How Food Affects the Environment

Avian Flu

Today I will address Avian Flu. I’ve been following the saga for a while but was hesitant to write on the subject because of the vast array of talking points, narratives, and propaganda surrounding it. The waters around this subject are so muddied it’s really difficult to discern what is true and what isn’t, but I’ll present my views for what they’re worth and am willing to stand corrected if someone can show where I’m wrong. Join me in visiting some of the official talking points and I’ll address where I see holes in the narrative. Again, this is my opinion presented as factually as I know how, but some of it is theory and cannot be taken as hard fact. That’s the very problem with subjects of this caliber. They become so highly controversial because of the lack of actual fact, which opens it up to so much nonsensical gibberish and fearmongering that’s it becomes difficult to discuss it with a clear and open mind. The Wild Bird Origin Narrative – The official storyline surrounding avian flu—both the low pathogen strain first circulated 20-25 years ago, and the high-path strain circulating now is that it originates in wild waterfowl (ducks, geese, etc.). To me that sounds highly unlikely. Whenever the narrative places blame on wildlife or nature, I become skeptical, especially coming from conventional confinement agricultural circles, which is the antithesis to nature. My question is, where are the media images and records of dead wild birds. If wild birds are carriers bringing the virus to confinement poultry farms, it’s only reasonable that a considerable percentage of wild birds are dying as well. Interestingly, blaming wild birds fits well with the long-standing concern of biosecurity in confinement poultry production. Biosecurity is a real threat to large-scale confinement chicken facilities, due to the immune suppressing nature of raising so many birds in confinement—not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones, which flies in the face of all things natural and healthy. Suffice it to say that we raise thousands of chickens on our farm pastures, and we spend no brain energy thinking about biosecurity or worrying about wild birds potentially having access to our poultry. The Natural Virus Narrative– This one is highly controversial, but I’ll address it anyway. Avian Influenza—even high-path avian flu—is claimed to be a natural virus that is both highly infectious and highly transmissible. To my knowledge, that would be an anomaly. In nature, viruses are either one or the other. They either wreak havoc to whomever or whatever contracts it, and are not very contagious, or they are highly contagious but not lethal. I won’t theorize too much about this, but it’s known that avian flu viruses have been subject to gain-of-function research for at least a decade, both in the US and abroad. Let me be clear, I’m not saying this is a gain-of-function virus, because I don’t know that to be true. In my mind, though, it’s highly probable. The Cross Speciation Narrative – This is closely related to the previous paragraph but warrants attention of its own. This high-path avian flu is said to have the ability to jump from chickens to cats to cows to humans. As strange as that may sound, I didn’t make it up. Quite frankly, I don’t believe natural pathogens have the ability to cross speciate. It’s one of the checks and balances of nature where pathogens and parasites are specific to one type of host and do not thrive in a different host. Yes, there’s the storyline from the early 20th century of brucellosis (also known as undulant fever) jumping species from cows to humans via raw milk, but that story too, has its highly questionable characteristics. I don’t know enough about it to get into it, but believe it was used as a lever used to push mandatory pasteurization. I’m not saying the high-path H1N1 avian flu is not actually jumping species. I only know that it’s the official narrative and find it highly unlikely that it’s a natural pathogen and has the ability to cross speciate. To me, it’s either not a natural virus or does not jump species. I believe it must be either/or. The PCR Test Protocol – Yes, the infamous PCR test is being used to diagnose avian flu. This test is the primary tool used to discover bird flu in milk tanks, dairy herds, live chickens, dead chickens, farm cats, and humans. Even the founder of the PCR test, the late Dr. Kary Mullis, was clear that it’s not designed to be used as a diagnostics tool. It was developed for genetic discoveries and research, not for finding disease DNA. I’m sure people smarter than I can tease out these