ANIMALS ON DRUGS - Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America - page 89

The FDA set allowed levels for arsenic residues in poultry in 1951, and these rules are long overdue for
reconsideration, particularly because Americans' consumption of chicken has increased substantially since
that time. In the 1940s Americans ate less than twenty pounds of poultry per person per year on average;
by 2008 that had tripled to nearly sixty pounds per person. African Americans and Latinos generally eat
more chicken than Caucasians and Asians, and are thus at greater risk of arsenic exposure. According to
epidemiologist Dr. Keeve Nachman, science director at the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins
University, the tolerance levels “predate our current understanding of the human health effects of exposure
to arsenic.”
In 2006 a study by IATP tested arsenic levels in the chicken meat sold at grocery stores and fast-food
outlets. Of the 151 retail packages tested, 55 percent had detectable levels of arsenic. The range of brands
sampled included some certified organic and others from companies that do not use arsenical feed addit-
ives. Of the non-premium and nonorganic brands, 74 percent of the retail chicken tested had detectable
levels of arsenic. Of the ninety orders of fast-food chicken tested, arsenic was detectable in all samples.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for monitoring various residues
in meat and poultry, but the agency has failed to take appropriate action to determine arsenic residues
in chicken meat. In total, FSIS tested 5,786 of the approximately 72 billion broiler chickens produced
between 2000 and 2008—that amounts to only one in every 12 million chickens being tested. 18
In 2010 the USDA inspector general released an evaluation of the FSIS National Residue Program and
reported that “it is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues.” 19
Two criticisms stand out. The first is that the FSIS fails to recall meat even when it finds evidence of veter-
inary drug residues. The second is that the FSIS, the EPA, and the FDA fail to coordinate effectively to
prevent the public from harm by establishing relevant standards. 20 The demonstrated existence of arsenic
residues in chicken meat is a case example of oversight failure and insufficient monitoring to protect con-
sumers.
Tyson Foods and Perdue, two of the largest U.S. poultry companies, claim to have stopped using arsenic
compounds in 2004 and 2007, respectively. 21 However, they continue to lobby for the right to use it. In
testimony before an agricultural subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Steve Schwalb, Per-
due's vice president of environmental sustainability, stated, “Perdue agrees to make every effort not to use
arsenic compounds in its feed, but may use it where the health of the flock is a concern and other non-ar-
senic techniques fail to restore the flock to health in a timely manner.” 22
“The science doesn't support a ban right now,” said Schwalb. “If people believe it's a safety issue, then
they can take it up with the FDA.” 23
Perdue vehemently opposed a state ban on arsenic feed additives in Maryland, where, after a three-year
campaign, Food & Water Watch helped pass legislation in 2012 to ban the use of roxarsone in chicken feed.
Maryland, the eighth-largest producer of chicken in the United States, was the first state in the country to
take steps to restrict the use of arsenic in animal feed, although the poultry industry did get several loop-
holes included in the bill that it will try to use to reintroduce arsenic-based drugs in the future.
Multiple studies and industry estimates suggest that between 70 percent and 88 percent of broiler chick-
ens receive arsenic additives in their feed. 24 Even the industry estimated in 2011 that nine out of ten chick-
ens consumed had been fed arsenic. 25
The EPA addresses maximum levels of contaminants in the environment as well as specific instances of
severe, localized contamination. In 2001, the EPA reduced the maximum contaminant levels for arsenic in
drinking water from fifty parts per billion (ppb) to ten ppb, with compliance required by January 2006. 26
While the action to reduce arsenic exposure is laudable, the risk of cancer from arsenic levels at the new
standard is still fifty times higher than the risk allowed for many other carcinogens. 27