GM or not to GM. That's the question, bet I know the answer

There's a rift appearing in the Irish agri-food sector which could affect what has for so long now been a good news story. Last week Teagasc announced that they've applied for a license to sow genetically modified potatoes at their research centre in Carlow.

Irish groups opposing GM claim this threatens our export food market in a climate when agriculture is one of the top performing sectors of the economy. Surveys do suggest that consumers don't want to eat GM food, and that the perception of Ireland as a "clean, green nation" is key to the success of our exports in countries like Italy and Germany.

It also comes at a time where in the US, farmers who choose not to grow GM are currently taking a class action against Monsanto - they fear that when Monsanto's GM seeds contaminate their own crops, Monsanto will claim ownership and charge them licence fees on what were originally sown as non GM foods.

But Teagasc and agri-food experts like Dr. Paddy Wall say the fear of GM is nonsense and it's the only way to tackle world hunger, and a mistake for Ireland to not embrace it. They also feel not allowing GM animal feed into Ireland has made our pig and poultry sectors completely uncompetitive. There argument is - if consumers want Irish food at a fair price, eventually we will have to accept genetically modified crops as part of that picture and that arguing against it will damage Ireland in the long term.

Let's also remember that the Teagasc research is not to look at the economic viability of blight-resistant GM potatoes here, but to look at their environmental impact in the first instance. I'm doing a radio report on this next week and encourage all who have a vested interest or from a consumer point of view, a preference to GM or non GM food, to get in touch. Let your views be known!

What's the most risky food you've ever eaten, go on, spill

Spaghetti with "best-before July 2009" lurking at the back of the cupboard? Cheddar you've scraped the green bit off before toasting on some 2 day old baguette?

We all eat food that is suspect at some point, wondering idly while we chomp down if we'll die in the middle of the night from our righteous attempt at thrift. A Food Safety Authority survey shows that in fact half of us eat foods past their use-by dates. This is despite the fact that use-by dates are worth paying serious attention to... as opposed to best-before dates which are just a general guide.

As the whole best-before, use-by and sell-by date area is clearly a bit of a mindfield, I wrote the following piece for the Irish Independent to give a clearer outline of foods that we can happily eat beyond their best-before dates, and those that might hit you like a punch in the gut, or worse. Have a look, tell me the most risky item you've ever put in your mouth, and let's compare. Mine wins hands down... I promise

Use By Dates: How to find the balance between being safe and wasting food

Irish Independent February 2nd 2009

Most of us have packets of food lurking at the back of the cupboard which are long past their best-before date. But as so many Irish households cut back on their grocery spend, is it a false economy to eat food that is out of date?

A survey by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) showed that nearly half of us eat foodstuffs which have passed their use-by date. The results, from a group of 1,000 questioned by the FSAI and Teagasc, show that consumers rely on their instinct, as opposed to labelling, to judge if something is safe to eat.

The 46pc of Irish consumers who disregard use-by dates said that they were happy to eat food as long as it "looked and smelled okay". The FSAI think the statistic is worrying and shows Irish consumers are still willing to put their health at risk rather than throw something out...

As the article is quite long, check out the rest of it at the following link (no paywall) and let me know your food horror stories. I won't tell a soul.... I promise

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/smart-consumer/use-by-dates-how-to-find-the-balance-between-being-safe-and-wasting-food-3007649.html

Trouble in land of the spuds

We had a lot of reaction to the discussion on RTE Countrywide Saturday on all things potato. I particularly loved the listener who texted in that Rooster potatoes were "muck" and that anyone knew anything about potatoes wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. What's interesting is that it's a topic that enlivens so many people, but the reality is that the demographic eating potatoes in Ireland is getting older, potato sales are falling, and many farmers are leaving the business. The day of the Countrywide report I heard of a farmer, his wife and three kids who were emigrating to Canada just days later having left the potato business.

