data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/840f3/840f3370772931b24d971c0836cde7eb4f3be3ad" alt=""
Everyone in Amagomundi world is okay, though.
But poor Abe Lincoln. He never saw it coming.
Welcome to amagomundi, LP. We have been offering blogs made with real quality for over ten years and pride ourselves on the excellence of our product. We work hard to ensure that your satisfaction is always guaranteed. Our team is a combination of great minds and the drive to keep bettering ourselves for you, our readers. All our blogs are manufactured at the southern edge of heaven.
A recent study by the University of Illinois makes the risk even more apparent. Studying the groundwater around two confinement hog farms, scientists have identified the presence of several transferable genes that confer antibiotic resistance, specifically to tetracycline. There is the very real chance that in such a rich bacterial soup these genes might move from organism to organism, carrying the ability to resist tetracycline with them. And because the resistant genes were found in groundwater, they are already at large in the environment.
There are two interdependent solutions to this problem, and hog producers should embrace them both. The first solution — the least likely to be acceptable in the hog industry — is to ban the wholesale, herdwide use of antibiotics. The second solution is to continue to tighten the regulations and the monitoring of manure containment systems. The trouble, of course, is that there is no such thing as perfect containment.
The consumer has the choice to buy pork that doesn’t come from factory farms. The justification for that kind of farming has always been efficiency, and yet, as so often happens in agriculture, the argument breaks down once you look at all the side effects. The trouble with factory farms is that they are raising more than pigs. They are raising drug-resistant bugs as well.
Now if only we could raise our own bacon.Today's New York Times has an article on our favorite Buffalo fast food chain (after Mighty Taco), Tim Horton's, which hopes to expand its presence in the United States:
"A survey this summer by a group promoting Canadian historical literacy found that 40 percent of Canadians under 34 consider Tim Hortons’ miniature doughnuts, the Timbits, a national symbol.
"Tim’s, as it is affectionately known, sells 78 percent of the nonsupermarket coffee and baked goods sold in Canada.
"For the Canadian company, the chief attraction [of New England, for example] is that the purchase [of Bess Eaton] provided a way into the market around Boston, an epicenter of doughnut consumption. Nearby Quincy, Mass., is the birthplace of Dunkin’ Donuts. [But] Dunkin’ Brands [continues to provide] stiffer competition than expected."Mr. House [Tim Horton's CEO] is still determined to prove that Tim Hortons can succeed where so many Canadian companies have failed. 'It took us 43 years here,” he said. “We’ve only been at the U.S. seriously for a few years.'"
Mmm. Timbits.Today's New York Times published another editorial about the FDA's weak oversight of imported food:
"Hearings before a House oversight subcommittee raised serious questions about the F.D.A.’s ability to protect the public against contaminated or adulterated foods. William Hubbard, a former top agency official who consults for a coalition of industry and consumer groups, told the committee that the F.D.A. has lost some 200 food scientists and 700 field inspectors over five years, exactly the wrong direction when food imports are skyrocketing. He also noted that the small budget increase the White House has proposed for food safety next year would be a decrease after accounting for inflation.
As if that weren’t discouraging enough, the committee’s chief investigator described how porous the current safety shield is. Agency personnel, he said, inspect less than 1 percent of all imported foods and conduct laboratory analyses on only a tiny fraction of those. Overwhelmed entry reviewers at one field office have so many items to screen that they typically have less than 30 seconds to decide whether an import needs closer scrutiny. Importers also learn to game the system by sending goods to lax entry points or mislabeling them. And they are allowed to take possession of suspect goods and arrange testing by private laboratories whose work is often shoddy or driven by financial concerns."
What is ironic about this editorial is that Americans are spending an awful lot of time worrying about the inspection of imported food, while we don't even inspect our own food. Steven L. Hopp, in Barbara Kingsolver's new book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, points out:
"After the first detected case of US mad cow disease, fifty-two countries banned US beef. The USDA then required 2 percent of all the downer cows (cows unable to walk on their own) to be tested, and 1 percent of all cows that were slaughtered. After that, the number of downer cows reported in the United States decreased by 20 percent (did I mention it was voluntary reporting?), and only two more cases of BSE (mad cow disease) were detected. In May 2006, the USDA decided the threat was so low that only one-tenth of one percent of all slaughtered cows needed to be tested. Jean Halloran, the food policy initiatives director at Consumers Union, responded, 'It approaches a policy of don't look, don't find.'"With its constant quotations from film and television—and the ubiquity of television screens, monitors, and visual quotations from TV shows, particularly in the final episode—the Sopranos has been, from the very beginning, a series that always made us aware that what we were watching was a TV show. The finale drew our attention to the medium itself by creating a terribly palpable dramatic tension and then leaving us with that tension unrelieved. I’m willing to bet that everyone groaned and said things like “That’s terrible!” when the show ended. (In fact, today’s paper bears out our prediction.) Why? Because we want a season finale to have closure. We want episodes in general to have closure. And we wanted the series to have closure. But that’s exactly what David Chase didn’t give us.
There were many ways to end the series: The romantic viewer was perhaps hoping for family togetherness and reconciliation: Tony grabs AJ’s hand and Meadow comes in and they have a nice family dinner. The genre fans were perhaps hoping for a bloody end to the Sopranos family: Tony gets whacked in front of his family. The drama fans were expecting perhaps an open ending—but a definitive ending nonetheless. Instead, we are given none of these endings. Instead—and this is the brilliance of the ending we got—we are left pondering endings in general, and maybe we even began to think about how difficult it is to bring a series like this to an end. And we were forced to contemplate the arbitrary nature of endings. Of finales. Of series. Remember how disenchanted everyone was with the ending of Seinfeld? In making the decision that he made—in giving us this ending—David Chase gave us all these endings.
Perhaps most interestingly—going back to the self-conscious narrative that is the Sopranos—by cutting to black just as Meadow walks into the diner, most viewers thought that their connection to HBO had been cut off. “What happened?” “Was that it?” “Is the TV okay?” In that way, we were left with a half-satisfaction of a series’ end, but also with a very strong awareness of television as a medium. We were reminded that we were watching a TV show. And for a few seconds we sat there, looking at a black screen, wanting something to happen. Wondering what happened. We waited for something to appear. Music. Sounds. Images. But we got none of that. We got played, and it felt great.
“A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called ‘an epidemic’ of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup.” HFC is one of the main culprits in making Americans as unhealthy as they are. And it's found in most processed food-like substances.
Pollan outlines how the farm bill has bad effects on children, especially those who depend on school lunches for their main meal of the day:
“The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.”
And the farm bill’s effects on immigration are clear:
“To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.”
Not to mention effects on the American landscape and environment. So what can we do to reform this terrible-once-every-five-years piece of legislation? Start voting, not just with your mouth (you know, buying organic, avoiding Doritos), but also by actually voting. The farm bill isn't just about farmers, it's about food. And eaters should take food seriously. We are all eaters. Isn't it time?