miles of its kitchens and gets its meat from farmers who eschew antibiotics. Bon Appétit also tries to influence its customers’ habits by nudging them toward greener choices. That includes campaigns to reduce food waste, in part by encouraging servers at its kitchens to offer smaller, more manageable portions. (The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in the garbage.) And Bon Appétit supports a low-carbon diet, one that uses less meat and dairy, since both have a greater carbon footprint than fruit, vegetables and grain. The success of the overall operation demonstrates that sustainable food can work at an institutional scale bigger than an élite restaurant, a small market or a gourmet’s kitchen – provided customers support it. “Ultimately it’s going to be consumer demand that will cause change, not Washington,” says Fedele Bauccio, Bon Appétit’s co-founder. (See pictures of two farms in Nebraska.)

How willing are consumers to rethink the way they shop for – and eat – food? For most people, price will remain the biggest obstacle. Organic food continues to cost on average several times more than its conventional counterparts, and no one goes to farmers’ markets for bargains. But not all costs can be measured by a price tag. Once you factor in crop subsidies, ecological damage and what we pay in health-care bills after our fatty, sugary diet makes us sick, conventionally produced food looks a lot pricier.

What we really need to do is something Americans have never done well, and that’s to quit thinking big. We already eat four times as much meat and dairy as the rest of the world, and there’s not a nutritionist on the planet who would argue that 24‑oz. steaks and mounds of buttery mashed potatoes are what any person needs to stay alive. “The idea is that healthy and good-tasting food should be available to everyone,” says Hahn Niman. “The food system should be geared toward that.”

Whether that happens will ultimately come down to all of us, since we have the chance to choose better food three times a day (or more often, if we’re particularly hungry). It’s true that most of us would prefer not to think too much about where our food comes from or what it’s doing to the planet – after all, as Chipotle’s Ells points out, eating is not exactly a “heady intellectual event.” But if there’s one difference between industrial agriculture and the emerging alternative, it’s that very thing: consciousness. Niman takes care with each of his cattle, just as an organic farmer takes care of his produce and smart shoppers take care with what they put in their shopping cart and on the family dinner table. The industrial food system fills us up but leaves us empty – it’s based on selective forgetting. But what we eat – how it’s raised and how it gets to us – has consequences that can’t be ignored any longer.

- With reporting by Rebecca Kaplan / New York

The original version of this article mistakenly referred to the Bon Appétit Management Company as the Bon Appétit Food Management Company

See the top 10 green ideas of 2008.

See TIME’s Pictures of the Week.

The Tale of Two Cattle
How did your hamburger get to your plate – and what did it eat along the way? The journey of beef illustrates the great American food chain

ORGANIC (1% of all cattle)
This is the way all beef used to be raised – and how some people still imagine it is. Bill Niman tends a small herd with one of the lightest hands in the business and produces what Bay Area chefs swear is unparalleled beef

Diet: Grass
Niman’s cows eat only grass, along with a smattering of hay. That’s the normal diet for cattle. Their rumen, a digestive organ, can break down grasses we’d find inedible

Supplements: None
Niman gives no supplements whatsoever to his cattle – no drugs, no hormones, no additives. That’s not ironclad for organic beef – some companies might use antimicrobials – but generally the animals are supplement-free

Environmental Impact: Living with the Land
To prevent his ranch from becoming overgrazed, Niman shifts his cattle around the land, ensuring that the grass has time to recover between feedings. The result is a surprisingly low-impact hamburger, since grass doesn’t need chemical fertilizer to grow and its presence helps prevent soil erosion. There’s no need to clean up manure – with Niman’s low cattle density, the waste just fertilizes the land

Human Impact: The Omega Effect
Beef has a bad rep among nutritionists, but that might be partly unfair for grass-fed steaks. According to research from the University of California, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids than conventional beef

CONVENTIONAL (99% of all cattle)
The vast majority of all American cattle start off on open ranges, but that’s where the similarity to their organic cousins ends. They’re shifted after a few months to the tight quarters of an industrial feedlot, to be fattened up as fast as possible

Diet: Grass and corn
Conventional cattle feed off grass pasture for the first several months, but at the feedlot, they’re switched to a heavily corn-based diet, which makes them gain weight faster but also makes them get sick more easily

