The majority of people in California grew up knowing that Idaho is land for growing potatoes; but with the recent concern over egg safety, we’re now learning that when we discuss eggs, we’re talking about Iowa.
Five farms, to be exact, have been identified as salmonella sources. It appears that California is not where sunshine lovers get our, “incredible, edible, eggs” from, despite the glowing rays of solar-suggestion illustrated behind carton lettering.
The farms in question operate under one company umbrella held by, Wright County Egg.
Apparently birds on Wright County Egg farms are, “ghost layers” that produce eggs to be packaged under many different brand names, in many states across America.
The eggs are sold in cartons with so many different names, in fact, that anyone unaware of just how many brand names occupy store shelves might at first assumption think every egg in this country to be Wright laid.
In the case of salmonella-tainted eggs, Wright County Egg might very well have the egg market cornered.
Indeed, the volunteer recall at all five of the Wright family farms has put the Gualt-stationed Egg Giant between a rock and a hard place as families rush to keep all shells – and even shell contents - far from set breakfast plates.
The 2010 egg recall is unusual because the risk to contamination is not just on the outside shell; but eggs have been laid with Salmonella inside the egg that developed there from an infection inside the hen’s ovaries.
The investigation currently being conducted around millions of contaminated cartons has been fertile ground for reporters covering this egg crisis.
Yet with all the media coverage and the warnings, there is still much people in every state have not been made aware of. Few may be surprised to read that some of those who’re involved in the egg industry are people who care more about profit than they do about the comfort of the animals in their charge.
More, however, will be shocked to learn that the poor treatment of chickens producing grocery-store eggs has been investigated, and that data has been reviewed, to determine that caging practices that confine birds to over-capacity conditions is associated with human health risks.
The case is no longer just one in which the United States Humane Society alone urges all Americans to share in the vigil of animal activists all having a bleeding heart for species of service.
The case is proving to be one in which the world must take responsibility for the way we treat our planet’s animals. Failure to implement more humane food production is a risk to future disease control.
Claims made by the United States Humane Society about animal cruelty are claims absent from media reports aside from a few cases of exposed mistreatment and fines. More difficult to recall seeing are any report that links cruel treatment to scientifically proven increased health risk.
The recent egg recall has revealed that there is more reason to care about animal caging conditions aside from wanting to see animals comfortable.
A lot of information has been revealed and published in a report coming out of Ohio. All of which provides scientific support for claims that inhumane animal treatment is not merely cruel. The unimaginable conditions these animals are subjected to are a significant risk to public health.
Little if any news has been reported about legislation that has begun in Michigan and California - and other similar legislation in other states currently pending - to eventually eliminate the practice of hen caging.
California has gone so far as to make into law requirements that, “all whole eggs sold statewide be cage-free by 2015;” and the Humane Society also reports that, “In Ohio, agriculture leaders agreed to a moratorium on the construction of new battery cage egg facilities.”
What does Ohio know about inhumane conditions that threaten public health?
Ohio has done its homework regarding the conditions of battery caged poultry to see if the treatment of animals is to blame for food contamination. What’s Ohio’s motivation for such research? People living in Ohio require medical care for food-borne illness with costs estimated to be $624 per person, each year, above the National Average.
Ohio’s extensive research into the link between animal treatment and measures of contamination that threaten human food supply, may leave Americans feeling that same feeling once again when the public learns that those in charge have placed profit-earning above their well-being – by keeping facts in the dark.
According to the Ohio report, Americans need to know what factors explain the elevated Salmonella risk related to battery cage production:
1) Increased bird capacity means increased concentrations of fecal material and contaminated dust.
2) Caging facilities have manure pits where rats and flies breed.
3) Flies are known disease vectors and the greatest populations of flies are found under cages, unlike chicken houses where flies are seldom a concern.
4) Salmonella can remain active in chicken fecal matter for 24 months; and battery cage facilities are difficult to properly disinfect.