We talked about several possible solutions to the problems in this sector. Later this month Bord Bia will have research on consumer attitudes to potatoes which will throw a lot of light on buying patterns and how engagement with this wonderful vegetable can be improved. If you're interested in hearing more, the link to the programme is below, with the potato item (myself and Thomas Carpenter from the IFA discussing the issue) at about half way into the programme. The post previous to this also gives an outline of the problems - yes agriculture is thriving in Ireland, but if we turn a blind eye to the the unfair amount of power supermarkets wield and fail to legislate for primary producers, it's not going to stay that way

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/countrywide/

Fat tax adds 6% to price of cream; supermarket charges 17% more, just for the hell of it. The Denmark fat tax experience

Yes sometimes I moan about supermarkets, but I never thought they could have an active role in mucking up public health policy.

I recently did a report on RTE radio about Denmark's Fat Tax. Instead of the expected trend in consumers purchasing high calorie foods, what I found was that retailers there are using the tax to fatten their bottom line. A price survey of eight supermarkets carried out by weekly Danish newspaper Søndagsavisen with co-operation from the Tax Ministry, revealed that prices on many fatty foods were significantly higher than warranted by the tax’s introduction.

For example, while Skat – the Danish Tax and Customs Administration had calculated that the price of sour cream would increase by 6.6 percent due to the fat tax, the spot check revealed that at supermarket Aldi the price of sour cream was raised by a whopping 17.3 percent.
Aldi was the worst offender in the study, with the supermarket raising prices on 9 of the 10 inspected products by more than what could be accounted for by the new tax. Lidl was also an offender - they had increased the price of sour cream by 15.1 percent more than warranted by the tax. Both of these firms operate in Ireland and in fact are growing their share of the grocery market here.

The Danish Consumer Council’s reaction was “Supermarkets can determine their own prices, so it is not prohibited, but it doesn’t look good.” Yes, it sure doesn't look good. Politicians there have now said that there needs to be a debate on “whether there are ways to protect the consumer.”

In all my analysis of fat taxes and obesity measures around the world I was probably naive to overlook the huge issue of how these taxes are delivered - via the supermarkets. As there is yet no regulation on supermarkets in Ireland, going down a sugar tax or fat tax route could put us in exactly the same postition as the Danes - being fleeced. There are also supermarkets in Denmark who are not charging the new tax and trying to gain competitive advantage. So basically, the public health measures expected from the tax are at the whim of the companies who deliver them.

Later this winter we should have legislation here on a proposed new supermarket ombudsman and the possibility of at last protecting both consumers and food producers. After giving a witness statement at an Oireachtas Committee on this back in 2009 it's getting critical that something finally be done. Successive governments here have shirked their responsibilities on the issue. The Danish example just goes to prove that if you have no legal framework to work with the supermarkets on pricing then you may as well be throwing public health measures down the pan.

If you want to hear my discussion with Pat Kenny on the Danish fat tax dilemma it's on the following link; scroll down to November 1st and you'll see my name and the Fat Tax item.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_patkenny.xml

Denmark's Fat Tax - one month old and already gone badly wrong

After a fabulous Friday spent at Savour Kilkenny I'm firmly back in the real world after discovering a food news shocker today. I should have known that after a lovely interlude of chatting with author Colman Andrews about locavores, eating Goatsbridge trout and Knockdrinna cheese with fantastic wine pairings in Mount Juliet, things would come down to earth with a bump via my old nemesis - the supermarkets.

Tomorrow morning I'm reporting on the Kenny Show on Fat Tax and how Denmark is reacting to its first month under the new expensive food regime. Aside from the expected consumer complaints about more expensive processed food, dairy and meat products, the real shocker is that the supermarkets there have taken complete advantage of the new law and are charging as much as 15% more on products such as butter and cream, on top of the 6% or so mark up from the fat tax itself.

This is profiteering on an outrageous scale and again there's no measures or legislation to stop them. Not only are the Danish chains involved in this desception but also Aldi and Lidl which operate here in Ireland. Sometimes I think I'm far too cynical about supermarkets but this new piece of skullduggery in action blew me away. And what would happen here if a fat tax was introduced? Exactly the same thing, particularly as we've no supermarket ombudsman or protection from this sort of practice.

What's the point of having any kind of public health policy if supermarkets use it as a tool to rip off consumers? I'll be going through it in detail after 10am on RTE radio one tomorrow and will put an audio link up here on the blog later.