differences but suffice it to say it's the wrong tool. Even if it were the right tool, it's being applied incorrectly. Each cycle is like a microscope amplification. Remember turning microscope lenses from 35X to 100X? Each cycle of a PCR test amplifies magnification to find additional material floating in the sample. The Massachusetts Department of Agriculture discounts any test at more than 30 cycles. To me, this is wise and implies recognition of the distinctions of this particular test. Meanwhile, the official USDA and FDA number of cycles is 45. The PCR test at 45 cycles is labeled fraudulent by a healthy contingent of scientists. At that magnification, you can find bird flu almost anywhere. The nuance to this is, the greater the amplification, the more minute the particles detected. Any reasonable person knows our biological spaces are literally filled with floating molecular material. Pieces of cells, pieces of DNA, you name it, float in the air around us, in our bodies, in our nasal passages—accumulated from everything, everyone, and everywhere. To me, the fact that the infamous PCR test is being used for diagnosis of this flu supersedes every other angle of the discussion. I’m not doubting that the virus exists, or even that it affects poultry in the ways it is said to. But I am questioning whether we should be using this test at varying cycles to determine where it exists. The Extermination Protocol - Now we get into response when the virus is found, which as of now is still complete extermination of the flock in which one positive test is found. Yes, in a 50,000-bird factory chicken barn, one positive test is enough to warrant destroying the whole flock. Healthy birds, sick birds, no difference. All are exterminated. This flies in the face of everything we have ever known about natural immunity and genetic selection. In any given disease outbreak, there will always be individuals who gain natural immunity early. During Covid, there were people who were directly exposed to infected patients who never showed signs of illness (the notorious symptomatic vs. asymptomatic debate). The same applies in a flock of chickens or a herd of cows. Sound genetic selection always suggests that those not affected by a disease or ailment should be kept for breeding in order to build a resilient herd or flock. This is such a basic animal genetic principle it's not even debatable. And yet USDA scientific protocol is "kill the healthy ones." Wouldn't you want to save them to build a resilient flock? Even with these aggressive extermination efforts, the virus keeps spreading, which in my opinion calls for different measures. When something is obviously not working sane people reconsider. Especially if it involves taxpayer funded mass destruction of a resource, which chicken extermination certainly is. The 10-Mile Radius Protocol - Speaking of spreading, the oft-repeated narrative of “the virus is everywhere and spreads on the wind” is ongoing. I don’t know if it does or not, but if there’s one thing that sticks in my craw, it’s the 10-mile radius protocol. When a positive test is found in any given area, the official USDA or state department of agriculture protocol is to alert every known chicken farmer—regardless of the size of the operation—of it and recommend weekly testing. If the farmer or contract company complies, USDA technicians conduct weekly testing. In many cases where the farmer is merely providing housing and labor for a larger grower under contract, he does not have the wherewithal to refuse testing. Call me cynical of the government, but to me this is asking for trouble. I know farmers who strongly suggest that the virus was seeded by USDA employees, either unintentionally from their boots, clothing, or equipment, or intentionally. But you know, it spreads on the wind. Remember, these are usually special USDA veterinarians brought to the area as part of an avian flu task force. I try to err on the side of trusting people’s good intentions, but you can’t help but recognize that in some instances there are certain vested interests. Quite frankly, at Pasture to Fork we refuse testing, and plan to continue doing so even up to demanding search warrants if we’re pressured. This may sound completely off-the-rails rebellious and uncompliant to some, but our birds are healthy, they are outdoors, and I do not trust the USDA or PDA avian flu task force. The Official USDA Position – In the past week, the USDA addressed the bird flu and subsequent egg shortage in ways suggesting they are still on the same trajectory they’ve been on for decades, which is to say their first line of defense—aside from bio-security—is