Grassfed Beef, Pastured Pork, Pastured Organic Chicken, Local Seafood, Home Delivered. Online Grocery Store.
See what people are saying on Instagram...
A MAJOR EGG RECALL has been issued.
This affects our area of the country !!!!
You should always know your farmer, know your food ! We are the Healthiest, Safest, Most Convenient and Best Quality food in the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/04/15/nearly-207-million-eggs-recalled-over-salmonella-fears.html
Please come and join us for a free seminar on Food, Health and Wellness, the agri-business and your grocery store.
We look forward to seeing you there !!!!
We have all been in the grocery store trying to figure out what is for dinner tonight. We have all walked almost aimlessly around until something catches out eye. That something is usually pre-prepared, tasty, quick and inexpensive. It may be rotisserie chicken, a pre-cooked roast, a prepared meatloaf or whatever but they almost always look like this.....
Well, STAY AWAY, keep that off your family's table if at all possible !!!!!!!!!
Why? Well let us start with the FACT the grocery store is not selling you this to make your life easier they are selling you this to make more money. Wait, they are selling this cooked item at a price that is equal to or less than the uncooked product and you say they are doing it to make money....... how?
Grocery stores must NOT sell meat to you that is past its expiration date. They often mark down ground beef, chickens, even steaks. You know the meat with the YELLOW mark down stickers on them at the meat counter !!!!!!! Well, what happens if that meat expires?
YEP, YOU GUESSED IT..... they take it off the shelf, remove it from its packaging and cook it. When you buy that rotisserie chicken, that meatloaf, that roast that has been cooked in the grocery store, it is just old meat that did not sell in the meat counter.
The grocery store industry has run the math and calculated it is more profitable to sell old meat to you as a cooked product than discard it.
So, STAY AWAY from cooked meats in a grocery store they are out of date products repurposed to increase profits.
EAT SAFE, BE WELL and REMEMBER if a Grocery Store has a Health Food aisle, what is everything else in the store?
We ARE having ONLY our 2ND FLASH SALE EVER !!!!!!!!
This is only AVAILABLE FOR A LIMITED TIME !!!!!!
LIMIT 3 per HOUSEHOLD !!!!!!!!
For $50.00
You get:
5 pounds (1 pound packages) of Ground Beef
3 packages of Chicken Drumsticks (2 drumsticks to a package)
4 Chicken Thighs
1 Pound of pork sausage
GO TO: https://www.premierfoodsgroup.com/food-order/
******* IN THE OFFER CODE BLANK PUT (FLASH SALE) **********
This is available ONLY to the Charlotte and surrounding areas. This will be delivered not shipped !!!!!!
Premier Foods Group is beginning a Fund Raising program to help organizations raise money. We actively engage in charities already but are now wanting to expand our charitable causes. Anyone who needs to raise funds should contact us. Everyone eats and using our product to raise funds is a natural way to connect people and causes.
Please send an email to information@premierfoodsgroup.com for more information about this community outreach program.
This article has been copied from:
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/15/whole-foods-free-range-chicken-animal-rights/
September 15 2017, 6:00 a.m.
WHEN AMAZON PURCHASED Whole Foods last month, it didn’t just get the retail locations. It picked up Whole Foods’s baggage as well. Among the bigger issues inherited by Amazon appears to be a four-month investigation from the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere that challenges Whole Foods’s core selling point of healthy and humane food.
The group accused Pitman Family Farms, the maker of Mary’s Free Range Chicken and a supplier to Whole Foods in six Western states, of breaking its promises of free-range environments for its birds.
Direct Action Everywhere, whose mission is to create animal welfare-friendly cities and outlaw factory farming practices, visited a dozen Pitman farms and never once saw a chicken roaming outside. The group reported that it found no indications of outdoor living, such as feathers or fecal matter. Twenty-four hour surveillance cameras attached to six separate locations revealed no outdoor birds either, the activists said. Instead, chickens were packed shoulder-to-shoulder inside dusty sheds with degraded air quality, forced to challenge one another for access to food and water.
Video of Direct Action Everywhere’s findings showed scattered fighting among the chickens and smaller birds with injuries, including one with its eye pecked out. They also alleged evidence of “debeaking,” a procedure involving severing the tip of a chicken’s beak with a laser to prevent pecking.
Video: Direct Action Everywhere
“We saw things that even shocked us,” Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of the group, told The Intercept in an interview. Hsiung characterized the overcrowding as the worst he’s ever seen at a poultry farm, with investigators were nearly unable to walk through the flocks without stepping on birds.
The investigation took place from January to May at roughly a dozen Pitman farm locations in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Hsiung alleged no meaningful difference between the farms and reported no evidence of free-range activity. “We couldn’t find a single bird outside,” he said.
“We saw things that even shocked us,” said Wayne Hsiung. “We couldn’t find a single bird outside.”
PITMAN FAMILY FARMSclaims to be certified by the Global Animal Partnership program, a nonprofit animal welfare organization. Whole Foods funded GAP, and two of its staffers are Whole Foods employees.
GAP rates farms with a “five step” scale. Most of Pitman’s facilities — including the ones visited by Direct Action Everywhere — carry a three rating, meaning that birds have space to move around; an outdoor free-range area with shade and at least 25 percent vegetative cover; farmers don’t use growth hormones or antibiotics in feed; and birds do not undergo physical alterations like debeaking. Videos on the Pitman website showcase its one “step 5” farm, according to the GAP ratings, where birds live permanently on pasture. Direct Action Everywhere claims the conditions at the farms it visited were markedly different.
While activists confirmed that Pitman used “slow-growing” Rhode Island Red chickens, which aren’t bred to grow very big quickly and have fewer health problems, the conditions alleged at the farm actually prolong the birds’ suffering, according to Hsiung. “Cage-free, slow-growing, it’s not better or worse, just different,” he said. “These animals have to endure a longer life in miserable conditions.”
Because the farms are so massive, with tens of thousands of animals sometimes supervised by a single employee, activists found it easy to access the sheds. “You just walk in. They even have unlocked doors,” said Hsiung.
