What’s the Beef with Chemicals in Meat?
Writing anything negative about eating meat is a risky move on the internet. The mere suggestion that something may be amiss in the slaughterhouses of America opens up the gates of Comment Section Hell™. To an extent, I understand. Images of a family gathering around a turkey on Thanksgiving, hot dogs on the grill while fireworks burst in the distance, and burly men with steak knives are about as American as apple pie. For some, to question meat, the cornerstone of the American diet, is to question America itself.
For decades, scientists and citizens have written about the ethical, environmental, and biological concerns around the modern meat industry. I’m sure you’ve heard a million times about cow farts causing global warming — this isn’t about that. This is about the complicated business of how the massively powerful chemical sector of the global economy has rooted itself not only in our fields, not only in our homes, but in the bodies of those animals we later consume.
This isn’t a fear-mongering piece. This isn’t liberal propaganda. This isn’t an attack on the lunchboxes of America. This isn’t some extension of PETA. This is, however, written in the interest of science. Science is an equalizer. Science doesn’t care if you believe it. In fact, science isn’t something you can choose to believe in or not, it just is. But science is something we can come to understand.
Wait…Meat?
The bulk of mainstream concern generated around chemicals in food products is centered around highly processed items and non-organic produce. The former due to the explicit amount of chemicals included in production for long-shelf life, the later due to the visible, direct exposure to inorganic pesticides. Meat, a cultural and nutritional stronghold in the United States, is a critically disregarded route of chemical exposure. Chemicals are a critical factor in meat safety as many environmental contaminants are persistent and “bioaccumulate in…livestock animals” (Kim, 2012, p. 448).
The diverse nature of industrial farming facilities, and indeed the diverse bodies of animals themselves, evade clean generalizations. Factors such as facility emissions, neighboring waste treatments plants, water quality, and automobile exhaust can greatly influence the sorts of pollution animals are exposed to” (Kim, 2012, p. 449).
The meat and chemical industries have the power they do because of concealment. Through careful politics of sight (that is to say, through making sure consumers only see exactly what they want them to see), these industries have been able to normalize the presence of toxic chemicals that may be dangerous to human health in meat. What are these chemicals? Well, first up is…
Dioxins
Dioxins, a broad class of chemicals, are explicitly and exclusively harmful to human health. There’s no sugar coating their impact. Dioxins are an unfortunate byproduct of industrialization. What’s particularly nasty about dioxins is that they are classified as persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, meaning that they are not easily broken down in the environment. Though dioxin production has declined in the past three decades, a 200 year anthropogenic legacy of pollution has resulted in a global mass of chemicals persisting in air, soil, and bodies long after the polluting source has been regulated (White & Birnbaum, 2009).
The human health impacts of dioxin exposure are well documented and impact the range of human body systems. The United States Environmental Protection Agency identifies low-dose dioxin exposure as a contributing factor to “cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, porphyria, endometriosis, early menopause, reduced testosterone and thyroid hormones…altered immunologic response, altered growth factor signaling, and altered metabolism” (US EPA Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization Group, 2007). Big. Yikes. Dioxins are also known endocrine disruptors. When exposed during critical windows of development, fetuses often display altered immune ability, hearing-related disabilities, delays in reproductive organ development, and general altered cognition (White & Birnbaum, 2009, p. 8).
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is explicit in identifying that “more than 90% of human exposure [to dioxins] is through…meat and dairy products, fish and shellfish” (US EPA, 2014). Of that 90%, one third of exposure is directly linked to meat and dairy. The main way animals are exposed to dioxins? Animal feed. This sort of direct exposure means, even without concrete testing (which has been done), we can reasonably expect that the flesh of these animals would have chemical traces. Dioxins have high liphophilicity, meaning that they primarily bioaccumulate in fat deposits. This chemical characteristic makes large animals like beef and dairy cattle especially vulnerable to dioxin uptake and storage. For beef cattle, the dioxins are stored within “fat compartments”. Beef heavily marbled with fat (aka the yummy cut of meat) is a risky consumption choice in terms of dioxin exposure.
