Antibiotic-Free, Cage-Free, GMO-free, Food
April 15, 2020 at 3:18 pm #2520Patriots Of The RepublicKeymaster
Antibiotic-Free, Cage-Free, GMO-free, Food
Is antibiotic-free, cage-free, GMO-free, food better? Are there any harmful side-effects to humans? Is it immoral and unethical? Are there health benefits? All these questions are important but we must focus on the science and hard data, not on our feelings and the emotionalistic aspect of the topic. I will answer, Is antibiotic-free, cage-free, GMO-free, food good or bad for you?
The primary argument against the use of antibiotics in animals that are grown for the purpose of being food is this: The overuse of antibiotics in food-producing animals is being blamed for the increase in resistant bacteria, also known as “superbugs.” But is that even true? What UNBIAS, UNAFFILIATED, RELIABLE studies support this? Sorry, a study paid for by PETA is inherently unreliable.
First, let’s look at what the antibiotics have factually done.
Low doses of antibiotics are also added to animal feed to promote growth. This means a greater production of meat or milk in shorter periods of time . These low doses may also reduce animal death rates and improve reproduction . Here’s a fun fact, the chances of you actually consuming antibiotics through animal foods is extremely low. Drug withdrawal periods are enforced before treated animals, eggs or milk are used as food. This allows time for the drugs to completely leave the animal’s system. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a strict process of testing all meat, poultry, eggs and milk for unwanted compounds, including antibiotic residues (4). Ready for this fact?
No evidence suggests antibiotics in food products are directly harming people.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say they are. In 2010, less than 0.8% of animal food products tested positive for some form of “contamination,” including antibiotic residue (5). In fact, figures from the USDA showed that the amount of animal products found to have antibiotic residues were extremely low, and those that did were disposed of.
To put that 0.08% in a realistic and proper perspective; When you enter a public restroom, and enter a stall that was just used by another person, difficile and fecal matter is still, on average 25 centimeters in the air when you enter and breath it in… there is a 99% chance you are breathing in someone else’s’ fecal matter in a public restroom if you enter a stall that was used within the last 90 minutes before you. How about this one, researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reported that 1 in 6 cellphones tested in the United Kingdom were contaminated with fecal matter. That’s a 17% chance of touching a phone with fecal matter, and we lay our phones down on tables and desks… Another chance of something that isn’t so nasty, 5% chance of getting in a car wreck and a 1.25% of getting non-fatally injured in a car wreck [6, 7]; which is almost double the chance of buying a food product with residual antibiotics. Now let me ask you, how many times have you been injured in a car wreck? If you said “none” than you most likely have NEVER purchased food with antibiotics in it. Even if you said “once” or even “twice”, it is HIGHLY unlikely you have EVER purchased food with antibiotics in it. And that’s just math.
You will inhale fecal matter numerous times AND get injured in a car wreck, before you eat food contaminated with residual antibiotics.
The concern of building resistant bacteria due to antibacterial overuse is a genuine concern. The FDA has, in fact, recognized this and has limited the unnecessary use of antibiotics in livestock for this reason (8). For the sake of argument, if an animal that was overly injected with antibiotics unnecessarily, was then contaminated with a resistant bacteria and was that 0.8% that made its way to your grocery store; where you buy it. You are STILL not infected by it. YOU then have to not clean or cook it properly. I don’t know about you but I try not to eat unclean, uncooked food…
Now, there was a study that showed that communities that live near crop fields with pig manure fertilizer had a higher risk of being around resistant bacteria MRSA . Which, only makes logical since. If I was closer to risky things, I would then have a higher risk to be connected to riskier things. If I never cooked my food and ate it raw, I then would be at a higher risk of getting sick… See, that is the kind of “study” that just validates common sense but doesn’t really add anything useful to the argument. And then they throw out some other study  that supports the infections with bacteria resistant to antibiotics… but purposefully fail to tell you WHERE the infections came from… here’s a hint, they weren’t all from food. It’s typical science fearmongering. This study includes “Clostridium Difficile” infections… its a bacterial infection you can get from a public restroom 😉 Just to name one. There are others that are counted in the study that are unrelated to food.
But the fearmongering studies to stop there. Another study SELECTED 200 supermarkets and found 20% of the meat contained Salmonella . OMG! It is not clear HOW they chose the supermarkets but they had to have some sort of “criteria” to then “randomly” selected those that fit their criteria. An ethical issue for studies, but that’s besides the point. That means that 20% of the population who bought the meat got Salmonella poisoning, right? Yet another “report” found resistant bacteria in an average of 50% of the meats . Here’s a scary one, Another study tested 136 beef, poultry and pork samples from 36 US supermarkets. Almost 25% tested positive for the resistant bacteria MRSA (13)…
If this is true, and 50% of the US Population is getting infected with Salmonella, 25% getting MRSA, why… isn’t 50% of the population sick? Reality doesn’t match up.
Well, thank-goodness your significant other, or you, know how to cook. This study concluded that the danger to health is very small because proper cooking destroys the harmful bacteria . I love numbers, number don’t lie. The transmission to the general public is RARE. A study from Denmark reported that the likelihood of transmission for the population was only 0.003% (17). Now think about. You only have a 0.8% chance of eating food that is contaminated and only a 0.003% chance of the bacteria being transmitted to you!