Direct Action Everywhere claimed that it’s now impossible to secure undercover employment at these sites, previously a common technique employed by animal rights activists. When the activists get reports of mistreatment, they feel a moral and legal necessity to step in, citing law journal reviews on the subject. “When we know a company is lying, we open up the doors,” he said.
Pitman Family Farms sells poultry through high-end markets, such as Whole Foods in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii, and employs a workforce of around 500 employees at over 80 different sites. Product quality and animal welfare is a hallmark of the Mary’s Free Range Chicken brand.
Pitman Farms’s David Rubenstein told The Intercept late Thursday night, “At Pitman Farms, we raise chickens for many different customers. The barn in question houses chickens that are not part of the slow growth or free-range programs.” He added that “the farm shown in the video is not GAP certified.” The chickens in the video were being housed to “help protect them from outside disease and will be soon transferred to another barn, where eggs will be harvested,” Rubenstein said.
Pitman Farms’s website does not describe any products aside from free-range chicken, nor does it say they use non-GAP farms or sell eggs. The brand is built around animal welfare; in promotional videos, members of the Pitman family speak of how animal welfare is implemented across their farming enterprise. “All of the chickens we raise, we call them ‘free-range,'” said Rick Pitman in one video. Nowhere in Pitman Farms’s promotional material is any mention made of farms that don’t comply with humane standards. Direct Action Everywhere claims that they visited a dozen Pitman farms with no appreciable difference in the conditions. Rubenstein, however, insisted, “Without a doubt, the Mary’s branded packages claiming ‘free-range’ and sold at Whole Foods were grown on farms certified and audited by the Global Animal Partnership.”
“Time and time again, they make the same robotic denial.”
WITHIN HOURS OF Direct Action Everywhere releasing their report, Whole Foods’s Twitter feed responded to complaints with theexact same language: “We don’t source chicken from the facility in this video; we only source chicken from Pitman farms that are GAP certified for animal welfare.” A Whole Foods spokesperson made the same assertion to The Intercept: The chickens in the video are not from a GAP-certified facility, nor are they processed where Whole Foods’s GAP-rated chickens are handled.
The Pitman website indicates that all their farms are GAP-rated, so it’s unclear how there could be an unrated farm from which Whole Foods doesn’t acquire chickens. Hsiung expressed skepticism at Whole Foods’s response to the controversy. “We have reached out to Whole Foods to show them investigations,” he said. “Time and time again, they make the same robotic denial.” Hsiung also alleged that Whole Foods tweeted their denials before they could reasonably have checked in with Pitman to investigate.
Consumers have shown growing interest in more humanely raised food, including free-range chickens. But there is no recognized federal definition of “free-range” or “pasture-raised” goods in food labeling. The Food Safety Inspection Service allows these terms to be placed on poultry if agribusinesses “provide a brief description of the birds’ housing conditions.” While the claims are supposed to be evaluated, there is virtually no on-site confirmation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture often relies on third-party verifications like GAP, including for Mary’s Free Range Chicken.
“The industry is in bed with the government,” said Hsiung. “I’m a former securities lawyer. It’s similar to the financial industry. The USDA’s mission statement is to promote agriculture. You can’t promote the industry and guard against the industry’s abuses. It’s like trying to be a lawyer for both sides of a litigation.”
This is Direct Action Everywhere’s second investigation alleging a Whole Foods supplier claiming inaccurate “free-range” standards. Revelationsagainst Diestel Turkey Ranch in 2015 led to a California lawsuit for false advertising. The case is still pending.
Amazon has faced negative headlines for problems with working conditions at its warehouses. By buying a grocery, they face a whole new set of risks from suppliers, which could damage its reputation as a high-end provider.
Salmonella, E-Coli, Listeria, Campylobacter are ONLY found in the intestinal tract. They are ANAEROBIC bacteria, meaning they DO NOT need oxygen to live or survive.
So everyone is talking about how to prepare food, handle food, cook food to prevent Food Borne Bacteria from making you and or your family sick.
We have a BETTER IDEA !!!!!! Buy food that is NOT contaminated. Novel idea...... see we hand harvest and hand butcher our animals. By doing this we do NOT interrupt nor Damage the intestinal tract of the animal where all of the bacteria lives and exists. By NOT allowing animal poop onto your food to begin with, none of the food borne bacteria is on your food.
Unfortunately, clean, safe food is NOT something you can get from your grocery store. The CDC states that Organic meats have an even higher percentage chance of making you sick from a bacterial infection than processed meats from your grocery store.
WE, at Premier Foods Group, do not believe you should have to worry about bacteria on your food. Your grandmother did not, this is a new problem and it is PREVENTABLE. Do not buy your meat from a place that allows bacteria to get on your food in the FIRST PLACE !!!!
Jun 08, 2011
By Capt. Christopher R. Braden, MD, Director of the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, CDC
Each year, roughly 1 in 6 people in the United States gets sick from eating contaminated food. Each of those illnesses represents something that went wrong somewhere along the pathway from a farm to our table. Behind these illnesses are familiar culprits (like Salmonella) and causes (like poor food safety practices in farms, factories, restaurants, or homes).
Salmonella are bacteria that cause over one million illnesses each year. This “bug” causes more hospitalizations and deaths than any other type of germ found in food and $365 million in direct medical costs each year. At CDC, we’re concerned that Salmonellainfections have not declined in 15 years. So, how does Salmonellasneak into foods, what foods do they get into, and what can be done?
Simply put—it gets into food through the poop of animals, such as cows, birds, and mice. Because the natural home for Salmonella bacteria is in the gut of these animals, their poop becomes a carrier of the germ if it gets into food or water. For example, if water used to irrigate a field has animal poop in it, the water can contaminate the food growing in the field.