We've less money, so why are we still eating organic food?

Here's some lovely pears that were brought to me today by a friend from Kerry. Grown in her parent's garden they are as organic and free from pesticide as they come. This is the kind of food you find "along the way", just like blackberries in the hedgerows, or a few spuds from your neighbours garden. But it wasn't always the case that we valued this kind of food.

Alongside expensive marble kitchens and Michelin starred restaurants, in recent years, buying organic food in Ireland was symbolic of wealthier times. But was buying organic just an example of conspicuous consumption or are consumers still committed to paying more for what is perceived as healthier food? With the recession, sales of organic produce have declined in Ireland, but not so badly as we might have expected.

In fact between 2009 and 2010 organic sales in Ireland fell by about 5%. This happened after huge growth in the sector - from 2007 to 2008 sales in Ireland increased by 82%, reaching a value of over 100 million euro compared to €57 million in 2006. So we had this huge boom and then not a crash as you might have expected, but a slow down. And if you look at 2010 in detail, six months into the year the rate of decline eased and in the second half of the year several categories (breakfast cereals, yoghurts, savoury snacks and vegetables) actually grew in value and volume of sales.

In terms of how many of us are buying organic food. Bord Bia’s research reveals that 45% of Irish grocery shoppers purchased an organic product in the last month, 7% up on last year.

92% of Irish adults purchased organic products over the past year and the Irish organic sector is currently valued at €103 million. Sales are also good in Europe and on the rise for our export markets, charging ahead in Italy with a rise of 12% this year and also in Russia.

So even in these tough times, we’re still buying more organic food than in the UK for example. In the UK sales in 2010 fell by 12% so the sector took a big hit. The fact that organic food in Ireland wasn't hit as hard as in there (despite our worse financial circumstances) may be because we are more connected to the notion of farming and growing food. This is what I like to think anyway, hopefully it's the case.

Last Friday I talked on this subject on RTE radio's Pat Kenny Show. It was organic week and around the Irish countryside farm walks, barbeques and foraging days were being held to celebrate the growing of organic food in Ireland. It's great to see that in spite of our financial meltdown consumers still see the value of buying organic, where it's possible. Not all of my food shop by any means is organic. I make a choice first to buy local meat and veg, and if I buy imported veg where there is no Irish equivalent I try to buy organic as they have less pesticide (or hopefully) no pesticide residue.

In terms of dried foods like pasta or tinned kidney beans it's often easy to choose an organic item for just a few cents more. In these cases I choose the organic option, again believing that the less pesticide residue I can keep out of my body and my kids, the better. Recent research revealed that Roundup, one of the world's leading pesticide brands was found to be present in rain, so I think I'm making the right choice. Our environment is full of toxins from industry, farming and materials such as plastic which we use constantly in our daily life. I'm a pragmatist and a realist about food and farming, but if I have the choice to keep a little of it at bay by eating organic food, then I take that opportunity, even if it costs me more.

If you are interested in organics have a listen to the full interview. The item can be listened to below, the podcast is the third item down. Happy eating!

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/2011-09-16.html

Are these restaurant owners deluded?

I've written here before about breaches in food safety in Irish restaurants and it seems January was a pretty popular month for it - three eateries were shut down last month because of the risks they were taking with food, and ultimately customer's health. It seems like madness to me that in a time when businesses are trying to generate new customers, you would take shortcuts with food to the extent that the Food Safety Authority end up closing you down.

Are these people thinking straight at all? Is it a case of - "Okay, that ham is a week past its sell by date but sure if we sling it on top of a pizza and no one will notice". Em, I think they will; customers aren't stupid and neither or the health authorities. And what we don't know, is how many people who ate food from these places ended up ill before they were closed down.