5) The development of natural flora – resident microbial layers in the gut of hens that help keep birds healthy - is delayed for chicks raised in incubators because microflora naturally occurs when chicks obtained the flora from their mother hen. The flora is less available to prevent infection. Also Salmonella is shed less by caged birds then by hens kept cage-free. The result is infection inside the gut of hens happens more and is slower to be eliminated by the bird’s immune system.
6) Evidence exists that continued stress and poor treatment compromises the hen’s ability to fight illness and products packaged from sick birds may carry disease contamination that can contaminate the human food supply.
The World Health Organization as well as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recognize as a key finding that “Reducing flock prevalence results in a directly proportional reduction in human health risk. For example, reducing flock prevalence from 50% to 25% results in halving of the mean probability of illness per serving (of eggs).” As cited in The Food Safety Benefits of Ohio’s Proposed Farm Animal Welfare Ballot Measure. Retrieved Aug. 26, 2010 from Website: https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17002/images/The%20Food%20Safety%20Benefits%20of%20Ohios%20Proposed%20Farm%20Animal%20Welfare%20Ballot%20Measure-1.pdf
Protectors of pediatric health have cause for concern, knowing that antibiotics are flooded into the diets of animals to minimize the health problems the animals suffer due to the stress of unimaginable living conditions; and to offset the increased risk of infection due to the multiplied presence of contamination resulting from animals being crowded together without adequate living space.
In the case of recalled eggs, the hens in question are kept in a space that’s no larger than a piece of note book paper which makes it impossible to extend their wings fully.
All 27 countries of the European Union (EU) are currently phasing out the use of conventional battery cages, small barren wire enclosures affording each hen less living space than a single sheet of letter-sized paper. 62. To study the public health implications of this move, an EU-wide survey was launched in which more than 30,000 samples were taken from more than 5,000 operations across two dozen countries. This represents the best available data set comparing Salmonella infection risk between different laying hen housing systems. Without exception, for every Salmonella serotype grouping reported and for every type of production system examined, there was significantly higher Salmonella risk in operations confining hens in cages. 63. Compared to battery cage egg production, there was 43:% lower odds of Salmonella Enteritidis contamination in cage--free barns, where hens are raised indoors, 95% lower odds in organic egg production, and 98% lower odds in free-range systems. 64
62 United Egg Producers. 2010. United Egg Producers Animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. Egg laying flocks, 2010 edition. www.uepcertified.com/media/pdf/UEP--?Animal--?Welfare--?Guidelines.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2010. As cited in The Food Safety Benefits of Ohio’s Proposed Farm Animal Welfare Ballot Measure. Retrieved Aug. 26, 2010 from Website: https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17002/images/The%20Food%20Safety%20Benefits%20of%20Ohios%20Proposed%20Farm%20Animal%20Welfare%20Ballot%20Measure-1.pdf
63 European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Report Of the Task Force On Zoonoses Data Collection On the Analysis Of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella In holdings off laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus.The EFS Journal 97. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale--?1178620753812_1178620761896.htm. Accessed March 15, 2010. As cited in The Food Safety Benefits of Ohio’s Proposed Farm Animal Welfare Ballot Measure. Retrieved Aug. 26, 2010 from Website: https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17002/images/The%20Food%20Safety%20Benefits%20of%20Ohios%20Proposed%20Farm%20Animal%20Welfare%20Ballot%20Measure-1.pdf
.64 European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Report Of the Task Force On Zoonoses Data Collection On the Analysis Of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella In holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. The EFSA Journal 97. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale--?1178620753812_1178620761896.htm. Accessed March 15, 2010. As cited in The Food Safety Benefits of Ohio’s Proposed Farm Animal Welfare Ballot Measure. Retrieved Aug. 26, 2010 from Website: https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17002/images/The%20Food%20Safety%20Benefits%20of%20Ohios%20Proposed%20Farm%20Animal%20Welfare%20Ballot%20Measure-1.pdf
Comments