E. coli O157:H7 bacteria and other pathogenic E. coli mostly live in the intestines of cattle, but E. coli bacteria have also been found in the intestines of chickens, deer, sheep, and pigs. [1, 35]
A 2003 study on the prevalence of E. coliO157:H7 in livestock at 29 county and three large state agricultural fairs in the United States found that E. coli O157:H7 could be isolated from 13.8% of beef cattle, 5.9% of dairy cattle, 3.6% of pigs, 5.2% of sheep, and 2.8% of goats. [36] Over 7% of pest fly pools also tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. [36] Shiga toxin-producing E. coli does not make the animals that carry it ill. [1] The animals are merely the reservoir for the bacteria. [35]
According to a study published in 2011, an estimated 93,094 illnesses are due to domestically acquired E. coli O157:H7 each year in the United States. [25] Estimates of foodborne-acquired O157:H7 cases result in 2,138 hospitalizations and 20 deaths annually. [25]
What makes E. coli O157:H7 remarkably dangerous is its very low infectious dose, and how relatively difficult it is to kill these bacteria. [4, 27] “E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef that is only slightly undercooked can result in infection.” [4] As few as 20 organisms may be sufficient to infect a person and, as a result, possibly kill them. [28] And unlike generic E. coli, the O157:H7 serotype multiplies at temperatures up to 44 Fahrenheit, survives freezing and thawing, is heat-resistant, grows at temperatures up to 111 F, resists drying, and can survive exposure to acidic environments. [27, 28] And, finally, to make it even more of a threat, E. coli O157:H7 bacteria are easily transmitted by person-to-person contact. [4, 13]
E. coli O157:H7 and other non-O157 STEC are now routinely “fingerprinted” as part of surveillance of foodborne disease. [52] This surveillance was first initiated in response to the major outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections in 1993. As described by the CDC on the PulseNet website:
In 1993, a large outbreak of foodborne illness caused by the bacterium Escherichia coli O157:H7 occurred in the western United States. In this outbreak, scientists at CDC performed DNA “fingerprinting” by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and determined that the strain of E. coli O157:H7 found in patients had the same PFGE pattern as the strain found in hamburger patties served at a large chain of regional fast food restaurants. Prompt recognition of this outbreak and its cause may have prevented an estimated 800 illnesses. As a result, CDC developed standardized PFGE methods and in collaboration with the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), created PulseNet so that scientists at public health laboratories throughout the country could rapidly compare the PFGE patterns of bacteria isolated from ill persons and determine whether they are similar.
When a company states that they do not administer antibiotics to their chickens, what does that really mean? It means that they are not injecting their chickens nor are they giving their flocks antibiotics as an independent product.
What it DOES NOT mean? It does not mean they providing an antibiotic free product to the market. How is that you may ask? They are using a feed that has an antibiotic as a supplement in the feed. Thus they can use that feed and deny they are using antibiotics in their flocks. EVEN more disturbing, they can actually claim their product is ANTIBIOTIC FREE.
The following is a report that was published in the Huffington Post in September of 2016.
By Brian Grow and P.J. Huffstutter
ATLANTA/CHICAGO, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Major U.S. poultry firms are administering antibiotics to their flocks far more pervasively than regulators realize, posing a potential risk to human health.
Internal records examined by Reuters reveal that some of the nation’s largest poultry producers routinely feed chickens an array of antibiotics - not just when sickness strikes, but as a standard practice over most of the birds’ lives.
In every instance of antibiotic use identified by Reuters, the doses were at the low levels that scientists say are especially conducive to the growth of so-called superbugs, bacteria that gain resistance to conventional medicines used to treat people. Some of the antibiotics belong to categories considered medically important to humans.
The internal documents contain details on how five major companies - Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue Farms, George’s and Koch Foods - medicate some of their flocks.
The documented evidence of routine use of antibiotics for long durations was “astonishing,” said Donald Kennedy, a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner.
Kennedy, president emeritus of Stanford University, said such widespread use of the drugs for extended periods can create a “systematic source of antibiotic resistance” in bacteria, the risks of which are not fully understood. “This could be an even larger piece of the antibiotic-resistance problem than I had thought,” Kennedy said.
FEED TICKETS
Reuters reviewed more than 320 documents generated by six major poultry companies during the past two years. Called “feed tickets,” the documents are issued to chicken growers by the mills that make feed to poultry companies’ specifications. They list the names and grams per ton of each “active drug ingredient” in a batch of feed. They disclose the FDA-approved purpose of each medication. And they specify which stage in a chicken’s roughly six-week life the feed is meant for.
The feed tickets examined represent a fraction of the tens of thousands issued annually to poultry farms run by or for major producers. The confidential information they contain nonetheless extends well beyond what the U.S. government knows. Veterinary use of antibiotics is legal and has been rising for decades. But U.S. regulators don’t monitor how the drugs are administered on the farm - in what doses, for what purposes, or for how long. Made public here for the first time, the feed documents thus provide unique insight into how some major players use antibiotics.
The tickets indicate that two of the poultry producers - George’s and Koch Foods - have administered drugs belonging to the same classes of antibiotics used to treat infections in humans. The practice is legal. But many medical scientists deem it particularly dangerous, because it runs the risk of promoting superbugs that can defeat the life-saving human antibiotics.
In interviews, another major producer, Foster Poultry Farms, acknowledged that it too has used drugs that are in the same classes as antibiotics considered medically important to humans by the FDA.
About 10 percent of the feed tickets reviewed by Reuters list antibiotics belonging to medically important drug classes. But in recent presentations, scientists with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the use of any type of antibiotic, not just medically important ones, contributes to resistance. They said that whenever an antibiotic is administered, it kills weaker bacteria and enables the strongest to survive and multiply.
Frequent, sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in low doses intensifies that effect, scientists and public health experts say. The risk: Any resulting superbugs might also develop cross-resistance to medically important antibiotics.
According to the feed tickets reviewed, low doses of antibiotics were part of the standard diet for some flocks at five companies: Tyson, Pilgrim’s, Perdue, George’s and Koch.
“These are not targeted uses aimed at specific bugs for defined duration. They’re multiple, repeat shotgun blasts that will certainly kill off weaker bugs and promote the stronger, more resistant ones,” said Keeve Nachman, director of the food production and public health program at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.
“HIGHLY IMPORTANT” DRUGS
This month, Perdue Farms announced that it had stopped applying the antibiotic gentamicin to eggs in chicken hatcheries. Gentamicin is a member of an antibiotic class considered “highly important” in human medicine by the FDA. The company said it wants “to move away from conventional antibiotic use” because of “growing consumer concern and our own questions about the practice.”