There are 49,000 food businesses in Ireland. While the times may be tight this is not an excuse to be cutting corners to this extent. Dr. Alan Reilly from the FSAI pointed out that "These errors include dirty premises and unhygienic practices, all leading to a variety of potential food safety hazards, be it contamination of foodstuffs; cross-contamination from raw to cooked foods and improper storage of food. It affects not only the premises involved, but the industry as a whole".
He's right - it does affect the industry as a whole - it knocks our faith in what we are eating and makes us wonder if there is bad stuff going on behind the kitchen doors of our favourite restaurant. All we can hope for is that this lastest round of closures and enforcement orders might give the bad practitioners a wake up call. For those of you looking to breathe a sigh of relief, the food outlets closed down were -
• Wok In take-away, 9 Captains Hill, Leixlip, Kildare
• The Burger Hut Foodstall, Knockcroghery, Roscommon

• Rezmerita Plus Ltd supermarket trading as Polonez,(Delicatessen and Butcher area only), Athlone Shopping Centre, Athlone, Westmeath


Not only that, but last month the FSAI served Improvement Orders on the following businesses whose food safety practises were not up to scratch, hopefully they will take note and pay a bit more attention to what customers are eating:


• Roma Take Away, 4 Lower Kennelsfort Road, Palmerstown, Dublin 20 and
• Bassetts at Woodstock restaurant, Woodstock, Inistioge, Kilkenny
While we know the vast majority of Irish restuarants have a great record in food safety and hygiene it's worth remembering that there are outlets out there who don't place this as a priority. So for the moment I will continue to keep and eye on the bad ones, while continuting to applaud the good guys. Happy eating folks x

Have Walmart just discovered It's a Wonderful Life?

Wal-Mart, the worlds biggest food retailer has just announced a programme of investment for sustainable agriculture and to increase the amount of food it buys from small farmers. This has huge implications, including for us here in Ireland. After all, ASDA are owned by Walmart and they are waiting just over the border for the right moment to pounce down here, and possibly buy out Dunnes. To say I'm shocked with this turnaround in policy is an understatement. Did Walmart suddenly discover a DVD of It's a Wonderful Life? Is their CEO about to die and feels he must leave a legacy to the world? Is it some giant PR game? Lets look at the details -

According to today's New York Times...

"The program is intended to put more locally grown food in Wal-Mart stores in the United States, invest in training and infrastructure for small and medium-sized farmers particularly in emerging markets and begin to measure the efficiently of large suppliers in growing and getting their produce to market.

Given that Wal-Mart is the world’s largest grocer, with one of the biggest food supply chains, any changes that it makes would have wide implications. Wal-Mart’s decision five years ago to set sustainability goals that, among other things, increased its reliance on renewable energy and reduced packaging waste among its supplies, sent broad ripples through product manufacturers.

Large companies like Proctor and Gamble redesigned packages that are now also carried by other retailers, while Wal-Mart’s measurements of environmental efficiency among its suppliers helped define how they needed to change.

“No other retailer has the ability to make more of a difference than Wal-Mart,” Wal-Mart’s president and chief executive Michael T. Duke, said at a meeting Thursday morning, according to prepared remarks. “Grocery is more than half of Wal-Mart’s business. Yet only four of our 39 public sustainability goals address food.”

Ok, back to me - it's still sounding too good to be true. Up until now it's been in Walmarts interest to squeeze suppliers on margin until they can barely survive and keep the price of food down. There have been mountains of PhDs written about the devastating effect they have had on everything from farming and the environment to the shape of small towns in America. I'm afraid I'm suspicious about all this but lets face it, their financial commitments are a drop in the ocean to their normal spend and the changes won't be fully met until the end of 2015.

Back to the New York Times -

In the United States, Wal-Mart will double the percentage of locally grown produce, to 9 percent, the company said. Wal-Mart defines local produce as that grown and sold in the same state. Still, the program is far less ambitious than in some other countries — in Canada, for instance, where Wal-Mart expects to buy 30 percent of produce locally by the end of 2013, and, when local produce is available, increase that to 100 percent.

In emerging markets, Wal-Mart has pledged to sell $1 billion of food from small and medium farmers (which it defines as farmers with fewer than 20 hectares or about 50 acres). It will also provide training for the farmers and their laborers on how to choose crops that are in demand as well as the proper application of water and pesticides.