always vaccines. Or imports. For the record, vaccinating chickens is very different from vaccinating cows--giving millions of chickens a shot would be a logistical nightmare. As a result, the academic experts are hoping for a drinkable vaccine, which is merely in the discussion stage as of now. Who knows how far away that may be? Aside from the logistical challenges of vaccinating chicken, why does the agricultural community always turn to vaccines as a potential answer to these types of disease outbreaks? I believe it’s a worldview that develops from being in that system, where—because the production models tilt toward it—one begins to expect disease and pestilence to be a problem. Likewise, solutions are expected to come in a bottle or syringe. There’s very little thought going into how to cause the animals or plants to be healthier in order to resist whatever disease and pestilence comes along. Mischief, Conspiracies, or just things gone awry? … I could go on, but those talking points, protocols, and agency positions are what cause me to look at the current avian flu scenario with raised eyebrows. Like I mentioned at the outset, these subjects are so convoluted you can’t follow one thread without getting tangled in the jumble. With the USDA, state agencies, “experts”, conspiracy theorists, and pundits all weighing in, these issues quickly take on an aura of skullduggery and potential mischief. I want to believe everyone involved only wants what is best for the overall scenario from their unique worldview, which may differ from mine. But that becomes difficult to believe when counter-productive and anti-common-sense measures are resorted to. That said, I do not claim to know whether actual conspiracies exist here or not, and perhaps it’s not important to theorize to that end. At the end of the day, you and I have so little influence over large-scale agricultural policy and confinement factory farms that it barely merits further discussion. Are Truly Pasture Raised Flock at Risk? Research from alternative sources suggests that chickens living outdoors on grass are not affected by avian flu. I must say, this makes a lot of sense to me. I believe animals living in a natural production model who are not too crowded or stressed will have far more functional immune systems than their factory counterparts. Whenever a disease risk occurs, the first consideration should be whether anything can be done to mitigate the risk of infection naturally. And although we firmly believe in truly pasture raised poultry production, we have taken a comprehensive look at our systems in the past year. And I must say, we do not worry about the possibility of our flocks contracting avian flu. Sans the virus being introduced (which is why we avoid USDA testing), we’re not concerned about losing our flocks to this bird flu—or nervous that we indirectly infect cows, cats, or humans. I have always said the primary difference in our chicken (both egg layers and meat birds) is not merely the fact that they are outdoors. Rather, it hinges on five factors. They are fresh air, sunshine, exercise, fresh greens daily (moving to new grass), and low stress (flocks numbering 300 or less). May I point out, these five are the antithesis to the environment in confinement poultry housing. True, the entrenched chicken industry would pooh-pooh this, saying it’s not possible, practical, or efficient. Which behooves the question; is it practical, efficient, or humane to exterminate millions of chickens because of a broken production system that fosters illness? Or vaccinating millions of chickens? Or importing eggs? The Last Word – To wrap it up, I don’t pretend to know where this is going. In a sense it may be the market correcting itself—nature batting last for the abuse it has suffered. Eggs are one of the last remaining farm products that are unregulated, and smaller pasture raised producers are seeing a vast demand for eggs like we haven’t seen before. We—along with many other farms—had to limit eggs to x amount per customer this winter. If this is allowed to continue as a free market, I think this shortage will correct itself. Smaller farms will ramp up production, as we are. Many more homeowners will get backyard flocks or kitchen chickens, which I applaud. If we’re looking for healthy chickens to supply us with eggs and meat, smaller flocks managed in more of a chicken friendly manner is where we must look, and this is not likely to happen in the greater poultry industry. Thus, we must look to smaller farms and backyard flocks, and not imports, vaccines, or taxpayer funded extermination of survivors. And that’s the View from the Country.