The move won’t change what Perdue feeds its chickens, however. Some of its feed has contained low levels of one antibiotic, feed tickets show. Perdue said it only uses antibiotics that aren’t considered medically important by the FDA, and at some farms, it uses no antibiotics at all.
“We recognized that the public was concerned about the potential impact of the use of these drugs on their ability to effectively treat humans,” Bruce Stewart-Brown, Perdue’s senior vice president of food safety and quality, said when the hatchery policy was announced.
The poultry industry’s lobby takes issue with the concerns of government and academic scientists, saying there is little evidence that bacteria which do become resistant also infect people.
“Several scientific, peer reviewed risk assessments demonstrate that resistance emerging in animals and transferring to humans does not happen in measurable amounts, if at all,” said Tom Super, spokesman for the National Chicken Council. He said using antibiotics to prevent diseases in flocks “is good, prudent veterinary medicine. Prevention of the disease prevents unnecessary suffering and prevents the overuse of potentially medically important antibiotics in treatment of sick birds.”
Poultry producers began using antibiotics in the 1940s, not long after scientists discovered that penicillin, streptomycin and chlortetracycline helped control outbreaks of disease in chickens. The drugs offered an added benefit: They kept the birds’ digestive tracts healthy, and chickens were able to gain more weight without eating more food.
Over the years, the industry’s use of antibiotics grew. Early on, independent scientists warned that bacteria would inevitably develop resistance to those antibiotics, especially when the drugs were administered in low doses. In 1976, a landmark study by microbiologist Stuart Levy showed that potentially deadly bacteria in poultry were developing resistance to tetracyclines and other antibiotics. The resistant bacteria, E. Coli, were then moving from poultry to people.
That is when the FDA first tried to rein in drug use in food animals. The agricultural and pharmaceutical industries resisted, viewing low-level antibiotic use as a way to produce meat more quickly and cheaply.
Today, 80 percent of all antibiotics used in America are given not to people, but to livestock.
SCANT REVIEW
About 390 medications containing antibiotics have been approved to treat illness, stave off disease and promote growth in farm animals. But the FDA has reviewed just 7 percent of those drugs for their likelihood of creating antibiotic-resistant superbugs, a Reuters data analysis found. [IDn:xxxxx]
The widespread use of antibiotics worries public health authorities. In a report this year, the World Health Organization called antibiotic resistance “a problem so serious it threatens the achievements of modern medicine.” The annual cost to battle antibiotic-resistant infections is estimated at $21 billion to $34 billion in the United States alone, the WHO said.
Each year, about 430,000 people in the United States become ill from food-borne bacteria that resist conventional antibiotics, according to a July report by the CDC. Overall, the CDC estimates that 2 million people are sickened in the United States annually with infections resistant to antibiotics. At least 23,000 people die.
“That’s the number we are certain of. The actual number is higher,” said Steve Solomon, director of the CDC’s Office of Antimicrobial Resistance.
This year, federal investigators tracking a salmonella outbreak traced virulent strains of the pathogen to chickens raised by Foster Farms, the largest poultry producer on the West Coast.
Investigators identified seven strains of Salmonella Heidelberg that had sickened at least 634 people across the United States and Puerto Rico this year and last. More than 200 of those people were hospitalized, according to the CDC. In July, Foster Farms issued a recall of some chicken products.
When epidemiologists examined 68 of the Salmonella Heidelberg cases linked to Foster Farms, they found that two-thirds of the bacteria were resistant to at least one antibiotic, according to the CDC. Half of these superbugs were impervious to drugs in at least three different classes of antibiotics.
In an effort to stop the spread of resistant bacteria, the FDA has issued voluntary guidelines to regulate antibiotic use by producers of poultry and other livestock. The agency says it also inspects the mills where animal feed is made. It considers those inspections to be a “more effective” use of its resources than examining how farmers administer feed.
Not until 2016 does the FDA plan to gather data about antibiotic use on farms, said Craig Lewis, a veterinary medical officer with the agency. Today, “none of us have an idea first-hand of what’s going on” at the farm level, Lewis said this summer, at a public meeting on antibiotic resistance.
Super, the National Chicken Council spokesman, said the information on feed tickets “is available to FDA, the regulators, whenever they want to go see it.”
“WAKE-UP CALL”
Still, companies are reluctant to discuss how they medicate their flocks.
One, Pilgrim’s Pride, said it would take legal action against Reuters unless the news agency gave the company access to Pilgrim’s feed tickets that reporters had reviewed. Reuters declined to do so.
The tickets show that Pilgrim’s added low doses of the antibiotics bacitracin and monensin, individually or in combination, to every ration fed to a flock grown early this year. Neither drug is classified as medically important by the FDA, although bacitracin commonly is used to prevent human skin infections.
The Colorado-based company wouldn’t address questions about its use of antibiotics. Its general counsel, Nicholas White, called the contents of its tickets “confidential business information.”
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, said the feed tickets substantiate what she long suspected: “that the overuse of antibiotics on many chicken farms is rampant.”
Gillibrand has been pushing for regulators to more aggressively monitor low-level doses of antibiotics. Now, Gillibrand said, she hopes “the FDA will use the feed-ticket data obtained by Reuters as a wake-up call to re-evaluate their approach to the regulation of antibiotic use in food production.”
So does Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, a member of a House subcommittee overseeing food safety. Told of the information in the feed tickets, DeLauro called on the FDA to “implement tighter restrictions on antibiotic usage.”
DUAL EFFECTS
All the poultry giants state publicly that they use antibiotics for the limited purpose of keeping chickens healthy.
But the feed tickets, which list the medications included in chicken feed, highlight a second effect of many of the drugs: bulking up the birds.
Some of the tickets reviewed for this article state that the antibiotics promote feed efficiency or weight gain in chickens. The FDA requires companies to list growth promotion on feed tickets whenever feed includes antibiotics that have been approved for that purpose.
Reuters found eight different antibiotics listed on the tickets it reviewed. The tickets come from a scattering of farms across the United States - in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington State, among other locations.
George’s Inc, a poultry company based in Springdale, Arkansas, issued feed tickets last year to a chicken grower in Virginia. The tickets show that the antibiotics tylosin and virginiamycin were administered solely for “increased rate of weight gain.”