Both in the United States and globally, Wal-Mart will invest more than $1 billion to improve its perishable supply chain. For example, if trucks, trains and distribution centers could help farmers in l Minnesota get crops to Wal-Mart more quickly, the result would be less spoiled food, a longer shelf life, and presumably more profit for both the farmer and for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart said it planned to reduce food waste in emerging-market stores by 15 percent, and in other stores by 10 percent.

As it did in the environmental arena, it will begin creating an agriculture-specific index to figure out how to measure waste and efficiency among produce suppliers. It will be asking its biggest producers to answer questions about water, fertilizer and chemical use. The eventual goal is to include that information in a sustainability rating that customers would see, so they could decide whether to choose one avocado over another based on how much waste it had created. Wal-Mart would also use the information when it decides from whom to buy.

Finally, it announced specific sourcing guidelines, including that sustainably sourced palm oil be used in all its private-label products (the Wal-Mart house brands) and that any beef it sells not contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon because of cattle-ranching expansion.

“When we do this on Wal-Mart’s scale, we can deliver a global food supply that improves health and livelihoods around the world,” Leslie A. Dach, executive vice president for corporate affairs, said, according to prepared remarks.

While the over all goals include Sam’s Club, the warehouse-store wing of Wal-Mart, that division also has goals specific to it: It will increase sales of fair-trade certified produce and flowers by 15 percent, require all seafood suppliers to become certified as sustainable, and reduce food waste in clubs and distribution centers by 11 percent annually.

Environmental and agricultural specialists who had worked with Wal-Mart on the program said a few items stood out.

Beginning to measure how farms produced food, with the sustainability index, was a big step, they said.
“The impact of not just Wal-Mart but the entire food and agricultural sector starting to define what is acceptable practice in their supply chain, and then what is unacceptable practice, will move agricultural producers en masse,” said Marty Matlock, a professor of ecological engineering at the University of Arkansas. “The index represents a real number that will mean improvement on the ground: improving ecosystem health, soil health and food quality.”
“This is huge,” said Michelle Mauthe Harvey, project manager for the corporate partnerships program at Environmental Defense Fund. “Once people are asked those questions, if they haven’t been measuring, they measure more.”
“Knowing what’s embedded in the food before it ever leaves the farm is really significant, because then you can begin to embrace better practices, you can begin to identify opportunities for improvement.”
Ms. Harvey said the investment into infrastructure was also a big step forward.
“The majority of efforts have tended toward some local sourcing, and you had a fairly active effort around organics” among other grocers, Ms. Harvey said, but there was a gap between support for local farmers and how those farmers would find transportation or warehouses for their food.
“Our agricultural system over the last three to four decades, as we’ve moved to reliance on key locations like California and Florida,” she said, “we’ve made it very difficult for local farmers to actually get their food to market.”

Back to me - either way, this is mega news. What's motivating their decision is what's really of interest. Are they afraid that after the recent recall of billions of eggs in the US, swine flu and avian flu that they will eventually poison half of us with factory farmed food and leave the market with no alternative?

The cynical part of me says its all about market share. Walmart/ASDA know customers are getting more copped on about food and don't want something as cheap as chips if it might possibly kill them. So they're getting in there before it's too late. But let's watch this space, I get a large smell of greenwashing from this, Tesco have tried this game before and it doesn't work. Lets just say I'll keep a close eye on their progress and let you all know how its going. Walmart turning into environmental guardian angel? Yeah. Let's see what actually happens.

And I thought salmon was naturally that colour

Smart Consumer: The unpalatable truth about the salmon on your plate
By Suzanne Campbell
Thursday September 23 2010



Close your eyes and picture a salmon. Odds are that you think of a gleaming muscular fish leaping up a river in full flood. It's this image which informs our decision making at the fish counter.



We also think of salmon as a healthy food -- rich in omega-3 fish oils and a tasty source of low-fat protein. But a new book by American food writer Paul Greenberg probes into the image of salmon, revealing some uncomfortable truths about Ireland's favourite fish.
More than 99% of the salmon sitting on Irish supermarket counters and in delicatessens is farmed.



