According to the Chain Reaction report, meat sold by major American fast food chains contains an unsafe amount of antibiotics.

The 25 largest fast food chains in the United States are getting schooled — not surprisingly, the report card doesn’t look so good.

The meat sold by the nation’s major fast food providers has been analyzed for its antibiotic content. The scorecard exposes the seriousness of an underreported health issue that affects the nation as a whole.

The Report Card

The scorecard shows that only five American fast food chains received a passing grade, while 20 other restaurants failed the test.

Friends of Earth released a “Chain Reaction” report in conjunction with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Keep Antibiotics Working, and Center for Food Safety.

The report grades America’s top restaurant chains on their policies and practices regarding antibiotics in their meat and poultry. Researchers gathered data from restaurants in person, through email and snail mail.

The researchers looked at how well these policies were implemented, including the estimated availability of meat produced without routine antibiotics. The grade also takes into account how transparent the restaurant is about its policies, and if the practices were online.

The grades were calculated based on the establishment’s antibiotics use policies, including the strength of the policy and if it applies to all meat products offered. The total number of possible points was 36.

According to the report, 20 of the most popular fast food restaurants failed, which meant the meat they sold contained a lot of antibiotics. The restaurants that received zero points include Wendy’s, Burger King, Dominos, Starbucks, Olive Garden, Papa John’s, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, Applebee’s, Sonic, Chili’s, Jack in the Box, Arby’s, Dairy Queen, IHOP, Outback and Little Caesars.

Each restaurant had a different response of explanation for their good, or not-so-good, grade.

Dunkin’ Donuts and Dominos both said their food complies with all FDA and USDA laws. Wendy’s and Starbucks are working to address concerns about antibiotic use. Burger King plans to review the findings.

Only two restaurants passed with flying colors. Chipotle and Panera Bread both received an “A” score because their meat isn’t treated with antibiotics.

“While many people are just starting to pay attention to the issue, we have known for a long time that it is the right thing to do, and we are pleased to see others taking even small steps to curb antibiotic use in livestock,” Chipotle said in response to the report.

Panera Bread had a similar reaction, claiming that “More than a decade ago, we started serving chicken raised without antibiotics — ahead of the industry. We’re glad to see that others have followed and proud to have extended our commitment to all of the chicken, ham, bacon, sausage and roasted turkey on our salads and sandwiches.”

Chik-fil-a, coming in with a “B” score, is working to catch up to their 2014 claim of ‘No Antibiotics Ever.’ Representatives say that the switch will take time, and that verification from suppliers is of utmost importance. McDonald’s is also working to eliminate some antibiotics in their meat supply.

Papa Johns, which received an “F,” is spending $100 million a year to eliminate artificial ingredients and other additives. “By the first half of 2016, we will offer antibiotic-free chicken on our pizza,” Papa Johns said in response.

The Meaning Behind The Meat

Consuming meat that contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria will make antibiotics ineffective when they are needed most.
Image: Maximized Living

The meat industry uses antibiotics to prevent animals from getting infections that would develop from poor diet and unsanitary conditions. Using antibiotics as a standard preventative method has yielded resistant bacteria, which is then passed on to humans.

“When livestock producers administer antibiotics routinely to their flocks and herds, bacteria can develop resistance, thrive and even spread to our communities, contributing to the larger problem of antibiotic resistance,” according to the report authors.

This is a bigger problem than we think. At least 2 million Americans contract antibiotic-resistant infections every year, the CDC estimates. These infections will kill about 23,000 people.

“The worsening epidemic of resistance means that antibiotics may not work when we need them most: when our kids contract a staph infection (MRSA), or our parents get a life-threatening pneumonia,” according to the study.

In addition, six hormones are used in the industry to promote faster, larger growth of animals. Although the scorecard doesn’t measure the amount of hormones used in fast food meat, the authors want to caution as using them as a replacement for antibiotics.

The report urges restaurants to “use their considerable purchasing power to make meat and poultry produced without the routine use of antibiotics more readily available to consumers.”

The authors also call upon the Food and Drug Administration to mandate greater transparency on antibiotic use in the meat industry, and create “policies that prohibit use of medically important antibiotics for both growth promotion and disease prevention.”

According to the report, it’s really up to the consumer. Recommendations ranging from diners to restaurants, government officials and farmers are included in the report.

“As more consumers demand better meat options, they will become more widely available,” the authors wrote. “Remember: it’s your money, your health and your future.”

The post An Antibiotic Scorecard For Your Favorite Fast Food Joints appeared first on Citizens Report.