Let us also not disregard that it may actually be OUR UNNECESSARY USE of Antibiotics in our own bodies that cause the bacteria to become resistant, according to that study . Which supports that idea that antibiotics in food is not inherently bad.
Antibiotic-Free Sales Pitch
Many products claim to be “raised without antibiotics,” including some that are labeled organic. This does not mean these products are free from resistant bacteria. Evidence suggests that these products still contain resistant bacteria, although they are slightly less resistant than regular products grown using antibiotics.
This study showed that Antibotic-free chicken were MORE frequently contaminated with bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter than non-organic chickens . Here, the prevalence of Enterococcus bacteria was 25% higher in organic chicken than non-organic chicken . This shows that Antibiotic-free chicken has a higher rate of contamination.
The truth is, each company creates their own “standard” for what they determine to be “antibiotic-free.” . Of course the FDA looks at each “standard” and finds a general “consensus”  but again, its more of a sales hype than a uniform high-quality standard.
2. CAGE-FREE CHICKEN
This is such a joke, propaganda, title “Cage-free.” It implies that this companies chickens were not raised in a cage. That’s cute because NO CHICKENS are raised in tight confined cages (unless they are subjects of studies). The images you see of chickens in cages, doesn’t show you the exit they have and the ability to leave that cage and wonder around elsewhere.
Commercial Broiler farms raise chickens in large, well-ventilated, climate controlled barns where they are protected from the weather and predators. They move around, have access to food and water 24 hours a day and socialize with all the other 20,000 chickens. “Free-Range Chickens” is a better term.
The cost of “Cage-Free” or “Free-Range” chickens is more than double that of Chickens grown indoors.
Then we see pictures of Chicken coops from other countries to make us feel that is how they are grown in America. They aren’t. That’s propaganda that a lot of weak-minded American’s buy into. Then we get what I call “propaganda studies” that at their premise are faulty, but on purpose, as to seem like they legit but really just pushing an agenda or ideology first, then manipulating data to support the premise. The CSES Research Project is one such “propaganda study” . Notice they research a “conventional cage” housing system. The study was conducted on only ONE COMMERCIAL FARM! How convenient. And a major player in the study, The University of California… California. The king of trash propaganda. Who then get cited by others are a means to justify a sense of “cage-free-ness.”
In Your Feels
The last ditch effort to fight the (non-existent) Chicken cages; your feelings. Suddenly, certain anti-religious people care about ethics and morality. They say things like, “caged chickens suffer and are overly stressed.” Have you ever seen a Lion eat a Impala in the wild? What do you think that Impala is feeling? Here, here is an image to help you out:
lion carrying impala
That’s nature. That’s natural. That’s natural selection, evolution, survival of the fittest. Natural is brutal, unforgiving, violent, stressful, and animals naturally suffer. You think Chickens don’t experience this, naturally? Here is another visual for you:
You think that chicken wasn’t stressed, feeling pain, or suffered? #Nature. So don’t try to lecture anyone on ethics or morality on animals suffering. You want “all-natural”? there you go. The suffering these morons can careless about are all the families and children starving because the price of food is through the roof in the name of reducing animal stress… And then, like predictable clock-work they will spit out the propaganda they were told about antibiotics. Please review above.
“The Organic” and “Free-Range” Label
Again, these are mostly sales pitches. The organic label is still fairly vague in its requirements. And the “free-range” quality is nothing more than having access to some sort of outdoors. Really, its to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and to tickle your self-righteous “I’m helping the animals” feeling… Even any sort of anti-antibioltic requirement only requires them to be antibiotic free when tested and not as a lifetime requirement. So, most chickens can receive their antibiotics early in life, build immunization, and then be “antibiotic-free” later in life for testing.
Nutrition and Taste
This one always gets me. Nothing but assumptions because there ARE NO STUDIES that support any of these sort of claims. It’s almost comical. The claim that Organic Chickens “have more flavor” is not true. I tried this. I even cooked various chickens, same way, same time, and had friends an family try them. No one could tell a difference and when asked to guess which was more flavorful, there was no consensus for the “cage-free” chicken lol.
As far as the nutritional value, its all the same no matter what some zombie hippy tells you. Chicken muscle fiber = X grams of Protein. How muscle fibers and proteins are synthesized in a chicken is completely unrelated to whether or not they were cage-free or lived a stress free life lol. Now, maybe FAT content may be higher in more lazy stationary chickens, but that doesn’t change the nutritional value of fat itself.
California proves that they are ignorant when it comes to egg-laying and food costs for average American. They passed a law that required a certain size, per chickens, and forced companies to increase the size. Sounds good right? More movement for chickens, more space, less stress… the number of egg-laying hens in California fell by 23%, and an increase in egg prices by 35%. #Fail. What is even more funny is that California then removed that study [20, 21].
Free-Range, Cage-Free Chickens are NOT more nutritious.
