Food production currently is safer than it was in the 1990’s because of more research and the governments involvement. Current food production has more rules into what farmers are allowed to do, but in the 1990’s there was less involvement by the government into the safety of how food was produced and cared for. There was also less information present to the public about the effects of genetic modification and of the problems caused by mass food production.  Now, there is more information available to the public about what goes into the products that we use and more research into how that affects consumers, because it is required for farmers to state when they use hormones in their meat and the government is also more involved to ensure that the products that are put out into the public are safe for consumption. 

Food production in the 1990’s could be considered less safe than currently because in the 1990’s they were just beginning to use larger farms for food production and there was more of a chance of people getting sick from this manufactured food.  Sanders said that “Technological inputs into farming have increased the efficiency of food production.  However, inappropriate animal feeding practices and the use of agrochemicals may pose hazards to human health.”, since there was less research into the safety of how certain chemicals would affect the public if consumed.  “Foodborne exposure to agricultural and environmental chemicals results in much public concern in the United Kingdom.” (Sanders 1691).  Many of the concerns with mass food production in the 1900’s was related to lack of information being available to the public.  “Despite this, it can be difficult for anyone not directly involved to know how to obtain hard facts.”  (Jones 581).  This is a problem, because it meant people that were intaking foods that were mass produced did not know a lot about what they were intaking and if they wanted to know how the meat was processed they would have had to either find a local supplier who they knew or buy their own animals to raise and care for to eat.

The government currently is more involved in the production of food then it used to be to insure safety to consumers.  “Economic Research Services (ERS) tracks animal health and welfare issues as they relate to food safety and the production and availability of animals for processing into meat” (Animal Care & Food Safety).  The USDA also tracks drugs that are used in animals, “Feeding low levels of antimicrobial drugs to livestock can affect food safety, human health, and livestock production costs and returns.” (Animal Care & Food Safety).  Since the USDA keeps close tabs on what drugs are put into livestock and know how these drugs affect humans to help insure that the food put out into public is not going to have any negative effects on humans.  It is important that the government is involved in food production, because it helps to mandate what farmers are allowed to do.

  One of the arguments against food safety is that regular freezers and even store freezers do not get cold enough to properly store fish.  To properly store fish the freezer that they are contained in needs to be keep below 40 F.  There is also a limited time that you should keep current types of fish depending on whether they were frozen or bought fresh.  For finfish that are bought fresh it is thought that you should only keep them for up to 2 days, for shellfish however it varies depending on the type (Seafood Health).  Also, when buying seafood, it is thought to be important to get the seafood last and to bring a cooler so that it can be immediately covered with ice for transportation (Seafood Health).  This is to try to keep the seafood from getting hot and going bad during transportation and to ensure that no parasites start to grow on the seafood. This is also why it is thought that seafood is not safe, because fishers go out for days at a time and catch fish leading to a risk of improper storage and the inability to ensure that no parasites are being put out into the community by this seafood. 

In the book by Nora Soares wrote it has a compiled list of forms and guidelines that fishers must fill out and meet to distribute their seafood to the public.  In the book food safety is defined as, “the assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/or eaten…” (Soares).  This quote gives an idea to the reader as to what the author means when she says “food safety” and that is important because it keeps confusion amongst the reader and writer at a minimum.  This book also has examples towards that back of what forms fishers must fill out and gives the reader an idea of how safety in the fishing business is maintained to ensure that consumers are not intaking food that has been improperly handled.  This shows readers who have concerns about how their food was cared for and handled, they can always look up the forms that the particular fisher filled out and use this book as a reference as to which forms are the most important to them.  This also means that if a fisher were to not fill out these forms and still put their seafood out into the public then they would be at liability for someone getting sick or would be in trouble if the government asked to see the forms.  

