Final GEO Paper

docx

School

University of Kentucky *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

261

Subject

Electrical Engineering

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChancellorBear2702

Emilee Pryor Professor Senanayake GEO 261- 026 April 29th, 2023 The Agri-food System and its Downfall Global Food systems and issues within provide an environment that curates intricate breeding grounds for pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant strains of food-borne illnesses to thrive. Due to the systemic farming processes, political involvement, and socioeconomic determinants of health, the solution to a healthier agri-food system seems inaccessible. Throughout the entirety of the production and manufacturing process shortcuts are taken in order to promote a fuller economy and political agenda at the expense of preventable illnesses. When proper precautions and no shortcuts are taken, the overall health and well-being of the global food systems are prioritized and provide an overall benefit to the global food system chain. The global food system is becoming a global health problem as the demand for meat continues to increase and the unnecessary usage of antibiotics within the farming system leaves room for illnesses to prosper and become deadly as time progresses. The high demand for meat forces a shaky farming system to produce and manufacture meat at an alarming rate without accounting for the holes in the infrastructure that could result in an epidemic. The unnecessary usage of antibiotics results in the inability to cure patients when they are forced head-on with an antibiotic-resistant strain of foodborne illness. When a pathogen like salmonella or drug-resistant E coli. enters one’s system at the fault of food production companies, health outcomes range from minor intestinal discomfort to life-threatening infections (Ebel et al. 2021). The distribution of these ailments is dependent on the individual, the pathogen involved, and the treatment options available.. The root of food bourne illnesses begins during the cultivation and raising process where cleanliness, immunosuppression, and antibiotic usage all heavily impact the safety of food

consumption. One of the first issues pertaining to the risk of infectious diseases within the agri- food system comes to fruition within the livestock farming process. Livestock farming in today’s world is structured by two types of farming systems, intensive farming production, and backyard farming production. Backyard farming systems consist of a low-input to a low-output system where farmers host an abundance of livestock in an area where most of the feeding is done naturally and animals are free to roam within the vicinity. This system is popular within developing countries as a result of their need for a higher protein diet and provides the means to accelerate economic connections between communities (Espinosa 2020). Weighing the downfalls of a backyard farming system biosecurity insecurities, lack of antibiotics, and inconsistent examinations each directly impact the potential of an uprising epidemic. Due to the location and setting of backyard farms, there is a lack of biosecurity that allows wild animals to invade these farms and pass over genetically developed illnesses that would not formerly be expected in a different setting. In a low-maintenance farming system, farmers are not continually present to administer antibiotics or assess animal health, further adhering to the risk factors for infections. Although all of these are imperative to the likelihood of an outbreak, it is equally as important to denote that when a genetic outbreak does occur in this facility, the breeds of livestock typically survive as a result of their sense of natural selection to overcome past epidemics. The epidemic rate between backyard farming systems and intensive farming units provides the understanding that backyard farming systems are less likely to produce an epidemic (Espinosa 2020). Intensive farming is a system that came to fruition in America at the end of WWII as a way to boost the economy of the United States but also as a way to feed a large number of individuals at any given time. This system houses an abundance of animals of a certain breed confined together indoors and provides a regimented diet and antibiotic plan inside of a factory- like setting. This system caters to a high-demand society in a cost-efficient manner. It lessens the opportunity for wild animals to impose on the livestock due to the heavily monitored facilities and lessens the opportunity for pathogens to enter the facility as a whole. Although the positive aspects of intensive farming provide an obvious gain over backyard farming the problematic aspects outweigh the effectiveness of evading epidemics as a whole (Espinosa 2020). Due to such high volumes of animal traffic located inside of these facilities, when a pathogen is

introduced to these livestock groups it quickly inherits its way into the genetic structure of offspring and multiplies at rapid distributions causing an increased scale of disease impact. In addition to the increased disease impact, antibiotics to prevent illnesses are regularly administered to livestock introducing a sense of immunosuppression to the agri-food system. If pathogens are introduced to livestock and they become infected although being treated through antibiotics prior to contracting the illness, the animal becomes antibiotic resistant. When antibiotics are passed through livestock to humans, humans are just susceptible to adhering to antibiotic-resistant strains of illnesses. This system of farming is the most popular in today’s world as a result of the economic interest and the ability to provide a heavily meat-based diet to a majority of Americans. Although this system is popular, the detrimental nature it provides in the sense of antibiotic-resistant strains of illnesses and its higher density risk to start an epidemic is beyond prevalent. Due to the socioeconomic determinants of health, the intensive farming system cannot be demoted from the powerhouse that it is today although backyard farming seems like an ideal solution. Currently, the social hierarchy caters to the wealthy rather than those currently living in a state of poverty. With the price of meat currently, a continual diet with adequate protein is borderline manageable for those living in poverty (Politico 2022). Should the farming system change from an intensive farming production to a backyard production to better prevent an epidemic, the price of meat would skyrocket making a fulfilled diet impossible for those with a lesser income. Although the solution to epidemics within the food industry seems apparent to some, the logistical portion is not so straightforward due to the intertwined nature that the government has in the industry. Its impact on the meat industry alone provides multiple layers of limitations to solutions. The government hosts the USDA, FDA, and policymakers which all have an equal impact on the safety and administration of meat and vegetation to American citizens. The government initially takes the meat industry by the reigns during the slaughtering and processing system. Independent policymakers work “under the table” with meat tycoons in order to gain political pull and favoritism. Meat tycoons are better known as the four major corporations that host 73 percent of beef products, 67 percent of all pork, and 54 percent of all chicken globally (Kelloway 2021) and dominate a majority of the food-based economy . Meat tycoons give handouts of multi-millions of dollars each year to politicians’ campaigns in order to have