Supplements: Chemicals
In part to help them survive the crowded conditions of feedlots, where infections can spread fast, conventional cattle are given antibiotics in their feed, and sometimes growth hormones, bloods and fats

Environmental Impact: Waste
A 1,000-head feedlot produces up to 280 tons of manure a week, and the smell can be powerful. All that feed corn requires millions of tons of fertilizer and, ultimately, a lot of petroleum

Human Impact: Fat Attack
Feeding corn to cattle for the last several months of their lives doesn’t just get them fatter faster; it also changes the quality of the beef. Corn helps produce that marbled taste many of us love, but it can result in beef that is higher in fat – helping to fuel the obesity epidemic

Reprinted from TIME.

(NaturalNews) Many health conscious people have made the decision not to eat meat, viewing the consumption of animal flesh as having negative consequences on the body, the spirit, and even the personality. Animal rights activists have been quite vocal in pointing out the deplorable conditions under which animals destined to become part of the traditional food chain are raised. Tough economic times have given rise to a chorus of budget minded columnists reminding people that giving up animal protein will make their food dollars stretch farther. Today, there is one more aspect to consider about the consumption of animal protein: the connection between industrialized animal farming and human disease.

New infectious diseases are linked to the rise of factory animal farming

Factory farms are breeding grounds for virulent disease and disease resistant strains of antibiotics, according to the 2008 report from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, in conjunction with the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The commission’s report highlights the risks to the public resulting from the growth of the industrialization of farm animal production. It is the result of two and one half years of investigation centered in four areas: public health, environmental impact, effects on farm communities, and animal health and welfare.

Fifteen commissioners, each with impressive credentials, concluded that while factory animal farming and production is increasing worldwide at an exponential rate, the rates of new forms of infectious diseases have been concurrently on the increase. There is clearly a link between factory farming and human illness.

Although the number of farms producing animals for food has declined dramatically in the past five decades as small independent farmers have been pushed out of the way by the giant food conglomerates, the number of food animals produced has stayed fairly constant. It is this concentration of farm animals in larger and larger numbers in ever closer proximity to one another, along with some of the feed and animal management methods used in the industrial system that has increased the risks of pathogens and created more opportunities for disease transmission to humans. Of particular concern is the increase in antibiotic use, needed to keep animals alive under such deplorable conditions. Excessive use of antibiotics has given rise to antibiotic-resistant microbes that pose a threat to the health of humans as well as animals.

The risks fall into three categories: prolonged worker contact with animals, increased pathogen transmission within a herd or flock, and the increased opportunities for the generation of antimicrobial resistant bacteria as the result of imprudent use of antibiotics, or new strains of viruses.

Communities near industrial farms animal production facilities are seen as particularly at risk, with children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic health conditions in the greatest danger of the health threats posed by such methods of farming.

Government officials ignore threat of antibiotic-resistant infections

These warnings are nothing new. Several organizations have raised questions about the effects of antibiotic use in factory farming on land and water raised animals. The Infectious Disease Society of American has declared antibiotic-resistant infections to be an epidemic sweeping through the U.S. The Food and Agriculture Organization has recommended that agricultural use of antibiotics be restricted. They claim that the health of the world’s population is threatened by the globalization of industrial animal farms and concentrated animal feeding operations.

Zoonotic pathogens are on the increase

Prior to the 20th century, many humans lived short life spans relative to their potential. Many died at young ages as the result of infections. With the implementation of better hygiene and sanitation systems people began to live longer. But it wasn’t until the discovery of penicillin that the life span increased dramatically. During the golden age of America that began in the early 1950s, penicillin and its derivatives kept most Americans in the picture of health. When polio was finally conquered in the 1960s, everyone believed the threat of infectious disease was history.

That golden age was short lived. New diseases began to show up at a pace previously unknown in history of medicine. A new pathogen has sprung up almost every year for the past three decades. Most of these pathogens are zoonotic, meaning they can jump the gap from animals to infection of humans. Of the documented human pathogens, about 64 percent are zoonotic.

People have turned their backs on nature in the interest of greed

According to reporter Laura Sayre in an article for Mother Earth News, the total U.S. hog population numbered 53 million in 1965. This number was spread over more than 1 million pig farms in the United States, many of which were small family operations. Today, 65 million hogs are raised on just over 65,000 farms across the nation. Many of these factory farms are raising 5,000 hogs at any given time.