Animal rights groups have long targeted McDonald’s for its food processing practices, but a recent investigation from Mercy For Animals has put heat on the big-league fast food chain once again.

Most people know how animals are treated in the American meat industry… even if they would prefer to pretend that they don’t. But if you haven’t ever seen an animal abuse video, you’re in for a wake-up call.

Mercy For Animals, a non-profit organization that focuses on the abuse of farm animals and promotes compassionate food choices, has released film of heart-wrenching cruelty at a Tennessee farm that provides chicken for Tyson Foods, Inc., which then supplies the meat to McDonald’s.

The investigation has created a rift in the partnerships of the involved parties. In addition to impacting business, the film has caused a media outcry that further exposes the horrendous living conditions of animals that end up in a box of McNuggets.

Undercover Documentation of Animal Cruelty

Employees from T&S Farm in Dukedom, Tenn., are caught using cruel tactics to manage thousands of chickens living in a dark, dirty and cramped atmosphere. The farm housed chickens that would later be sold as McDonald’s McNuggets.

In the video, a female worker beats, bludgeons and stabs the flapping bodies of frightened chickens with a sharp metal rod. She is shown stomping on a chicken’s head before using the sole of her shoe to hold the its body in place while she breaks its neck.

A particularly sad part of the video illustrates that many chickens remain alive while they are being readied for the consumer’s plate. They appear to be sick, injured and terrified.

“This type of abuse runs rampant in the animal agriculture industry, which seeks to maximize profit and minimize costs at the expense of animals, public health and the environment,” says Matt Rice, Director of Investigations at Mercy For Animals.

The Corporate Reaction To Ditch The Abusive Supplier

Animal rights activist group PETA takes a stance against McDonald’s treatment of chickens with the McCruelty campaign.
Via: McCruelty

McDonald’s and Tyson no longer have a relationship with T&S Farm. The two are working together to investigate the claim in addition to the investigation conducted by the local sheriff’s office at Weakley County.

“Animal well-being is a priority at our company and we will not tolerate the unacceptable animal treatment shown in this video,” Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman said.

McDonald’s supported and elaborated on the statement, saying that the behavior of the farm’s employees was completely unacceptable.

“We’re committed to working with animal welfare and industry experts to inform our policies that promote better management, strong employee education and verification of practices,” McDonald’s said.

The documentation of abuse is particularly relevant after McDonald’s recently announced a new plan to clean up its food sources, avoid certain antibiotics and focus on ensuring better treatment of animals.

It’s important to realize that although McDonald’s made a progressive move by ditching T&S Farm, animal abuse in the meat industry continues.

McDonald’s gets a thumbs up for taking a stance against an abusive supplier. But the fight to end standardized animal cruelty is far from over.

The post McDonald’s Ditches Abusive McNugget Supplier appeared first on Citizens Report.

In4sport

It is no secret that “vegetarianism” and “veganism” have been on the rise in recent years. According to a New York Magazine article, “perhaps inspired by Jay Z and Beyoncé’s 22-day vegan diet or the recent outing of Al Gore as a ‘newly turned vegan,’ news outlets on both sides of the Atlantic [have already declared] 2014 ‘the year of the vegan.'”

And as the U.S. Department of Agriculture is getting ready to release this year’s dietary guidelines, there may soon be another push for the trend of Americans eating less meat. In the past, these guidelines (updated every five years) have advocated for overall healthier eating, but recently, the government is advising for the guidelines to also reflect the health of the environment.

Shrink that Footprint

Meat’s Environmental Impact

The production of meat contributes a large carbon footprint (release of greenhouse gases). Although Americans are now eating less meat than they have in the past, the deeply-embedded American diet includes an assortment of meat items (e.g. hamburgers, fried chicken, steaks). This comes with a huge environmental cost.

According to the Washington Post, “Carnivores contribute far more to environmental decay than do vegetarians.” The production of lamb, beef, and pork in the United States find their way to the top of the largest emission of greenhouse gases (CO2)–with a combined CO2 weight of 78.3 kilograms (Source: Environmental Working Group).

A recent study shows the environmental impact of beef, in particular, creates a lot of damage. The heavily-consumed red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than chicken or pork. With the animal’s large weight and complicated biology, an incredibly large amount of grains and/or grass is needed to feed them. Not to mention the amount of waste that is produced daily is enough to make one feel sick.

Dr. Tim Benton, professor at the University of Leeds, said the study uses national US data, and therefore, provides a good overview of the current situation.

“The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Benton said.

Red Orbit

Meat’s Impact on Our Health

The question of whether or not the consumption of meat is harmful is still under research. This explains why the government advises Americans to eat leaner meat rather than decreasing their intake. The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association are pushing for a lean-meat diet, afraid that international and government agencies will cut meat production considerably.

Today, there is a larger community of vegetarians and vegans than ever before, something that was unfathomable 70 years ago. The eating of meat is becoming increasingly less popular and this is due to known health factors that have emerged throughout the years.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggest a diet containing protein foods that are lower in solid fats and calories. Fats from animal products (i.e. meat, eggs, dairy) are considered solid fats, whereas fats found in seafood and nuts are considered healthier oils.

The connection to heart disease and cancers also surfaces when discussing meat consumption.

A National Cancer Institute (NCI) study of 500,000 individuals suggested that those who ate the most red meat on a daily basis were 30 percent more likely to die due to a health cause during a 10-year period than were those who ate the least amount of the red meat.

In the past, meat has been made infamous due to associations with atherosclerosis (the hardening or clogging of the arteries), shortened lifespan (according to Harvard School of Public Health), the increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes (report from JAMA Internal Medicine), and many more.

Not only are humans said to be at health risk as a result of the meat industry, but the very animals also suffer from maltreatment.

“From locking animals in tiny cages, to slicing parts of their bodies off without any pain relief, to genetically selecting them to grow so obese and so fast that many become lame, it’s by far the biggest cause of animal suffering in the world,” said Paul Shapiro, vice president of farm animal protection at the Humane Society of the United States.

As the meat producers and lovers of all-things animal flesh await their fate, for now, just keep in mind all of the information mentioned. At the end of the day, it is up to the consumers to determine their own conditions of health–and that of the environment.

The post To Eat Meat, or Not to Eat Meat appeared first on Citizens Report.

Waste Disposal: Where Does It Go?

These factories house thousands of pigs, and it is clear that all of their waste has to go somewhere. Once it falls through the floors of the housing units, it is flushed out into these giant lakes where it sits until the lakes become too full. Now, this is where it gets sketchy, because the video doesn’t show exactly what happens to the waste at this particular factory. The video implies that the waste is pumped through giant hoses and sprayed into the atmosphere, causing the tiny droplets to be carried into neighboring communities, polluting private property and watersheds. If this is the case, then this particular practice is, at the very least, an environmental nuisance and a health concern for individuals living in nearby cities.

For decades, it has been a common practice to reuse livestock waste as fertilizer for surrounding crop fields. The practice ― specifically the smell ― has never been a selling point for living in the small, surrounding, rural communities, but nonetheless, reusing pig and cattle waste has been a viable way to repurpose the waste that, again, must go somewhere. If Smithfield Foods and other farm factories are spreading waste over fields as fertilizer, can they be vilified simply because the general population is now just becoming aware of such a practice that has been around for decades? Most likely no. Can they be vilified if they are simply spraying the waste into the atmosphere to be rid of it? Most likely yes. Again, more information than this particular video offers is needed to make that call.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

Ethics Blurred by Capitalism

Perhaps the bigger issue this video raises is the treatment of the pigs themselves, and what, if anything, can American consumers do about it. There have been many whistleblowers that have come forward over the last few years and painted a disturbing picture of the deplorable conditions these pigs (and other food animals) are forced to live and die in.

In these factory farms, pigs, who are known to be smarter than our beloved dog companions, are packed into small spaces and forced to stand for most of their lives on concrete floors. Mother pigs are locked inside metal cages that are so small, they quite literally can’t turn around for months at a time. For a nation that is, by and large, against animal cruelty, how are companies like Smithfield Foods allowed to get away with their cruel practices?

That answer lies in the age-old concept of supply and demand. As long as Americans want access to cheap pork, these pork factories will thrive and no doubt be allowed to treat the “cheap meat” anyway they deem necessary to turn a profit.

Some opponents of these meat factories claim free-range organic farms are the only option that makes sense, while others support an alternative somewhere between free-range and concentrated industrial animal production. And some, who are theoretically opposed to such horrendous treatment of animals, are equally opposed to paying over $5 for a pound of bacon. Then there are those who are certain that we are only years away from 3D printed meat. Maybe they’re right, and in the very near future, livestock will become domesticated, beloved pets.

For now, videos like these invite all Americans into the conversation and, if nothing else, make consumers aware of how their buying choices create a ripple effect.

The post Happier Than a Pig in SH*T? appeared first on Citizens Report.