The intersection of dioxins’ liphophilicity with the high fat content of industrial-raised cows fed food containing measurable dioxins is significant enough that “a diet lower in animal fat” is one of the most impactful ways for an individual to possibly reduce “potential exposure” to dioxins (Dearfield et al., 2013). Pretty straightforward, yeah?
Heavy Metals
Next up is*guitar screech, drum clash, angsty scream* heavy metal(s)! Toxic, heavy metals sometime just naturally pop up in the food chain, other times they can be traced to human activities. No matter the source, however, food is a major source of human exposure to metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury (Loutfy et al., 2006). While the presence of heavy metals is generally much greater in seafood than in livestock and poultry, animals raised in industrial, “heavily contaminated” areas can often have levels of heavy metals even greater than fish (Demirezen & Uruç, 2006). The presence of toxic, heavy metals in food has been correlated by the World Health Organization with “carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and teratogenesis” (translation: they can cause cancer, cell mutation, and birth defects) (Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, 2006, p. 95). Once again, YIKES. In spite of the irrefutable risks, the United States Food and Drug Administration has yet to set tolerance levels for the most prevalent heavy metal in American meat, arsenic (Hardin, 2010).
Inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, is toxic for humans no matter how they are exposed. While arsenic is more commonly incorporated into alloying industries and hide tanning processes, it is, “to a limited extent”, added to “pesticides, animal feed additives, and pharmaceuticals” (World Health Organization, 2018). Arsenical drugs have been utilized in poultry production “for decades” to “treat and prevent parasites”. These drugs are normative within poultry farming, with a 2010 intra-industry report asserting that “88% of the roughly nine billion chickens raised for consumption” in the United States received an arsenical drug called roxarsone. The drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, removed roxarsone from the United States’ market following public outcry. However, due to the absence of federal regulation of arsenic in animal feed, the company could “resume marketing in the United States at any time”. Additionally, the drug’s substitute is nitrasone, another arsenical drug nearly identical in chemical composition. Perhaps most troubling, a Johns Hopkins research team studying roxarsone found that when chickens who had been fed the drug were cooked, levels of roxarsone decreased while concentrations of inorganic arsenic increased. The researchers concluded that “roxarsone is converted into the more carcinogenic form [of arsenic] during cooking” (Nachman et al., 2013). The whole reason we cook meat is to kill off pathogens, but this means that this sanitary act may actually be opening humans up to a much more dangerous risk.
Inorganic arsenic’s carcinogenic properties are specifically linked to “lung, skin…bladder, and possibly liver” cancer (Nigra et al., 2017) . Studies have yet to be done linking meat exposed to feed, pesticides, and veterinary pharmaceuticals containing the metal with direct human health complications. However, the body of work surrounding general health complications triggered by arsenic, combined with the sheer magnitude of arsenical additives in factory farming, is a viable starting point for future research. The fact that the animal industry is so dirty that it requires chemicals like this is a big, flashing, blinding warning sign.
Pills, Pills, Pills
“Until 2017 antibiotics were widely used as growth promoters on US farms, helping livestock grow fatter more quickly. When farm animals are sick it is sometimes necessary to give them antibiotics. But US farmers are still allowed to routinely give them to healthy animals to prevent disease, a practice many believe can often take place as a way of dealing with overcrowding and poor hygiene. This so-called “prophylactic use” of antibiotics is currently being scrutinized in the EU, with stricter regulations under consideration.”-Stockton, Davies, & Wasley, 2018
Animals, no matter if they exist beyond human production or within factory farms, are subject to disease. However, the tightly-packed arrangements of industrial farming make these animals, who are frequently exposed to decay and feces (ew…), particularly vulnerable. Eschewing necessary care, tightly regulated drugs such as flunixin and ivermectin, are commonly administered to livestock to mask serious health issues and ensure the animal’s arrival to the final, supermarket destination. These intense veterinary drugs are often given en mass as precautionary measures in an effort to preserve herd immunity in a cost-effective, convenient manner (Hardin, 2010). However, under United States law, such extralabel drug use (aka when a pharmaceutical is used for anything other than its explicitly prescribed purpose) is only legal for “therapeutic purposes’, and it is “expressly prohibit[ed]” that the drug by administered “for convenience purposes”. This has not stopped the practice from becoming the de facto norm within the factory farming industry. The risks of these drugs are severe…
-Flunixin’s potential human side effects “fecal blood, gastrointestinal erosions and ulcers, and renal necrosis” (Hardin, 2010).