 It tends to be a common belief that there is not a lot of regulation and research into how hormones used in animals affect the consumer and that using replacement hormones such as Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin  (RBsT) causes an increased chance of the cow getting mastitis.  Mastitis is an inflammatory reaction of the udder tissue and is relatively common amongst dairy cows (Mastitis).  It is also believed that RBsT and other hormones can cause issues for individuals who intake the meat that was treated with these hormones.  In the article “Keeping Hormones and Antibiotics off the Menu”, the author says that hormones such as Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormones (rBGH) causes utter infections in the cattle.  It is also believed that hormones such as rBGH can cause different forms of cancer.  It is also a concern from some that since people believe RBsT causes mastitis the cattle that are given RBsT they will be given more antibiotics to treat the mastitis.

Mastitis however has not been proven to be caused by RBsT since cattle that are not on RBst are also likely to catch mastitis. According to the government of Alberta “Mastitis can occur at any stage of lactation”, this is important to know because it shows that even without the use of RBsT cattle can still get mastitis if they are lactating. The American Cancer Society wrote that recent studies have found less of a relationship between people’s insulin-like growth factor and the risk of cancer. In the article that Felicia Stoler wrote about the hormones used in cows, she addresses some of the common concerns associated with using hormones in cows and how these hormones are regulated to ensure that they do not affect the people consuming the cow meat or the product of the cows, such as milk and cheese.  One of these hormones is Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (RbST), this is a synthetic form of bovine somatotropin (Stoler).  Bovine somatotropin is a natural occurring protein in milk and it is believed that using RbST would cause an increased chance of getting mastitis.  This however is not true because mastitis occurs within the first 30-60 says which is before they would begin to use RbST (Stoler).  People also tend to worry about antibiotics used in cows being spread to them through milk, but Stoler’s article says that in cows much like humans they pump and dump if the animal is on any type of antibiotic. This shows that even though there are hormones used in cow’s, dairy farmers are using ones to help replace the naturally occurring ones if an animal does not produce that hormone and that they do insure that the consumers are in no way going to be harmed by the hormones that they use for the cows.   

Another argument against food safety is that there are now added hormones into animals, such as cows.  These hormones are typically believed to have caused the recent increased rate of cancer and the increase in early onset puberty amongst adolescents.  Many parents tend to believe that there has been such an increase in earlier puberty rates because of the hormones used in foods and therefore tend to try to find more organic foods to feed their children.  It is also typically believed amongst people that antibiotics used in dairy cows are spread to humans through milk causing them to have a higher resistance to antibiotics.  In the article from Healthy Child it says that when tested different forms of meat all tested positive for at least one form of antibiotic-resistant super bacteria.  This article is directed at parents and the desire of parents to ensure that their children are eating foods that are good for them and that will not negatively impact their lives later on.

Stoler’s also points out that the American Cancer Society said that the increasing cancer risk and earlier onset puberty has not ties to the hormones used in dairy and is instead because of nutrition and health.  This shows that while many parents are concerned that children are hitting puberty earlier and that cancer rates are rising, it is actually because of a higher rate of childhood obesity and because of improper nutrition that these rates have increased.  Since the 1990’s there less foods are locally grown and because of this change in how foods are produced there are suspicions that it is because of larger farms that children start puberty earlier and that cancer rates have risen.  In reality, however children have begun to eat more processed and artificially made foods in larger quantities causing them to have a higher chance of having childhood obesity which has been proven to lead to earlier puberty.  

Food could be considered safer than it was in the 1990’s because of more research and more testing.   In the 1990’s there were articles published about how with mass production and larger facilities for food production meant there would be an increase in the chance of toxins getting put into foods.  There is also a lot of articles out that try to appeal to parents by saying how certain chemicals are bad for children and have a negative impact on the child, such as earlier onset puberty.  When through research it has been decided that the reason for earlier onset puberty is because of changes in nutrition.  Children currently are permitted eat larger quantities of foods that are not good for them and that have little to no good qualities to them.  It is also due to the increase in the allowance of children to eat just larger portions in general causing adolescent obesity which is also linked to earlier onset puberty rates.