Sayer notes that broiler chicken production has risen from 366 million in 1945 to 8,400 million in 2001. Most industrialized chicken raising facilities house tens of thousands of birds together. Fifty-five billion chickens are raised each year on a worldwide basis. The global pig industry is close to 1 billion, half of which are raised in confinement. Some countries house as many as 50,000 animals together.

Raising animals in such a fashion violates the principles of animal husbandry accepted as good practice by people for thousands of years and practiced on family farms. Intensive confinement often severely restricts movement and natural behaviors, such as the ability to walk or lie on natural materials, having enough floor space to move with some freedom, and rooting behaviors in pigs. The most intensive confinement systems, such as restrictive veal crates, hog gestation pens, restrictive furrowing crates, and battery cages for poultry all prevent animals from normal range of movement and are particularly inhumane treatments.

The outcome is animals in severe distress. Animals cannot be cared for by tried and true traditional methods when they are crammed together in factory farms in confined conditions. Animals raised under the industrial model experience no quality of life and live in constant stress as the result of overcrowding. This results in weakened immune systems and susceptibility to infection. Lack of sunlight and fresh air guarantees any disease will spread like wildfire.

Good animal husbandry helps protect the safety of the food supply. Scientists have recognized that food safety is linked to the health of animals that produce meat, dairy and egg products. They know that intensive confinement production systems produce increased pathogen shedding in animals.

To prevent and treat the diseases that arise from such conditions, the lords of factory animal farms have relied on antibiotics to the point of injecting chicken eggs with them. Animal feed is laced with antibiotics and so are the tissues and organs of these animals when they appear in the butcher’s case. Producers of ‘natural’ chickens that are claimed to be free of antibiotics can get by with that claim because the chicken embryos are soaked in antibiotics while they are inside the eggs. Today, the majority of antibiotic use is preventative.

Overuse of antibiotics in people is insignificant compared to that in animals

Some members of the medical establishment and many critics outside of the medical profession have been concerned for many years about the excessive prescribing of antibiotics for diseases that offer inconvenience as their major threat. These warnings have generally fallen on deaf ears within both the medical profession and government regulatory agencies. Antibiotics are now often the first choice treatments for diseases that are not even affected by them, like the common cold.

This excessive use of antibiotics pales in comparison with their use in the industrialized raising of animals for food. According to Sayers, “it’s a simple fact that the more antibiotics are used, especially prolonged use at low doses as in factory farms, the more antibiotic-resistant microbes will become. Bacteria and viruses are also notoriously promiscuous, swapping genes across species and even across genera, creating what the Johns Hopkins researchers call reservoirs of resistance. In some pathogens, selection for resistance also results in increased virulence…In other cases, otherwise harmless microbes can transfer resistance genes to pathogenic species.”

Bio-containment procedures are geared toward protecting livestock from disease outbreaks. There appears to be little concern about preventing human pathogens from escaping into the wider environment through the many routes available that include the food itself, water, and air. A worker in such facilities can carry pathogens home on his body or clothing without being aware of it, allowing microbes to be released in towns or cities miles away from the factory farm where he works. Globalization means that pathogens can be spread anywhere.

Waste systems are inadequate to neutralize pathogens

Human health is further threatened by the likelihood of animals to excrete pathogenic microbes. The tremendous quantities of waste that concentrate on the premises of industrial animal producers may exceed the capacity of the landscape to absorb the nutrients and neutralize the pathogens. The annual production of manure produced by animal confinement facilities exceeds that produced by the human population of the country by at least three times. And unlike human sewage, the majority of waste from factory farms is spread upon the ground untreated.

Such large quantities of manure carry excess nutrients and chemicals including antibiotics, hormones and heavy metals into waterways, lakes, groundwater, soils and airways. Land application of untreated animal waste on cropland contributes to excessive nutrient loading, and ultimately to plant growth so dense around water that aquatic animal life is suffocated.

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations account for 18% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding emissions from the transportation sector. Air quality degradation is also a problem near industrial farm animal production because of the localized release of toxic gases, and particulates and bioaerosols that contain microorganisms including human pathogens. Livestock emission of ammonia from factory farms adds to the acidification of soil and water, while species diversity is threatened by nutrient overload.

