Entry #18: Pet Food Politics

This entry will be my first book review entry; every time I read a book from now on I plan on writing an entry as a review, and I plan on bringing up a few topical issues from said book. Pet Food Politics by Marion Nestle exceeded my expectations. Upon buying the book, I was expecting the themes to be things like corruption in the pet food sector, euthanized cats/dogs in pet food, poor labeling, etc. To my surprise, the book wasn't dedicated to any of these topic per se, and its theme was the pet food recalls of 2007.
Even though the material wasn't along the same lines as what I expected, much of the snippets of information presented were actually quite relevant to our human food system. I place Marion Nestle in high esteem, and much of my initial interest in food politics and nutrition was the result of two books: The Crazy Makers by Carol Simmonachi, and Food Politics by Marion Nestle. These were the first two books to ignite my interest, and since then I've finished 3 other books (and started reading numerous others) and watched multiple documentaries on the broad subject of "food politics." Nestle's Food Politics made me challenge many of my eating habits and loyalties, and was the basis for novel interests and hobbies of mine - ones I regret not caring about while I was still younger and in school.

The humor is, when I was working as a produce guy for the same grocer in another town about 2 years back, all the controversy discussed in this book was still fresh. I remember when we first had to place a country of origin tag on every single fruit and vegetable, and I remember getting pissed the fuck off wondering why people cared so much (assuming American products probably weren't any better quality-wise). Honestly, even as a supporter of the locavore movement, I still get fucking pissed when people bitch about shit coming from China or Mexico. The ways they express their distrust usually comes off as xenophobic, or very red scare-esque. I don't look at China as some "commie pinkie" threat, intentionally contaminating its exports; even after reading this book, I just see China as a country with many regulation issues and with many of its industries trying to cut costs and corners wherever possible. If America lacked any firm regulation, I could see the same sort of food safety scares and contamination issues occurring domestically (with how often industries cheat their customers).

One way Food Politics really challenged my beliefs was by making me question my support of herbal and dietary supplementation. In Food Politics, Nestle told of how the supplement industry opted to be considered food, rather than medicine, so it wouldn't be subjected to the same harsh regulation and pre-market testing. I don't think Nestle's aim was to make a total rejection of the supplement industry, but she was moreso trying to explain the events that lead to food products that make health claims. It was tough for me to accept the idea that many herbal and dietary supplements are "frauds," and because of a lack of regulation, products are usually poor quality and the parts in the ingredients could be recalibrated to their cheapest possible arrangements. Now I would have to try and do research or ask a reliable source what companies sell legitimate and trustworthy products. My faith in Naturopathy dwindled, and I started to place much of my support into healing through diet and nutrition from whole food sources. If possible, though, I would still love to take a course on foraging herbs in the wild (one is offerred at the Midwest Native Skills Institute).

Even after reading Food Politics, I still didn't trust pharmaceutical companies any more than I did the herbal supplement industry. Much of the pre-market research is funded by companies that manufacture the product being tested. Although I'm sure many people would still debate that comment, I'm not about to make any of my other arguments at full length in this entry nor address this particular argument. I'm just stating that I have a general distrust of pharmaceuticals, and they're the convenient quick-fixes that Americans demand in all sectors of their lives. It's obviously much easier to factor in a few daily pills into your routine than change your entire lifestyle and diet; it's just lazy, and prevention should reign over the treatment of symptoms. In Food Politics, I saw Nestle as being an opponent of herbal supplements, and therefor through dichotomous thinking - she could be assumed a member of the other camp, the pharmaceutical industry.

However, upon reading Pet Food Politics, I realized Marion Nestle isn't nearly so predictable. In Chapter 19, she discusses the problems with the FDA being too short staffed, underfunded, and being assigned too many tasks. She reintroduces the events with the supplement and tobacco industries mentioned in Food Politics, and states that:

"[...]under pressure from industries outraged at the FDA's attempts to regulate these substances as drugs, systematically reduced the FDA's resources at the same time as it greatly increased the agency's responsibilities. These actions crippled the FDA's ability to protect the food supply as well as carry out its other mandated functions. The resulting disarray is best seen in the FDA's present inability to act quickly and decisively on questions about the safety of prescription drugs." (Pet Food Politics, Marion Nestle, p.147)

Ah-ha. So now the FDA was disliked by the tobacco and supplement industries (for trying to enact harsher regulation and pre-market testing), had less support, and had way too many tasks to effectively handle (between regulating produce, fish, supplements, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drugs). Not only does the FDA have to give just cause to research herbals and dietary supplements being marketed after they're often already for sale, but it doesn't have the time and resources to decisively oversee the research being presented for proposed prescription drugs (at least that's what I got out of the information). The one final sentence in the passage I quoted alone makes me assume that Nestle is at least skeptical of some of the prescription and pharmaceutical drugs being marketed.

Again, Marion Nestle challenges another belief or habit of mine in Pet Food Politics: wheat-gluten, or seitan. As a vegetarian who's actively trying to eat/drink less non-organic soy, now I have to question and research the source of any wheat-gluten or seitan that I eat. The 2007 pet food recall highlighted in Pet Food Politics was the result of wheat-gluten imported from China that had been adulterated by melamine and cyanuric acid (which together form crystals that can clog up the kidneys of animals). Incase you're unfamiliar:

"Melamine and cyanuric acid are 'non-protein' sources of nitrogen; they are not amino acids, the building blocks of protein. But when added to animal feed, the chemicals make the feed appear to contain large amounts of protein whether it does or not. [...] The point of all this is that adding a non-protein source of nitrogen like melamine or cyanuric acid to a farm feed boosts its apparent - but not real - protein content." (Pet Food Politics, Marion Nestle, pp.70-71)

Not to disregard the health of my pets, or anyone else's pets, but I am now legitimately a bit frightened for my own health whenever I eat any wheat-gluten or seitan. Although there's probably a bit more inspection when it's planned to be in a human's food source, I still buy imported wheat-gluten mock meat products from Asian markets. Hopefully because of this book I'll be a bit more cautious with my own diet, and any pets I may have in the future with my girlfriend.

With this book, Marion Nestle gives me plenty of new information without a boring voice. She makes me question myself, and she ultimately teaches me lessons in caution and food safety.

9.3/10