Tylosin belongs to a class of antibiotics the FDA considers “critically important” in human medicine, the most crucial of three ranks of sensitive drugs. Virginiamycin is part of a class in the FDA’s middle rank, “highly important.”
Other George’s Inc feed tickets, given to two growers in Virginia this year, show the antibiotics bacitracin and narasin and a non-antibiotic drug called nicarbazin were included in every poultry ration in different combinations until shortly before slaughter. Bacitracin can promote growth.
George’s said in a statement: “Occasionally (when necessary to control certain pathogens) appropriate FDA approved medications are utilized to prevent, control or treat specific diseases.” It declined to answer detailed questions.
At Tyson Foods, two feed tickets sent by the company to two Mississippi farms show that bacitracin and the non-antibiotic nicarbazin were among the drugs mixed into the feed. The tickets state the drug combination is “for use in the prevention of coccidiosis in broiler flocks, growth promotion and feed efficiency.” Coccidiosis is a common intestinal ailment.
Tyson, also based in Springdale, Arkansas, said it does not use bacitracin to promote growth, only to prevent disease. The FDA requires companies to list growth promotion on tickets if medications have that effect, Tyson said. The company said that its feed mixture changes throughout the year. In some seasons, it said, the feed doesn’t include bacitracin and nicarbazin.
At Koch Foods Inc, a Chicago-based supplier to fast-food chain KFC Corp, feed tickets contradict a statement on the Koch website about antibiotic use.
Until Aug. 27, the website said Koch Foods uses antibiotics for the narrow purpose of protecting the health of its chickens. “We do not administer antibiotics at growth promotion doses,” the statement read in part. “No antibiotics of human significance are used to treat our birds.”
Koch feed tickets dated from Nov. 30, 2011, through July 20, 2014, indicate otherwise. They list low-dose amounts of five different types of antibiotics in feed given to flocks at one Alabama farm. One was virginiamycin, in a class considered “highly important” to fighting infections in humans.
In 34 of the 55 Koch Foods feed tickets that Reuters examined, antibiotics at low-dose levels were listed “for increased rate of weight gain,” a related growth-promotion use called “improved feed efficiency,” or both. Each of those feed tickets also said the antibiotics were for the prevention of coccidiosis, another bacterial infection, or both.
Koch Foods changed the website after being asked by Reuters about its use of virginiamycin. “I regret the wording mistake on that particular letter” on the website, said Mark Kaminsky, Koch’s chief financial officer. The company said it is required by the FDA to list certain drugs as growth promoters if they have that effect; Koch says it does not use them for that purpose.
Koch said it has no plans to discontinue the use of virginiamycin, which it says may be used to prevent a common intestinal infection in chicken.
KFC U.S. said in a statement: “KFC’s supply partners must adhere to our strict standards and specifications, which in some cases are more stringent than the FDA’s regulations.” A spokeswoman didn’t address detailed questions about antibiotic use by Koch Foods and KFC’s other chicken suppliers.
HEALTHIER CHICKENS?
The experience of one grower raises questions about whether preventive use of antibiotics has a meaningful effect on the health of chicken.
Craig Watts, who grows chicken for Perdue, says he sees little difference in outcomes for the birds he raises on feed containing an antibiotic and those he grows for the company’s antibiotic-free line.
Perdue mixes the antibiotic narasin into feed given to chickens in the company’s antibiotic-fed line. Its antibiotic-free line contains antimicrobial drugs that kill micro-organisms, but none that the FDA defines as an antibiotic, according to Perdue feed tickets shown by Watts. None of the drugs listed by Perdue on the feed tickets is considered medically important for humans.
Watts owns C&A Farms, about 20 miles north of Dillon, South Carolina. Since 2012, he has raised five antibiotic-free flocks for Perdue and seven flocks that received low doses of the antibiotic narasin, according to his records.
The mortality rates of the two flock types were nearly identical. About 900 birds died, per house, on the four-house farm. Flocks that received antibiotics and those that didn’t both hit Perdue’s target weight of about 4.25 pounds per bird.
Perdue sees “similar” performance among birds fed antibiotics and those that do not receive the drugs, said Stewart-Brown, the Perdue official overseeing food safety. “We feel our current two approaches are both very responsive to public health concerns about antibiotic use in poultry.”
Perdue still uses antibiotics in some cases, because antibiotic-free flocks are “more expensive to run and more difficult to manage effectively,” Stewart-Brown said. The production complex served by Watts’ farm recently transitioned to all antibiotic-free flocks.
TRACKING AN OUTBREAK
One poultry giant whose antibiotic use has come into question is Foster Farms, based in Livingston, California. Its experience shows the difficulty of pinpointing when and how a bacteria turns into a superbug, say federal investigators.
Beginning last year, a salmonella outbreak spread across Oregon, Washington, California and 27 other states and territories. Federal investigators later linked the outbreak to chickens raised by Foster Farms and processed at a trio of its slaughterhouses in central California, according to USDA and CDC officials.
The scope of the outbreak reflected Foster Farms’ vast scale. Its operations in California’s Central Valley date to 1939, when Max and Verda Foster borrowed $1,000 against a life insurance policy and invested in an 80-acre farm.
Today, Foster owns large tracts of California farmland, chicken hatcheries in Colorado and train cars that haul grain from the Midwest. An estimated one of 10 chickens eaten in the United States is hatched, raised and slaughtered by Foster Farms, according to industry officials. The company dominates the chicken market west of the Rocky Mountains.
As the CDC studied what investigators informally called the “Foster Farms Outbreak,” researchers soon made a troubling discovery. Some of the Salmonella Heidelberg strains linked to Foster products proved resistant to a variety of antibiotics, the CDC concluded. Some of those drugs belonged to the same classes as penicillin and chlortetracycline, or CTC.
Some questions remain. Government investigators didn’t determine how the Salmonella Heidelberg traced to Foster Farms became resistant to antibiotics, and didn’t trace the resistant bacteria to specific farms. They didn’t examine Foster feed tickets from the outbreak period to see which antibiotics the company was using and how the drugs were being administered.