Is Uninspected Food Safe?

If you've been to our website or farm store, you probably know we’ve chosen to circumvent governmental oversight rather than comply. If the state and county food oversight bureaucracies had their druthers, we would have a raw milk permit to sell raw milk, a licensed and inspected kitchen in which to make homemade canned goods, an inspected processing facility to process our pastured meat chickens, a retail food facility license in order to sell to you, and all our red meat would be processed in a USDA facility. Fortunately, we’ve been able to circumvent the food police to where they allow us to operate as a private farm who only caters directly to consumers (no restaurants, hotels, or retail stores). That said, our stance could be interpreted as careless, lackadaisical, or, depending on your view of governmental food oversight, straight-up foolish. But there are two sides to the coin. Here’s why we take the position we do: We, more than anyone, want a safe food system, but in our view, all of the above-named licenses and permits do not necessarily serve that cause. Rather, they incentivize centralization and corporate-scale food establishments. A centralized food system is by nature unsafe. It is unsafe food-safety-wise because far more animals and crops are amalgamated to central processing mega-facilities where, if you have a pathogen outbreak, it quickly spreads out of control. But it’s also unsafe nationally, because—as it now stands—if someone wanted to cripple America, they could, for example, destroy or disable 4-6 industrial meat plants and we would have meat shortages for at least eighteen months and a doubling of meat prices—similar to what we saw in the spring of 2020. At Pasture to Fork, we want a safe food system, but compared to the current food regulatory authorities, have a very different vision of how to get there. They vie for centralization, control, and a big-business conglomerate food supply. We advocate for decentralization, freedom, and small-scale direct-to-consumer food acquisition.We care passionately about food safety but just don’t think government inspectors looking at thousands of chickens whizzing down an industrial processing line makes the chicken any cleaner or safer. Or that having a Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture inspector come in once a year to measure freezer temperatures and eyeball our poultry processing room will help us to produce cleaner food.We’re more than willing to participate in a clean food system, if only the USDA or FDA were willing to set a threshold for what clean food is. We would love to submit our chicken for swabbing and compare it with chicken from the supermarket, if only they were to set a threshold (bacteria parts per million, or whatever). Please, just give me a threshold! We know we’ll far exceed it because to set a threshold would require a bar set low enough to allow industrialized processors to meet it. But the entrenched notion of food safety is whether or not one of USDA's own has seen the process, which we think is an illogical determination.Those of us who are small producers in a branded product take food safety very seriously, in part because we don’t have a bevy of Philadelphia attorneys on retainer to protect us from a bad food situation. We actually take it more seriously than the industry that has both the bureaucracy of inspectors and attorneys on retainer whose skirts they hide behind. For us, the direct relationship with the eater of our food creates a real-time daily audit, if you will. The direct connection with the people who actually use the food we produce invites direct blowback if the product is less than stellar. In the era of social media, we know producing an unacceptable product quickly smears our reputation when an unhappy customer posts it online. By catering to the end user, we make ourselves vulnerable, in a sense, but we welcome and desire that direct interaction.If we want people to exercise their discernment muscle to make better food decisions (yes, discernment is muscle that must be exercised just like your biceps or triceps) a direct relationship with the farmer or food producer is paramount in order to have a scenario in which to exercise discernment. In the supermarket setting—because everything has the official stamp already on it and the producer is a nameless faceless entity that may be thousands of miles away—that discernment muscle remains lethargic.If the only decision is whether or not it has the USDA blue check mark on it, there’s no decision going on. Because of this, society has become extremely ill-informed and lethargic in its ability to determine whether the food is any good or not, or whether it’s trustworthy or not. Nobody asks because government bureaucracy has essentially taken away the ability to weigh options, and it has not been for the betterment