Factory animal farms shown to be linked with food borne illness

“When dioxin-contaminated chicken feed led to the removal from the market of all chicken and eggs in Belgium for several weeks in June of 1999, doctors there noted a 40 percent decline in the number of human Campylobacter infections,” according to Sayer. Most chickens sold in the U.S. are contaminated with this bacterium. Eggs from factory farm chickens contaminated with salmonella caused 2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths in the year 2000. A host of infections not thought of as food-related may be the result of overuse of antibiotics at factory farms.

The MRSA bacterium, responsible for difficult or impossible to treat infections in humans, seemed to come out of nowhere when it was first seen in hospitals. Now the Veterinary Microbiology study has showed that industrialized North American pig farms and farmers commonly carry MRSA, including a strain that infects humans. Around nine million Canadian raised hogs are imported into the U.S. every year.

Healthy people are developing MRSA infections. Medical, agricultural, and environmental experts have called for Congress to compel the FDA to study whether use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is contributing to the surge in MRSA deaths in the U.S., which now exceed the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS. Since the government is not systematically testing U.S. livestock for MRSA, it is not known whether farms in the U.S. are also sources.

The excessive use of antibiotics in factory farms can select for resistant bacteria, such as MRSA. A European study has documented that industrial pig farms routinely using antibiotics were more likely to have MRSA than farms with limited antibiotic use.

For more information:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=38438

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-29-01.asp

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Natural-Health/Meat-Poultry-Health-Risk.aspx

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=32320

Reprinted from NaturalNews.

One of the most startling realizations of the study is that Americans are now using so many medications that their own biological waste products are becoming large-scale environmental pollutants. Yet neither the EPA nor drug companies have yet said anything useful about attempts to protect the environment from the chemical toxicities of pharmaceutical waste. Drug companies have so far pretended the problem doesn’t exist. Their goal is to simply sell more drugs, and they seem to be entirely unconcerned about what happens after a typical medication consumer flushes the toilet and sends the toxic chemicals downstream.

If trace amounts of multiple pharmaceuticals are now in the tap water supplies, it also means that any use of tap water involves the further spread of those pharmaceutical chemicals. Watering your lawn, for example, means spraying small amounts of pharmaceuticals on your lawn. For ranchers, watering their cows, pigs or chickens also means dosing those animals with small amounts of pharmaceuticals, and for public schools in the affected cities, all the water fountains used by the children are now functioning as mass medication dispensing machines.

The most dangerous medical experiment in the history of our nation

The mass medication of America has now turned into a grand medical experiment that exposes infants, children, expectant mothers, senior citizens, voters, law enforcement officers, doctors and everybody else to a combination of drugs known to have extremely dangerous, mind-altering side effects when taken in full doses. And yet this mass medication of the population is being conducted with no doctor visits, no prescriptions, no consent and no medical assessment whatsoever. It is essentially a mandatory medication carpet-bombing of the entire population.

We can only guess what the results will be a generation from now. But clues can be gathered by watching the impact of such drugs on aquatic organisms. Amphibians exposed to very low doses of these types of chemicals, for example, begin to grow dual sex organs and suffer widespread infertility problems. Deformities in fish are being increasingly reported in rivers, and the world’s oceans now have over a hundred “dead zones” where agricultural runoff and medication runoff have combined to form a toxic aquatic poison that kills all fish. This is the same water being used to create tap water in U.S. cities.

What’s in recycled urine, anyway?

I remember hearing people snicker when they learned that NASA was recycling urine on the space shuttle and that astronauts would be drinking each other’s recycled urine. Well guess what, folks? In major U.S. cities, almost everybody is drinking somebody else’s recycled urine!

And guess what’s in that urine? Toxic medications, caffeine, painkillers, and a cocktail of other chemicals like personal care product fragrances, pesticides and more. It’s enough to make you sick. Literally.

Guess what else? This is the water used to make sodas and other beverages at local bottling plants. So every time you pick up a can of soda and drink it, not only are you getting the dangerous chemicals intentionally added to those sodas — like aspartame and phosphoric acid — you’re also getting trace amounts of medication chemicals recycled from other peoples’ urine, too! Yum!

