Arsenic, chicken feed and the FDA are three terms not normally seen together in health articles. Here’s how such an alignment can happen… An arsenic-containing drug used in chicken feed will no longer be sold in the U.S. after FDA researchers detected a more dangerous form of arsenic in chickens fed the chemical.
The agency announced Wednesday that Pfizer subsidiary Alpharma will discontinue U.S. sales of 3-Nitro, a drug fed to chickens to help them gain weight and to prevent an intestinal disease called coccidiosis. Chickens that had been given the drug, which contains organic arsenic, had higher levels of what’s known as inorganic arsenic in their livers, compared with chickens not given the drug.
“The inorganic form is more harmful than the organic form, and has been found to be a human carcinogen. Organic arsenic is not known to be carcinogenic. Organic arsenic is the form of arsenic that is the active ingredient in approved arsenic-based animal drugs, including 3-Nitro.”
Researchers’ ability to detect inorganic arsenic in edible tissue – and thus their understanding of the matter – has since changed.
Pfizer will stop selling the drug after 30 days to allow time for animal producers to find new medications. 3-Nitro, a.k.a. roxarsone, is the most common arsenic-based animal drug, but similar drugs have been approved for poultry and pig feed. Of those, only nitarsone is marketed.
Another reason to eat organic and local!
The article says that, “Researchers’ ability to detect inorganic arsenic in edible tissue – and thus their understanding of the matter – has since changed.” Really, is this the only method to understanding our food supply? A researcher’s detection method? What if that researcher isn’t well funded or is told to hide the results, would this “chicken arsenic” policy have ended? How about checking against God’s original created order by asking this simple question…Does a wild chicken eat arsenic? Did God design a Chicken to eat arsenic? These are not difficult questions to ask.
Why is “chicken arsenic” necessary, can’t a chicken survive without it? Yes but not in the conditions these birds are raised in. Tens of thousands of birds
living existing in a large metal shed is a sure way to breed birds that are weak and sick. Imagine you are ordering at a fine Mexican restaurant and the waiter asks, “Would you like your enchiladas with weak and sick hormone, anti-biotic and arsenic enriched chicken or the weak and sick hormone, anti-biotic and arsenic enriched beef?” That is your only option at most establishments.
The next logical question is, “Were humans designed to survive and thrive by eating meat that is hormone, anti-biotic, arsenic, eats genetically modified feed and other chemicals (where the long term side effects are unknown) enriched?” NO! Research is showing “super-bugs” (like MRSA) are being created because of our over dependence on anti-biotics – both in human and animal “health.” The toxins and anti-biotics in food is ruining our gut health which leads to chronic disease. Fixing our food supply should be a central theme to “health care” reform. Otherwise it is still “sick care” (do you go to the doctor when you are healthly or sick? sick = sick care). In some cultures the doctor only gets paid if you are not sick. Financially incentivizing desired outcomes, such as a healthy population, is wise. At some point insurance company’s will figure out keeping people healthy is cheaper than keeping people sick but then at that time why would we need them? So keeping people sick is key to their survival, not yours.
The final question is this, “What other dangerous drugs are in the food supply?” The bottom quote of, “but similar drugs have been approved for poultry and pig feed. Of those, only nitarsone is marketed.” Wasn’t this dangerous arsenic drug also approved? Yes it was. A recent JAMA article exposes that only 50% – 60% of drugs have effectiveness data and they didn’t research if any of this information made a difference in patient care. The JAMA article:
Context: Comparative effectiveness is taking on an increasingly important role in US health care, yet little is known about the availability of comparative efficacy data for drugs at the time of their approval in the United States.
Conclusion: Publicly available FDA approval packages contain comparative efficacy data for about half of NMEs recently approved in the United States and for more than two-thirds of NMEs for which alternative treatment options exist. We did not investigate the extent to which available comparative efficacy information is useful for clinical guidance.
To summarize the FDA approves a high percentage of drugs without effectiveness (or safety) data. That’s not because the drugs are safe. So why would they act and be so irresponsible? Right now, how many reasons can you name why a government agency would act irresponsibly and not in the best interest of the citizenry? Go! … How many reasons did you come up with?
- God’s created order (Genesis 1-2) gives insight into healthy living and making the best decisions for you and your family.
- Watch the movie Food Inc.
- Find a local organic grocery or farm. http://maps.google.com/maps
- Protect your GI with probiotics and limit dirty food consumption.
- Ask your Federal representative to protect small farmers and the organic standard. Support candidates that care more about your freedoms than the growth and power of multi-national corporations.