of food or society. As a nation, we no longer know how to actually vet our food and are at the mercy of a few bureaucrats making food decisions for us. I’m not saying direct-to-consumer producers want to pass the buck to the eater when bad food is produced, rather that if we depend on the government to tell us if our food is safe, we’re in a very precarious position due to the empirical nature of top-down regulation that is swayed by lobbying influence from the industry itself.If the goal is an educated savvy consumer, how do we get there? I suggest we get there by circumventing the plethora of federal and state regulations and allowing people the freedom to look around, sniff around, and ask around on real farms to see if they’re comfortable with what’s being offered. Food production should be aromatically and aesthetically pleasing, and even relatively uneducated people will quickly know whether or not what they’re seeing and sensing is pleasing or not. Let's be honest, the current plethora of regulation surrounding food production does nothing to improve the quality of the food aside from a supposed assurance of cleanliness. And even that is largely a myth when you look at where the biggest contaminated food breakouts occur, which is from the largest processors in the industry. Food regulation, for the most part, does not address antibiotics in animal agriculture, or GMO's in crop production, or consider the environment in which the animal or crop was raised. It simply comes down to whether or not the process and/or facilities were seen and approved by whatever bureaucratic agency is set to oversee that sector of the food supply. We beg to differ with this simplistic approach. We think it matters how the animal was raised or what the vegetables were sprayed with. We believe scale matters in processing. Dressing two hundred chickens one day out a week is vastly different than dressing five million chickens every day of the week operating around the clock. We believe food and farming is an inherently biological process regardless of how bent the industries have been on reducing it to science and widgets-in/widgets-out. And in biologics, scale matters. Interestingly enough, the FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Service) has been known to brag about the efficiency of the largest meat plants they oversee, using pounds of meat processed per inspector hour as a measure. To me, this mentality is damning on its face. I should think the inspection service should be more concerned about whether or not something is overlooked by the inspector, but instead they measure their success in terms of how fast the process goes. By that measure, the speed of the chicken processing line should be increased even more, which is to say the 5 million-chickens-a-day are whizzing past the inspector even faster. At Pasture to Fork, we believe animals raised in their natural outdoor habitat will produce healthier meat or milk than their confined antibiotic-ridden-hormone-driven-GMO-fed counterparts. The same is true for produce in terms of compost grown versus chemical laden. When one arrives at this conclusion and puts effort into raising only the best of food quality, to subject it to the dumbed-down regulatory standards of the conventional food industry seems foolish. Even more so when you have a patron base who shares your values and harbors a growing distrust for the regulatory establishment, largely because the establishment has proven itself incompetent. What's more, to attempt compliance with this plethora of regulation robs one of the energies that could otherwise be put to good use in ensuring food quality, animal welfare, and soil building, not to mention customer relations or sales. To sum it up, we advocate for a food system that is regenerative in nature—in other words, farming and food production that leaves our nest better than we found it. One that is aromatically and aesthetically pleasing for both farmer and visitor. We believe food and farming should be decentralized—many family-scale farms and processing facilities across the nation in every town and region, serving savvy eaters wherever they may be. In order to have a readily accessible food supply we need thousands of farms who open themselves to an increasingly aware populace. And finally, we advocate for a food system that is relational in transaction—the eater has a direct connection with the producer and vice-versa, which creates a win-win for both eater and farmer. And that, is The View from the Country. Do you have a safe food supply? If not, how do you propose to attain one? Quotes worth Re-Quoting –“We don’t need a law against McDonald’s or a law against slaughterhouse abuse–we ask for too much salvation by legislation. All we need to do is empower individuals with the right philosophy and the right information to opt out en masse.”― Joel Salatin

