By Amy Radding
In March, a bill in the Maryland legislature that would have banned the use of arsenic in chicken feed was killed . Since the introduction of the bill in February, a public controversy arose over this little-known but widespread poultry industry practice. The months of debate, culminating in the death of the bill, force us to closely question what goes into the food that we eat and what we can do to make our food system better.
Why is there arsenic in chicken feed?
In 1944, the Food and Drug Administration approved roxarsone, an arsenic-containing organic compound, for use in chicken feed. This metallic element, a powerful poison, is used “for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and improved pigmentation” and “as an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis a parasitic infestation". These broadly worded designations that allow for widespread use. Indeed, the routine practice of industrial poultry producers is to dose chicken feed with roxarsone and other pharmaceuticals in order to get as much meat as possible as quickly as possible from each bird.
Who uses roxarsone and why?
Many American poultry producers, in Maryland and across the country, use roxarsone and have done so for decades. It has become common practice to use roxarsone and other chemical and pharmaceutical additives in order to cheaply and quickly produce commodity chicken, since these additives promote maximum growth in minimum time and with minimum inputs. Given this history, many producers rely on the fast growth sped by feed additives in order to maintain their profit margin in the face of all the other producers of identical supermarket chicken using the same chemicals. Thus, the practice persists.
What happens to the arsenic?
Much of the roxarsone fed to chickens passes into chicken waste, which is then spread to the environment in the form of fertilizer, compost, cattle feed, and incinerated waste. The arsenic in this waste can then contaminate water, air, and soil.
The arsenic that doesn’t make its way into the environment accumulates in chickens’ muscles. When people eat these chickens, they consume arsenic. The poultry industry maintains that use of roxarsone is safe for humans because the arsenic in roxarsone is in a different chemical form from the type shown to cause cancer; however, it can convert to this more dangerous form both inside chickens and inside people. Though there is no direct evidence linking the arsenic specifically from poultry to human disease, research has shown that exposure to arsenic in humans causes cancer and may contribute to other health problems including high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and impaired intellectual function.
What is the problem?
Given that arsenic is a known carcinogen and can be dangerous even at low levels, all possible steps should be taken to limit exposure. The use of arsenic in poultry production unnecessarily risks human health. Not every American poultry producer uses arsenic, and the practice is banned in the European Union, demonstrating that, even though some producers depend on it, roxarsone is not necessary to raise chickens. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to tell from the label of supermarket chicken, be it conventional, kosher, “all-natural,” or “free range,” whether or not roxarsone was added to the chicken’s feed. Only poultry that is specified as raised on additive-free feed or is certified organic can be counted on to be arsenic-free.
Where do we go from here?
The death of the Maryland ban, despite its support by environmental groups and concerned individuals, is a sobering call to question the ensconced meat industry and its power in government. Indeed, the environmental committee in which the bill had originated killed the bill before it could reach a vote, saying that more studies about were needed despite clear evidence showing the dangers of arsenic-containing additives. In the words of a Maryland lawmaker, “[banning arsenic-containing additives] is an issue that makes sense to ten out of ten people,”, and yet, common sense was not enough to ban an irresponsible practice over the protests of a powerful poultry industry and the constraints of our current food system.
By raising awareness about this issue, popular opinion against roxarsone use could lead more states to propose bans and put crucial support behind those initiatives. Public opinion could also pressure poultry companies to stop using a compound that has dubious benefits and well-known costs.
Additionally, policy interventions could be undertaken to help wean the poultry industry off its dependence on roxarsone and similar chemicals. Taxes or subsidies could be introduced to favor producers that do not use these additives and compensate for the additional costs incurred. Labeling law could also be changed in order to force producers to tell customers more about the chemicals they do or don’t use by writing it on their labels, allowing buyers to choose which practices they want to support and allowing producers to charge a little more for a markedly different, feed-additive-free product.
Pushing for change
Unfortunately, the roxarsone issue just scratches the surface of ethical, environmental, and health-related problems associated with industrially raised meat. Industrially produced chickens today come from factory farms where chemical and pharmaceutical food additives, including roxarsone, are the norm. Taking a closer look at practices involved in the production of industrial meat raises the question of whether we can be doing more to reach for higher standards that align with both common values and common sense.
My own questioning of industrial meat practices has led me to intern with KOL Foods, a company that provides kosher meat produced in an ethical, health-protective, and environmentally-friendly way. KOL Foods works with poultry farmers that raise chickens in pastures, eating grass, bugs, and additive-free feed, producing poultry that is healthier, environmentally friendlier, and tastier than the industrial standard. By bringing producers and customers closer together, KOL Foods promotes transparency and good practices in farming. Alternatives to industrial poultry production, like those provided by KOL Foods, begin to break industry’s hold on our food system and offer opportunities for future change.
Our food choices have power to shape a more ethical and healthier world. We can write off the Maryland bill’s failure as evidence of the food industry’s unshakable hold on our diets, or we can take it as a challenge to reclaim power over our own foods. By carefully considering what practices we support on our dinner tables and by raising awareness about practices we choose not to accept, we can change our food system for the better.
*Amy Radding is an intern at KOL Foods and a senior at Yale University, where she is studying as much as she can about sustainable food. She prefers her arsenic-free, kosher, pasture-raised chicken spatchcocked and pan-roasted with lemon and rosemary.*