Some of it is Irish fish but most of what we eat originates in Scotland or Norway.
Wild salmon is scarce around the world and with the ban on drift netting in Ireland, it's now out of reach for most of us and will only appear on the menus of very good restaurants or in small quantities at specialised fishmongers.



The fact that we are eating almost exclusively farmed salmon doesn't seem to affect our appetites for it. What Greenberg points out is that while salmon has obvious health benefits, questions have to be asked about what eating farmed salmon does to the availability of other fish. The book also shows how our demand for cod, tuna and sea bass led to their shrinking availability.



But for Irish consumers who return to the fish counter again and again for salmon, what does he say about how healthy a choice it really is? Salmon from fish farms are artificially spawned, reared in pens with thousands of other fish all swimming tightly together in circles and fed a diet that contains colorants to make its flesh pink. There's little natural about a farmed salmon except that it's still living in water.



Even less appetising is that farmed salmon are fed pellets made from ground-up wild fish, mixed with soya and cereals -- not quite its natural diet. The pellets also contain a pigment to colour the salmon's flesh; the tone depends on the country the fish is destined for. So you'll find farmed salmon in South America very red in colour, whereas we in Ireland prefer it a soft pink.
Critics of farmed salmon find this 'Dulux colour card' approach enough reason to boycott it, but the fish farming sector claims that the colourant is nothing more than a natural carotenoid pigment named astaxanthin; exactly the same molecule that wild salmon get from eating small shellfish.



Astaxanthin is now made in a laboratory rather than by shellfish, so what are we worried about? Aren't many of the foods that we eat artificially coloured? Or is it just that colouring the flesh of live animals crosses some kind of line?



Of more impact is the colossal amount of other fish species that go into creating the fish pellets farmed salmon eat. Greenberg points out that it takes up to six pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of salmon and that part of the problem with the world's diminishing fish stocks is this hoovering up of other species to feed our insatiable appetite for pink fish.



The farmed salmon currently on our fish counters has also been genetically selected to have a quicker growth rate. Since the Norwegians pioneered farming salmon on a mass scale they've engineered a fish that has double the growth rate of wild salmon. This super salmon matures faster and dominates salmon production across the world, so much so that three billion pounds of farmed salmon are produced globally; three times the amount of wild fish harvested.
While this may be hailed as a breakthrough by fish breeders, this immense salmon production has been at the cost of the nine billion pounds of wild fish that have been caught and ground into pellets to feed them.



Greenberg points out that as humans have been farming salmon since the 15th Century you'd think we'd have got it right by now, but sadly mistakes have been made.
Blood meal from chickens was routinely fed to salmon to provide micro nutrients and only banned after BSE came to light. Fish were also crammed into cages that were too small and sea lice proliferated, affecting other species.



In Ireland, Scotland and Norway, studies found that the presence of salmon farms increased the level of sea lice infestation on sea trout. It also badly affected Irish wild salmon.
But most detrimental to the image of farmed salmon was the extent to which they were found to contain PCBs -- polychlorinated biphenyls, which came to light in a report published in 2004.
PCBs are toxins which have found their way into fish from run-off into rivers of waste from manufacturing plants. They accumulate progressively over time meaning that those at the top of the food chain -- humans -- are exposed to the highest levels.



In the research published in the journal Science, farmed salmon was found to contain higher concentrations of PCBs than its wild counterpart. PCBs were subsequently banned, but not before confidence in farmed salmon had taken a hit. Many Irish fishermen still claim that the waste from salmon cages is not sufficiently washed out to sea and affects the local environment as waste pellets and faeces fall through the nets onto the seabed underneath. The Irish fish farming sector claims it's one of the cleanest in Europe as it is located in strong Atlantic seas which quickly get rid of the waste.



How to spot the best fish over the counter -

Salmon farming will continue to grow all over the world, despite its detractors. If you want to still eat fish with strong health benefits that doesn't wipe out our future choices of seafood, here are some alternatives.

For fish rich in Omega-3 oils, buy anchovies, sardines and mackerel. Mackerel and herring have healthy populations in Irish seas and have plenty of flavour; even when grilled and served with a simple salad.