Reuters asked to see Foster Farms’ feed tickets from that period; the company didn’t respond to that request.
Foster Farms said it commissioned research that yielded findings very different from the CDC’s. The company declined to share the study. It summarized the research by saying scientists found no antibiotic resistance in two dozen salmonella samples collected from Foster Farms in 2012.
A CDC spokeswoman said the agency is aware that Foster Farms sponsored a study and has asked to review it, but hasn’t received a copy.
“BIOLOGY AT WORK”
Foster Farms told Reuters it has administered CTC and penicillin at times, but selectively, not as part of standard feed. Foster said it had used CTC “as needed” to fight bacterial infections. It declined to say where or when it administered CTC. The company said it still uses penicillin to treat sick birds, but only “in critical situations when flocks are exposed to fatal diseases.” Foster doesn’t use antibiotics as growth promoters, it said.
CDC official Robert Tauxe helped investigate the outbreak. “Use of chlortetracycline could have contributed to the resistance patterns we saw” in the Salmonella Heidelberg, said Tauxe. “Penicillin, too.”
On July 11, the CDC said the Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak had ended. The USDA said it is monitoring the company’s new salmonella-prevention efforts. Agency officials and Foster’s chief veterinarian, Bob O’Connor, said the measures are working.
The company has reduced salmonella-infection rates on chicken meat from its California facilities to less than 3 percent, O’Connor said, far below the national average of 25 percent.
Despite the gains, O’Connor said the challenge of eradicating salmonella in the chicken industry remains. “For the people who wanted a silver-bullet-type story, there isn’t one,” O’Connor said. “With salmonella, we’re not going to be able to say, ‘It’s over.’”
David Acheson, a former senior medical officer for the USDA and the FDA, now serves on a food safety advisory board for Foster Farms. He said the board never examined Foster’s use of antibiotics and whether its practices could have spawned superbugs.
“Does anyone know that it happened? No. Is it possible? Could it have happened? Yes,” Acheson said. “We know that antibiotic use, irrelevant of what you are treating, whether it be human or animal, can increase the likelihood of resistance. It’s biology at work.” (Reporting by Brian Grow in Atlanta and Fairmont, North Carolina and P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago and Livingston, California. Additional reporting by Michael Erman and Eric Johnson. Edited by David Greising and Blake Morrison.)
Now you can not know what you are not being informed about. It is becoming more and more important to know who is supplying your family food. To have a relationship and know the supply chain and the transparency in delivering food the food to your table is the only way to keep your food safe and healthy.
FROM FOOD SAFETY NEWS:
BY NEWS DESK | JUNE 13, 2017
Food & Water Watch has filed suit against the USDA because the agency will not release the names of companies that have applied to switch to a voluntary program that allows for non-government poultry inspections.
A USDA poultry inspector checks carcasses as the production line moves. Photo courtesy of USDA
In its complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., the watchdog group refers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “New Poultry Inspection System” (NPIS) as a privatization deal.
Food & Water Watch contends the system results in government inspectors “evaluating up to three birds per second in broiler chicken plants, and one turkey per second in turkey slaughter facilities.”
The activist group was last in federal court in 2015 over the USDA’s New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) when their challenge was tossed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She found the group and two of its members, who she said were advancing a”myopic view” over “sheer speculation that bad things might happen,” were without standing.
As of Monday, the USDA had not filed a response to the latest federal court complaint.
Since October 2014 the nonprofit group has been asking USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to release the names of companies that applied to participate in the new inspection procedure.
“Consumers deserve to know if the meat they’re serving their families is mostly inspected by the companies themselves. If these facilities are really more effective at ensuring that food doesn’t contain deadly contaminants, then what is USDA and FSIS hiding,” asked Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, in a news release about the federal court action.
USDA poultry inspectors use a variety of tests to gauge the effectiveness of food safety measures. Photo courtesy of FDA
“If USDA wants to claim that NPIS is on track to prevent thousands of cases of foodborne illness a year, as it estimated in 2014, it should easily be able provide such an evaluation. But the agency won’t even tell us which plants plan to join the program.”
The government won’t provide the names of the companies, which Food & Water Watch has requested through numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, because of protections built into federal law regarding “confidential corporate information.”
“(The requested) records consist solely of confidential future business plans that were submitted by the establishments,” USDA said in a response to Food & Water Watch.
The advocacy organization says in its legal complaint that it doesn’t want secret plans, rather, “only sought the identities of those companies that had begun operating or had requested permission to operate under the new system.”
In addition to expecting to annually prevent 5,000 foodborne illnesses from Salmonella and Campylobacter under the new inspection program, USDA officials have said the NPIS allows poultry companies to sort their own products for defects before printing the to FSIS for inspection.
USDA has said with the new system FSIS inspectors will be able to more frequently remove birds from the evisceration line for close examinations, take samples for testing, check plant sanitation, verify compliance with food safety plans and observe live birds for signs of disease or mishandling.
With the new inspection program rules, poultry companies must meet new requirements to prevent Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination, rather than addressing contamination after it occurs.
Also, all poultry facilities must perform their own microbiological testing at two points in their production process to show the two pathogens are being controlled. Those in-house tests are in addition to testing by FSIS.
8.8 billion chickens are harvested each year in the US.
Over 1 million, by admission of the USDA miss the neck slicing knives on the assembly line and are boiled alive.
This violates the USDA's own laws for humane harvesting but they say nothing.
This is terrible and inhumane.
Premierfoodsgroup hand harvests our chickens. We do so in a humane manner. We only harvest 15 chickens per hour and we do it by hand so we know it is safe, humane and inspected by a person.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/usda-time-to-stop-the-chi_b_4855990.html
Premier Foods Group
The healthiest, safest, purest, most holistic Food in the US
This article reminds us that LOCAL is better than A LABEL !!!!!!
http://expand-your-consciousness.com/organic-food-from-china-found-to-be-highly-contaminated/?t=MAM
December 12, 2016
With more and more people learning about the importance of eating healthy and safe produce, consumer demand for all things “organic” has skyrocketed. In the US alone, annual organic food sales have grown by 20% and the increased demand is significantly outpacing domestic supplies, forcing many grocers and food vendors to look internationally to keep their businesses stocked. Most of these organic imports are grown in the European Union, where organic standards are weaker than those of the US. However, many of these “organic” products are from China, whose food industry standards for safety and quality are notoriously low. Much of this “organic” produce grown in China is so unsafe, that the farmers who grow it won’t eat it themselves. Isn’t that the whole point of choosing organic in the first place?