The Folly Of the Calorie

At Pasture to Fork, we have plenty to say about Corporate Food’s sleazy labeling tricks. Labeling tricks that magically turn the pseudo food produced in corporate laboratories and food factories out to be not only desirable, but quite healthy as well. And I must say, even for a real-food-passionate person like me, a walk down grocery store aisles—especially at mealtime—instigates a level of desire for even the most processed items on the shelf (I too, grew up consuming these food-like substances and developed a palate memory for their allure). The greatest advantage Big Food enjoys—which allows their hiding behind glitzy labels and wordy claims—is the disconnect between the farm and the eater. While this is convenient and desirable to many consumers as well as farmers, more and more people are waking up to the fact that their food may be vastly compromised, and that increasingly we’re a weakened species for consuming it. Convenience is addictive, however, and determining to source food locally and directly requires dedicated effort, although I would suggest it also brings considerable satisfaction and empowerment. Direct-to-consumer farms like us, on the other hand, have little use for fancy labels. Perhaps the number one reason being that the consumer—in most cases—either visits the farm in person or browses our website seeking a trustworthy source. These are people who want to connect with the producer’s vision and philosophy. Food produced and marketed in this manner doesn’t need much of a label, only true in-person representation and quality packaging in order to preserve freshness and quality. Given the attitude of acceptance among many Americans, I continue to be amazed at how few years have elapsed since the advent of government control in the food sector. Most mandatory food laws in this country are quite young and have not proven themselves capable of adding value or benefiting society. For example, the Nutrition Fact label we now take for granted was not required until 1994. With this being 2024, that makes ’94 exactly thirty years ago. Not a long time! How did people possibly know how or what to eat prior to ’94? I’m sure people did know, and maybe, just maybe, were more in tune with their food for the lack of labeling and government direction. We believe most so-called “nutrition labeling”—especially the Nutrition Facts graph—offer less value than most of us know. For example, the measure of calories has almost no relation to real nutrition and may cause more distraction than assistance. Yet calories are listed first on the Nutrition Facts label, in bold print. If tracking calories is of such utmost importance—or of significant value—why are 2/3rds of Americans now overweight or obese? Clearly, this exemplifies how the count of calories does not equate food quality, with Americans being more overfed and undernourished than ever. But the food police are doubling down, with a new law enacted in 2018 where the FDA requires any restaurant with more than 20 locations to provide customers with a calorie-count on their menu items. Is this anything more than a perpetuation of nutrition distraction? As Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” As you may know, I’m not a fan of government attempting to influence societal behavior. But what really bothers me about the government-mandated caloric rule is the fact that it assumes “a calorie is a calorie” regardless of its origin. If you ate 500 calories of soda and 500 calories of broccoli, would your body respond similarly? Of course not! They may be calorically the same but are a world apart nutritionally. Don’t think your body doesn’t know the difference. So, how is a calorie determined? Number one, it’s a unit of energy—the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of a gram of water one degree Centigrade, to be exact. Or the modern version is simply 4.1868 joules of energy. That’s all, merely energy. Obviously, a calorie of gasoline energy will not serve my body like a calorie of pork chop will. Perhaps the foremost reason is because a calorie of pork chop also provides a lot of other value besides X amount of energy. Which brings home the point of the discussion; calories are such a tiny portion of the measure of food item that it’s practically unimportant. Perhaps the most disturbing part of all this is that it’s the best we can do in modern America. Is this really the brightest and best in food science? Please tell me it’s not. As a matter of fact, we know it’s not. Private sector doctors and nutritionists—and perhaps everyday people who take an interest in food and how it affects us—now know far more about food and nutrition than anything coming from the ivory towers of government. Or at least are willing to have the discussion and/or publish their findings. Goodness, we’re still using a nearly 150-year-old method to determine caloric content. Besides, are we as humans not more than test tubes? Do we not break down food in a far more complex manner than a bomb calorimeter, which is how calories per gram of food are determined? We digest food efficiently or inefficiently depending on stress, nutrient deficiency, digestive enzymes, composition of gut flora, timing of previous meal, and on and on. One day you may be able to digest 300 calories from a meal but only harness 200 calories from the same meal the next day based on your environment and individual state of being. There are so many different diets on the market because no one really knows what you should eat. There’s probably as many opinions and disagreements as there are dieticians and nutritionists. However, one thing almost universally agreed upon in the diet world is whole foods raised without chemicals and antibiotics. Eating clean whole foods come with a lot of advantages, and literally no disadvantages. When you switch from a processed food diet to whole foods, you don’t have to worry about counting calories because your body self-regulates. It works the way it’s designed to work. You stop over-eating because you are no longer blocking the hormonal signal that tells your body you are full. When I say whole foods, I’m not necessarily saying raw food—although that can be included. I'm saying food that has nothing in the ingredient list except that food—or very few other ingredients. Do yourself a favor and simply stop counting calories. Stop listening to governmental guidance as to what foods you should or shouldn’t eat. Don’t choose your food based on an inaccurate label that perpetuates the myth that all calories are the created equal. It’s simply not true. Let the stress of calorie counting go from your mind and body. Instead, invest in and enjoy clean whole foods—the food God intended for you to eat, and enjoy eating in a guilt-free state of mind without being all wound up about the number of calories you’re consuming. Your body recognizes whole foods and knows how to digest and metabolize them for your health and benefit. And that’s The View from the Country.

How Food Affects the Environment

More from the blog

Avian Flu

Is Uninspected Food Safe?

The Folly Of the Calorie

Join Our Newsletter

Pasture to Fork