-Invermectin’s potential human side effects are a disruption of “normal activity of the nervous system which can eventually disrupt or even kill neurons, key cells that transmit and process signals from the brain” (Hardin, 2010).
Moving Forward
So what do we do? How do you eat safely in a chemical world? Well, while it cannot be concretely asserted that all inorganic chemicals present in industrially produced meat are harmful for human consumption, there is cause for caution. In the case of dioxins, however, more definitive connections can be made. The biggest thing you can do is follow the EPA’s basic advice to consume a “diet lower in animal fat” in order to substantially limit dioxin exposure, and potentially heavy metal and prescription drug complications as well. However, if you are looking for a bit more comprehensive of a lifestyle change, stay tuned for a list of chemically-safe, protein-packed meat replacements.
References
Dearfield, K. L., Edwards, S. R., O’Keefe, M. M., Abdelmajid, N. M., Blanchard, A. J., LaBARRE, D. D., & Bennett, P. A. (2013). Dietary Estimates of Dioxins Consumed in U.S. Department of Agriculture–Regulated Meat and Poultry Products. Journal of Food Protection, 76(9), 1597–1607. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-046
Demirezen, D., & Uruç, K. (2006). Comparative study of trace elements in certain fish, meat and meat products. Meat Science, 74(2), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.03.012
DW English. (2011). Poison in Meat, Quarrels in Politics — the Dioxin Scandal | People & Politics. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo2ClVkoUR0
Hardin, G. (2010). FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle (Audit Report 24601–08-KC) (p. 56). USDA.
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (Ed.). (2006). Safety evaluation of certain food additives: prepared by the sixty-fifth meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Kim, M. (2012). Chemical contaminants of red meat. National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation, Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.
Loutfy, N., Fuerhacker, M., Tundo, P., Raccanelli, S., El Dien, A. G., & Ahmed, M. T. (2006). Dietary intake of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, due to the consumption of dairy products, fish/seafood and meat from Ismailia city, Egypt. The Science of the Total Environment, 370(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.05.012
Nachman, K., Baron, P., Raber, G., Francesconi, K., Navas-Acien, A., & Love, D. (2013). Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future to Assess Recommendations of Poultry Drug Increases Levels of Toxic Arsenic in Chicken Meat. Retrieved from https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/news-room/News-Releases/2013/toxic_arsenic_chicken_meat.html
Nigra Anne E., Nachman Keeve E., Love David C., Grau-Perez Maria, & Navas-Acien Ana. (2017). Poultry Consumption and Arsenic Exposure in the U.S. Population. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(3), 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP351
Stockton, B., Davies, M., & Wasley, A. (2018, June 19). Diversion tactics: how big pharma is muddying the waters on animal antibiotics. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/animal-antibiotics-calm-down-about-your-chicken-says-big-pharma
US EPA Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization Group. (2007). Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds and Related Compounds National Academy Sciences (NAS) Review Draft. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/dioxin/nas-review/index.cfm
US EPA, O. (2014, January 28). Learn about Dioxin [Overviews and Factsheets]. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/dioxin/learn-about-dioxin
What’s Hiding in Your Meat? (2016). PETA. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_a9W_NOojk
White, S. S., & Birnbaum, L. S. (2009). An Overview of the Effects of Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds on Vertebrates, as Documented in Human and Ecological Epidemiology. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews, 27(4), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10590500903310047
Why Maryland is banning a chicken drug. (2012). Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-maryland-is-banning-a-chicken drug/2012/05/20/gIQALuqAeU_graphic.html
World Health Organization. (2018, February 15). Arsenic. Retrieved October 21, 2018, from http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic