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

regulations and policies be swayed towards the benefit of meatpacking (Kelloway 2021) The financial gain for politicians within this system outweighs the health and wellness of the average American. Once regulations and requirements are loosened for meatpackers, the strains of viruses begin making it into grocery stores and markets, waiting for the consumer to purchase and eat (Politico 2022). When unsafe meats and vegetation products are purchased, the last line of defense on behalf of the government takes place on behalf of the USDA. When a notice becomes active that there might be a strain of a virus present in a product stamped by the USDA, a recall is typically the only solution at this stage in the agri-food life cycle. The USDA cannot force a provider to recall a product but may suggest that a recall order be fulfilled voluntarily. The most often scenario is seen when a food recall is enacted by the manufacturer in an effort to save face on behalf of the company. With the total expenses lost amounting to an average of 10 million dollars per product recall, it is entirely optional to pull products off of the shelves ( Punchihewage & Anuradha 2022). With optional recalls on virus-ridden food samples as the last line of defense toward eliminating foodborne illnesses, a solution to a healthy America seems unreachable. The best way to truly understand and acknowledge the impact that the global food system has on individuals is by taking into consideration a realistic interpretation of the process from start to finish. When an animal is raised inside of an intensive farming unit it is fed with specific grain that replaces the typical foraging crops and is on a regimented consumption of antimicrobials (Espinosa 2020) These animals are then transported in stressful conditions from the housing facility to the slaughter causing an easier traction for immunocompromising to occur and infectious to make way within the animal itself. When the animal is slaughtered and cleaned it is then prepped to go through the inspection process. The Food Safety Inspection Service which is a sub-portion of the USDA ensures that the meat is safe and correctly labeled. FSIS is the last step before the meat is sent out into the markets. When the livestock that a person consumes carries antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, the AMR then transfers to the individual who consumed the meat. When the AMR bacteria is present within a persons immune system and they get treated for not only salmonella but for other infections, they are less likely to be successful to treatment plans with popular drugs like amoxicylin, ampicillin, and tetracycline as a result ( Punchihewage & Anuradha, 2022).

While a prospective future of a food industry with no food bourne illnesses is not realistic, a future where food mutations have a lesser probability of not only starting an epidemic but keeping safe food in homes is completely accessible. Switching to a farming system predominantly structured by backyard farming is not a realistic goal as a result of the meat demand currently ensuing in the United States, however, exploring alternate options with antibiotic usage would be worth pursuing. By pushing an antibiotic regulation process on the meat industries, antibiotic-resistant strains would not be given the opportunity to develop, and food bourne illnesses would be easily treatable. With this proposed solution, farming systems could still cater to the greater population without expanding their prices and provide a cleaner eating slate. In terms of political involvement, it would be ideal for the USDA to have mandated recalls that are forced to further prevent the ability for individuals to get sick (Centner 2016) . However, with the USDA being a powerhouse leader, this is far from a reality. The USDA could contribute to a reality where labeling for “no use of antibiotics” would be prevalent in markets. With verified labels accurately depicting the intrinsic usage of antibiotics in meat, consumers are more likely to purchase meat without the use of antibiotics in acknowledgment of wholesomeness and better health standards (Centner 2016). This transition allows for a higher demand for antibiotic-free goods, changing the market for the better. Although these alterations are minor, it allows consumers to be more aware of what they are ingesting and provide a lesser global health risk.

Bibliography Centner, T. J (2016), Efforts to slacken antibiotic resistance: Labeling meat products from animals raised without antibiotics in the United States, Science of The Total Environment,563– 564, 1088-1094, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.082 . Ebel E.D., Janell R. Kause, Michael S. Williams, Wayne D. Schlosser, Stephanie Defibaugh- Chavez, Berhanu Tameru, A quantitative risk metric to support individual sanitary measure reviews in international trade, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Volume 369, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109616 . Espinosa, R., Tago, D. & Treich, N. Infectious Diseases and Meat Production. Environ Resource Econ 76 , 1019–1044 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00484-3 “How the FDA’s Food Division Fails to Regulate Health and Safety Hazards.” POLITICO , www.politico.com/interactives/2022/fda-fails-regulate-food-health-safety-hazards/. Accessed 1 May 2023. Kelloway, Claire. “How Biden Can Rein in the Big Meat Monopoly.” Vox , 24 Feb. 2021, www.vox.com/future-perfect/22298043/meat-antitrust-biden-vilsack. Accessed 1 May 2023. Punchihewage-Don, Anuradha Jeewantha, et al (2022). “The Outbreaks and Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistant Salmonella in Poultry in the United States: An Overview.” Heliyon , www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668525/.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version