Water treatment plants don’t remove medication chemicals from the water!

Many consumers mistakenly believe that water treatment plants actually remove these contaminants, but that’s not true. Municipal water treatment facilities do remove large solids (like dirt, sand and leaves), but they only sanitize the water by adding chlorine to kill microorganisms. They don’t actually remove toxic chemicals from the water. Only distillation — a highly energy-intensive process — removes everything from the water (including the minerals).

A few cities treat their water with ozone, which is a far healthier method that avoids the use of toxic chlorine (which is linked to bladder cancer). Ozonation can break down some — but not all — medications. So what about countertop filters that use carbon blocks? I’m going to find out the answer to that question later this week when I interview Aquasana, the company that makes countertop filters and shower filters. I’ll be sure to ask them for technical details about the ability of their filters to remove trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. That’s suddenly an increasingly important question to consumers who don’t want to consume toxic chemicals in their water.

Terrorists couldn’t have done a better job of poisoning America

What’s really interesting in all this is that the water supply is often cited as a security vulnerability to the nation; a weakness in the defense where terrorists could easily dump chemicals and poison the American people. But why would they bother? Drug companies have already poisoned the water supply for them!

And just in case the medication chemicals in the water aren’t enough to poison the nation, many water treatment facilities add even more poison in the form of artificial fluoride chemicals that cause bone loss and weaken the immune system. Terrorists could hardly do a better job of poisoning the water supply than what corporate America has done already… with the help of criminally negligent government regulatory agencies, of course.

That brings us to the Environmental Protection Agency, a corrupt organization that has now sold out to big business. Read the following article to learn how the EPA now conspires with the chemical industry to censor scientists who try to protect the public from toxic chemicals: http://www.naturalnews.com/022773.html

The EPA has taken no action whatsoever to regulate or eliminate the presence of pharmaceutical chemicals in the water supply. Apparently, the EPA doesn’t mind the fact that infants, babies and pregnant women are now drinking six different medications in their tap water. The agency remains either silent on the issue or in agreement with the corrupt scientists who say the levels of contamination are too low to really matter. But in truth, nobody knows the health effects of combining multiple low-dose pharmaceuticals and feeding it to the population. Anybody who says there’s no risk of harm is simply lying.

How to avoid contaminated water

The solution to all this? On a personal level, you’ll need to avoid drinking tap water, period. Or filter it really well. Distillation, as I mentioned, is very energy intensive (which makes it bad for global warming), but it does get the water very, very clean. Other consumer-level water filters may remove some amount of pharmaceuticals, but I don’t have all the facts on that yet, so I’m not going to make any recommendations until I learn more.

But I am researching it, so stay tuned to NaturalNews.com and subscribe to our e-mail newsletter at http://www.naturalnews.com/readerregistration.html

I’ll be sure to e-mail an announcement when I have new information about the effectiveness of consumer water filters.

Get your medications for free!

The funny part in all this is that if medication trends continue and the presence of pharmaceuticals in the water supply continues to increase, it might get to the point where you no longer need to pay for medications at all! Need some anti-inflammatory drugs? Just drink the water!

Of course, it might be better described as “drinking Big Pharma’s kool-aid,” because the pharmaceutical industry is now founded on a cult-like belief in chemicals promoted by commissioned drug reps, psychiatric zealots and mind-numbed doctors. The level of irrational belief in the power of pharmaceuticals has reached such a fervor that it can only have been made possible by a mass brainwashing of gullible professionals. They have schools dedicated to this dark art — they’re called “med schools.”

Seriously, this tap water contamination is yet one more reason to consider leaving the city and moving closer to nature. America is now so intoxicated with medications that they’re showing up in the water! Do you realize how many people have to be taking (and flushing) drugs to get to that point? It means that the nation has become a chemical consumption quagmire that has now poisoned the people, the land, the air and the water.

The people of America deserve better. Problem is, they’re too drugged up to know it! Don’t you find it interesting, by the way, that the EPA is warning everybody about the environmental dangers of colloidal silver, yet utterly ignoring the environmental dangers of pharmaceutical antibiotics? It’s an interesting double standard…

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies’ products.

Reprinted from Natural News.