Ling, blossom and coley are cheap substitutes for cod. They are so close in flavour, texture and appearance to cod that they have been found to be labelled and sold as their more expensive cousin.

If you really want salmon, ask for salmon that's farmed in Ireland at the fish counter of your supermarket or delicatessen. 75% of salmon produced in Ireland is organically certified, so not only is the cereal feed organic, the fish component of the pellets is of a low percentage and comes from monitored fish stocks. The stocking density in organic salmon cages is also less dense.

Buy fish in M&S -- they have been rated the leading retailer for responsible fishing by Greenpeace and only stock tuna caught by the pole and line system which is more sustainable.

Look out for the Bord Bia Seafood Circle mark at the supermarket fish counter or at the fish mongers. These fish sellers are the most educated in terms of the quality and source of the fish that they stock, and can give you the best information about what's fresh, in season and how to cook it.

Suzanne Campbell for The Irish Independent



Four Fish by Paul Greenberg is published by Penguin. Suzanne Campbell's food blog is at www.basketcasetheblog.blogspot.com

Food poisioning, animal cruelty and rape of employees - the real nice side to America's factory farms

US agriculture is reeling from a salmonella outbreak which has left more than 1500 Americans ill with food poisioning and lead to the recall of more than half a billion eggs. The food firm at the centre of this outbreak had already been named a "habitual violator" of regulations and has been breaking the law since 1994. If there was an ugly face to factory farming, and an example of how loose food regulation is in the US, this is clearly it.

The DeCosters plant in Iowa which is the focus of the outbreak produces 2.3 million dozen eggs a week and has also been sued by neighbours for noxious gases, millions of gallons of uncovered manure and putrid animal carcasses left on roadways,

Not only has Mr. Austin DeCoster habitually broken food and environment regulations, in 2002 he paid a settlement to eleven female workers at his plant. Most of the women were Mexican, and the payment was made for sexual harassment and assault charges, including rapes by supervisors.

Notwithstanding the current salmonella outbreak, here's a quick run down of DeCosters adventures so far -

In 1997, he agreed to pay $2 million in fines for health and safety violations. The US labour secretary at the time, Robert Reich, said conditions on his farm in Maine were "as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop." Reich's successor, called the farms "simply atrocious," citing unguarded machinery, electrical hazards, exposure to harmful bacteria and unsanitary conditions.

In 2000, the state of Iowa designated DeCoster a "habitual violator" of environmental regulations for problems that included run-off of pig manure into local waterways.

In 2002, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the $1.5-million settlement of the lawsuit against DeCoster Farms on behalf of the employees who reported sexual harassment, rape, abuse and retaliation by supervising staff at DeCoster's Wright County plants.

In 2007, 51 workers were arrested during an immigration raid at his farms. This was the fourth illegal immigration raid carried out by authorities.

In June 2010, Maine Contract Farming, the successor company to DeCoster Egg Farms, agreed to pay $25,000 in penalties and to make a one-off payment of $100,000 to the Maine Department of Agriculture over animal cruelty allegations that were spurred by a hidden-camera investigation by an animal welfare organization.

Why does America continually turn its back on the catastrophic problems evident in their factory farms, if anything, surely their risk to human health should at least prompt a re-think. The Department of Agriculture and the FDA in the US have so far shown little regard for cleaning up anything other than food crises long after they've happened and public health has already been put at risk, let alone the issues surrounding animal cruelty and the monopolies operating food production in the US.

"Light touch" regulation in the US is the order of the day. After all, the FDA still allows growth hormones in cows despite their link with tumours, they also permit the routine feeding of antibiotics to healthy livestock to promote their growth, a practice which allegedly contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and they also allow cloned animals be be sold without special labelling.

On top of this the Department of Agriculture has just announced a recall of 8,500 pounds of ground beef for possible E. coli contamination. It's sad that we know of food horrors in the US only come to light when it's too late. If you really want to know what does on on American farms read Johnathon Safran Foer's "Eating Animals". It'll tell you not just what's behind the label but also behind the farm, read it. It ain't pretty.

For more on the salmonella outbreak and the incredible flouting of regulations by the DeCosters http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27eggs.html