Arsenic and Old Studies: Pressure is on to ban a hazardous but profitable feed additive

This article from an online environmental magazine briefly raises the question about feed additives used by large poultry contractors such as Tyson Foods and the potential harm to communities with these large poultry factories. The author, Sheila Pell addresses the issues presented from seven families in Prairie Grove, Arkansas. It's a small town of about 2,500 people and yet they have a higher than expected number of people diagnosed with different forms of cancer, many of whom are children. The feed additive used is "roxarsone" an arsenic-based drug fed to an estimated 70% of U.S. chickens. Not much information is known about the effects of this organic arsenic drug on humans. This by-products is produced from chicken waste and most of the waste is used in fertilizers and feed for cows. Although not much is know about the organic arsenic; inorganic arsenic in drinking water has been linked to diseases such as liver, kidney, lung, bladder, and skin cancer. Basically not many studies have been done to figure out the potential dangers that may affect us, "society" from the use of this kind of drug additive. People getting sick argue that they are affected yet the large corporations argue that their drug feed is not the cause for concern based on the regulations set by the EPA and FDA.

The title of the article caught my attention because it strongly related to a movie I saw about the manufacturing of chickens for food and profit. Especially when the feed additive referenced is an arsenic drug. When I saw that I thought immediately about rat poison. That scared me as a reader to think that something that I am probably purchasing for my own consumption has potentially been poisoned. Based on the information from documentary I watched I wasn't surprised to see that a major food corporation, such as Tyson Foods was involved in this issue.

Much of the emphasis in this article centers around people contracting diseases living in a small town that hugs a monstrous poultry factory. Even though many questions are raised from interviews and studies about the effects of this "feed" I felt there wasn't a solution. It was as if it was one experts word against another with contradicting arguments. The author also mentions the use of 20 other drugs still used today to increase growth and profit. I would have liked to have more information regarding some of these other drugs. Are they harmful? Where can they be found? Do the Pros out weigh the Con's?

Something else that caught my eye was the use of pictures to illustrate not problems within the production of the chickens. The images used as "symbolic packages" do a good job in grabbing attention but they don't really relate to the issue being argued directly. Now if some pictures of children in hospitals were put in the article I think it would do a better job persuading readers and connect with the authors argument. Though the amplitude of this article may be small but I feel that the meaningfulness of it is relevant as we are most likely eating the products from these factories. The social economical issues can be see from both sides arguing. Expert opinions from doctors, representatives from the EPA, and other departments in the health industry are frequently referenced to support claims made by the author. Interesting enough many of the experts used as a point of reference to counter act the claims made against the corporations are those who may be influence by the large corporations. The FDA "has some serious limitations imposed by law," says Sheila Pell, "in addition to its own culture of inaction." The FDA is under funded and understaffed making it even more difficult to tackle the problem at hand.

Reference to interviews and comments made by "elite people", government officials or people who occupy a central place in the news media discourse to mention (Galtung and Ruge) were used throughout the article to support different claims. Also testimony from people of the town. Beth Green ask, "What in the world is going on?" Dr. David Bourne of the arkansas Department of Health called the five cases of testicular cancer diagnosed within five years "higher than expected and therefore troublesome." to emphasize the fact that this isn't normal and there must be a problem.

I would say that this article is relatively unbias and objectively written. In saying that it is almost though the article was written with a negative attitude. At the end she lists the results from the trial of Prairie Grove vs. Alpharma, Beth Green was the only one of 10 plaintiffs to make it to trial and it took the jury just 21 seconds to rule in favor of Alpharma drug company. I took it as a "who cares attitude because there's nothing we can do about it." even though for the most part she stayed relatively neutral.