Free-Range, Cage-Free Chickens do NOT “taste” better (considering “flavor” is also subjective and more relative).
Free-Range, Cage-Free Chickens ARE more expensive.
Animal “feelings” and “emotions” do NOT transfer to you when you eat them LOL
GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. While conventional breeding, which has been going on for centuries, involves mixing all of the genes from two different sources, producing a GMO is much more targeted. Rather than crossing two plants out in the field, they insert a gene or two into individual cells in a lab. Yet, as mentioned earlier, GM technology can also be used on microorganisms. For example, bacteria have been genetically modified to produce medicines that can cure diseases or vaccines that prevent them. A commonly used medicine that comes from a genetically modified source is insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, but there are many others. One area that draws a lot of attention is whether these GMO plants and the foods that contain them are safe to eat.
There is no data to indicate that consumption of GMOs is bad for human health.
The National Academy for Science, the United States’ number one source for independent, objective advice to the nation on matters of science and technology, concluded that GMOs are safe for human health. The same conclusion has been reached by a large number of prestigious health and science organizations from around the world. In addition, over the two decades that GMOs have been on the market, there have been no occurrences of health issues due to genetically modified organisms.
What’s The Point of GMOs?
When farmers plant their crops they generally worry about three things that could prevent a good yield: insects, weeds and weather. Most of the GM crops grown around the world today address problems caused by insects or weeds (although some GMOs are currently being tested for enhanced nutrition). When it comes to insects, there are genetically modified plants that can repel only the very particular type of insect that feeds on it. With some crops, this has significantly lowered the need to apply pesticides. Other GM plants have been developed to be resistant to certain herbicides thus making weed control more straightforward and less expensive.
Benefits that shoppers are unlikely to be aware of by glancing at items in the aisle, such as: lower cost, less soil erosion (because tillage isn’t as necessary for weed control), less pesticide application and others.
They also engineer seeds to give GM foods stronger colors, increase their shelf life, or eliminate seeds. That’s why we can buy seedless watermelons and grapes. Some GM foods also have been engineered to have higher levels of specific nutrients, such as protein, calcium, or folate.
And They Are Regulated
The regulation of genetically modified crops in the United States is divided among three regulatory agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (only transgenic food requires regulation by all three federal government agencies).
USDA-APHIS protects animal agriculture from pests and diseases. They regulate any biotechnology products that could pose a risk, as well as any organisms or products known or suspected to be risks or pose risks. They regulate all aspects, including but not limited to import, handling, movement, confinement, and disposal. The EPA regulates sale, distribution and use of all pesticides. The EPA also sets tolerance limits for residues of pesticides on and in food and animal feed, or establishes an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA oversees the safety and proper labeling of all plant-derived food and feed, including those from genetically engineered products. All food or feed, including that which is imported into the country, must meet the same standards.
Food allergies are a growing problem in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , food allergies in children under 18 years of age have increased; from 3.4 percent between 1997 and 1999 to 5.1 percent between 2009 and 2011. Some people believe that spike is linked to GM foods. But there’s no evidence that GM foods in general are more likely to trigger allergic reactions than non-GM foods, according to a study from Harvard University . According to the Mayo Clinic , none of the GM foods that are currently on the market have been found to have allergenic effects.
Remember my talk about “propaganda studies?” Here is another prime example. In 2013, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology  retracted a paper that linked the herbicide Roundup and Roundup-tolerant GM corn to cancer and premature death in rats. To RETRACT a study validates that is it us unreliable for one reason or another. Apparently they used rats that were already prone to caner and they used way to few rats. That’s like finding a small amount of people, we will say 5 people, and all 5 of them have a history of diabetes. Then, jumping to the conclusion that all of America is prone to diabetes based off these 5 people…
But, of course, like a ideological morons, they still want to influence the minds and hearts of the sheeple. So, the “study” was just republished in another journal, Environmental Sciences Europe . But, the credibility of that journal has long been in question due to it publishing Climate Change studies that were extremely and poorly done. For them, its all about pushing an ideology at any cost, even the cost of truth.
GMOs are NOT bad for you.
They do NOT cause allergies.
Only a “propaganda study” claims to link GMOs to cancer. A study that was retracted from a respected research journal.
They are highly regulated.
4. THE FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS OF “CAGE-FREE”, “ANTIBIOTICS”, AND “GMOs”
You can read through all the sources and stuides yourself. But to sum it up, anyone pushing the idea of “cage-free” chicken, “antibiotic-free” food, and “anti-GMOs” are ignorant, moronic, sheeple, who just believe what they are told and shown by anyone. The studies, the data, the math, and logical reasoning present a different picture for these.
Moral of the story:
Public bathrooms, cell phones, and driving is more unhealthy and risky than eating caged chickens pumped with antibiotics; and nature doesn’t give a fk about your feelings, or theirs.
Eat Chicken, caged or not.
Eat their eggs, layed in a cage or not.
Eat GMO veggies and fruits.
You do you.
Just don’t be a moronic tool and buy into the hateful propaganda and cultish mentality of “cage-free-antibiotic-free-anti-GMO-ism”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
SHARE THIS RITE-MEOW!
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)