It turns out that much of the food labelled “organic” was never grown with the intention of being organic, but rather as a means to circumvent China’s reputation for substandard produce. US Customs personnel often reject entire shipments of food from China due to the addition of dangerous and unsavory additives, the presence of drug residues, mislabeling, or the poor hygienic state of the food. In an effort to get around these bulk rejections of food, some Chinese food exporters have taken to labeling their products “organic,” especially those foods that appear dirty or unusual. In addition, the “organic” label in China has no meaning as collusion between the government and manufacturers has led to rampant mislabeling, and China’s government has no established system for determining what is or is not organic.
Even if “organically grown” food from China was in fact that, the quality of the water used in the production of food intended for export is so contaminated that a person could fall ill just by handling it. Much of China’s industrial-scale agriculture is found along the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers, both of which are extremely polluted. This is because thousands upon thousands of Chinese factories also line these same rivers, adding their chemical waste to the same water used to irrigate the country’s food supply. In one such recent case, a chemical fertilizer plant dumped such excessive amounts of ammonia into the Fu river, a tributary of the Yangtze river, that an estimated 110 tons of dead fish had to be removed. However, the ammonia-laden river continued to be used for industrial and agricultural use.
Other chemicals and heavy metals have been found in very high and unsafe amounts in these rivers, as well as the food produced with that water. Perchlorate, a precursor to rocket fuel, has been found in China’s sewage as well as its rice, bottled drinking water, and milk. It is throughout the entire water supply and contaminate any would-be organic produce. Perchlorate is an endocrine-disruptor and is also toxic. It can cause improper regulation of the metabolism, thyroid problems, as well as developmental problems in children and infants. Does that sound healthy and organic? Obviously not. Luckily, some of China’s “organic” products are more likely to be contaminated than others. Fish, chicken, apples, rice, mushrooms, green peas, black pepper, and garlic were found to be the most contaminated foods from China and are to be avoided. As always, the only way to be completely sure that your food is free of chemicals and additives is to grow it yourself. Vegetable gardens can fit in even the smallest of spaces, are attractive, help local insects (including bees), and can provide you and your family with delicious food that is completely safe.
This article, by Whitney Webb, (“Organic” Food From China Found To Be Highly Contaminated) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com. Dead fish being removed after a fertilizer factory dumped huge amounts of ammonia into the Fu river Credit – NYT
There are several aspects that are important to the safety and quality of the food that you serve to your family.
1. The way the animal is fed. This aspect determines what is in the meat you and your family consume. Does it have hormones, steroids, antibiotics etc in your meat.
2. The way the animal is harvested and processed. This determines how safe the food is from contamination.
3. Where the animal is raised, harvested and processed. Local is ALWAYS better. The closer to the source the better, healthier, safer and more accountable you can hold those in your families food chain.
By Rachel J. Johnson and Amy D. Hagerman USDA January 19, 2012 | 2:16 pm EST
U.S. beef imports from Mexico have at least doubled in each of the last 2 years, continuing an upward trend that began in 2003 (fig. 1). The impetus for the increased imports is beef from Mexican Tipo Inspección Federal (TIF) plants and increased production of grain-fed beef, the quality and type of beef U.S. consumers prefer. The increase in coarse grain domestic feed use in Mexico, in addition to increased exports of U.S. feed and distillers’ grains, is evidence of the shift toward fed beef in Mexico.
Beef imports from Mexico in 2010 totaled 107 million pounds, making Mexico the fifth largest exporter of beef to the United States. Through November 2011, imports of beef from Mexico increased by 46 percent over the same period in 2010. The majority of beef imported by the United States from all sources is processing beef, which is mixed with trim for grinding in the United States. Over the last 10 years, on average over 86 percent of beef imports to the United States have been boneless, fresh, or frozen meat cuts, much of which is used in processing. This category of imports has increased from Mexico—by nearly 88 percent in 2010—but is paralleled by increasing imports of bone-in beef cuts as well. Of the bone-in beef cuts imported to the United States in 2010, which excluded processed fresh beef, nearly 42 percent were supplied by Mexico. However, it is notable that beef imports from Mexico still serve a very small portion of overall US beef consumption.
There are two reasons for the increasing exports of Mexican beef to the United States: (1) an increase in the number of TIF plants in Mexico (federally inspected slaughter plants meeting standards similar to those in the United States), and (2) an increase in production of grain-fed beef in Mexico, the quality of beef that most often meets the tastes and preferences of U.S. consumers. For meat to be moved across State borders in Mexico or to be exported to the United States, it must be inspected at the Federal level. When the Mexican inspection program began 60 years ago, 15 TIF establishments were operational; that number has grown to 365 TIF plants in 27 States in Mexico, rising almost exponentially in the past few years. In 2010, 75 TIF slaughter establishments were certified, including some preexisting facilities that were converted to adhere to TIF standards. These efforts are being driven by initiatives in Mexico to produce higher quality meat products, become more competitive in the global marketplace, and capture gains from exports. The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) announced this year that another 100 active slaughter establishments will become certified TIF plants (http://www.sagarpa.gob.mx/saladeprensa/boletines2/Paginas/2011B600.aspx). Through October 2011, Mexico exported beef products valued at $452 million, with 60 percent of that earned from beef sent to the United States.
The increase in TIF plants has resulted in an increase in boxed beef and higher quality, exportable beef cuts. Since TIF plant production of boxed beef is increasing as it replaces traditional hot-carcass (with viscera) marketing on a value basis, not only is there a greater supply of the primal and sub-primal cuts that are in greater demand by U.S. consumers compared with Mexican consumers— such as tenderloin (filete), loin (lomo), sirloin (aguayón), ribs (costillas), and short ribs (agujas cortas), for example—but there is more trim available for processing. Trim is also in greater demand in the United States relative to the Mexican market, where beef from culled animals is not ground but is consumed as muscle cuts. Mexican consumers tend to prefer the leaner cuts of beef, such as the chuck and round, with little or no marbling, since the traditional grass-fed beef production system in Mexico produces leaner beef.
Although Mexican consumers still prefer traditional cuts and processing methods, changing preferences in certain areas have resulted in growing demand in Mexico for the flavor and other attributes of grain-fed beef. As a result, increasing numbers of cattle are being fed through semi-intensive and intensive feedlot operations (table 1). One limitation to Mexico’s beef production is forage availability, but with greater numbers of cattle finished in the feedlot rather than on pastures, more forage resources are being released for cow-calf production This, in turn, will allow for greater total beef production in Mexico. Grain-fed beef is still produced in a somewhat less intensive system compared with U.S. feedlot production—feeding periods are shorter and carcasses are considerably leaner, with little or no marbling—but this is still a significant shift from the traditionally grass-fed beef production systems where animals have yellow fat and are often 3-4 years old at slaughter.
In addition, feed consumption of coarse grains in Mexico has trended up over the last couple of decades, supporting the expanding Mexican beef production and feedlot industry (fig. 2). The increase in dried distillers’ grains (DDGs) exported to Mexico in recent years (fig. 3) has also supported the increase in Mexican cattle feeding.
An increase in TIF processing capacity, changes in beef demand in Mexico and the increase in Mexican grain-fed cattle for slaughter are resulting in a greater supply of beef available and of interest to the U.S. import market. The Mexican beef industry continues to improve infrastructure and marketing channels but still faces challenges in competing for inputs, feed sources, and forage and land availability from domestic crop production. Mexico has the potential to keep growing as a supplier of beef to the United States as the changes in demand, cattle feeding, and slaughter in recent years are sustained.
By Erin Elizabeth -
July 13, 2015
Scores of Americans are in an uproar since Food Safety News revealed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will soon allow U.S. chickens to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption.This arrangement is especially disturbing given China’s subpar food safety record and the fact that there are no plans to station on-site USDA inspectors at Chinese plants.
Also, American consumers won’t know which brands of chicken are processed in China because there’s no requirement to label it as such.
To ease concerns, lobbyists and chicken industry proponents argue no U.S. company will ever ship chicken to China for processing because it wouldn’t work economically.
“Economically, it doesn’t make much sense,” said Tom Super, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, in a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle. “Think about it: A Chinese company would have to purchase frozen chicken in the U.S., pay to ship it 7,000 miles, unload it, transport it to a processing plant, unpack it, cut it up, process/cook it, freeze it, repack it, transport it back to a port, then ship it another 7,000 miles. I don’t know how anyone could make a profit doing that.”
Yet, a similar process is already being used for U.S. seafood.
According to the Seattle Times, domestically caught Pacific salmon and Dungeness crab are being processed in China and shipped back to the U.S. because of significant cost savings.
“There are 36 pin bones in a salmon and the best way to remove them is by hand,” said Charles Bundrant, founder of Trident, which ships about 30 million pounds of its 1.2 billion-pound annual harvest to China for processing. “Something that would cost us $1 per pound labor here, they get it done for 20 cents in China.”
Low Pay, Poor Safety Record
Bureau of Labor Statistics data estimates that American poultry processors are paid roughly $11 per hour on average. In China, reports have circulated that the country’s chicken workers can earn significantly less—$1 to 2 per hour—which casts doubt on Super’s economic feasibility assessment.
China’s food safety system, which is said to be decades behind America’s, is highly questionable given some of the more recent food safety scandals that have surfaced in the country:
Food Safety News aims to spread awareness of the pending USDA agreement and stop Chinese-processed chicken from ever reaching supermarkets or school lunchrooms.
Posted on April 13, 2013 by Rita Klavinski, Michigan State University Extension
Having the option to purchase locally grown food has many benefits. Michigan State University Extension suggests the following benefits of buying locally grown food.
As the growing season starts and gets into full swing, you should think about how you can add more locally grown foods to your menus. By doing so you are supporting the many benefits of locally grown food.
MSU Extension has educators working across Michigan who provide community food systems educational programming and assistance. For more information, you can contact an educator by conducting a search with MSU Extension’s Find an Expertsearch tool and using the keywords, “community food systems.”
This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu.
INGREDIENTS:
1 Premier Foods Group pork tenderloins (2–2.5 lbs)
6 garlic cloves, sliced in half lengthwise
1/4 c soy sauce
2 tbsp Dijon mustard
4 tbsp honey
2 tbsp orange juice
1 tsp pepper
3 tbsp olive oil
To Prepare:
This is a Filet Mignon and Shrimp, surf and turf, dinner prepared for a charity dinner by Chef Abby in Moorseville, NC and donated by Premier Foods Group.
The charlty dinner was for the Pinky Swear Foundation, a childhood cancer assistance organization. Please visit their website below, learn more about them and donate. We donate to this very important, worthwhile and great charity.
https://www.pinkyswear.org/
If you would like, visit our website:
http://www.premierfoodsgroup.com
and get a free sample from us. Put Pinky Swear in the offer code and we will donate 10% of your order directly to Pinky Swear.
Prep 30 minutes
Cook 15 minutes
Ready In approximately 6 hours ( Marinate over night is the BEST !!!!!!!! )
Place meat on the prepared grill. Cook for 3 to 7 minutes per side, or to desired doneness. Medium Rare is the best way to serve this cut of meat. The more done this cut the tougher and more dry the London Broil will become.
To serve...... Let rest for 10 minutes then Slice to 1/2 inch thickness. A dab of Blue Cheese Butter on top makes this even better.
Go to www.premierfoodsgroup,com to purchase this grassfed beef.
Local Food, Grass Fed Beef, better than Organic Chicken, Heritage Pork and Local Seafood delivered directly to your home.
We are the rancher and the butcher.
Charlotte, North Carolina , South Carolina , Virginia , Tennessee.
USDA inspected
Design by Framework Studios © 2015 Premier Foods Group
Registered Trademark ® 2015, Premier Foods Group, All rights reserved.
