China Could Actually Improve US Pork. Here’s How.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/86176561@N00/67904915/in/photolist-712Lp-c61ouA-4dMFcG-ePbAm-5bxEUU-9sMkyP-8BizGo-a32pkt-adgXUU-8SMxaT-5PFsXs-9tsmXj-8DkMzE-4ZiYbF-AJCQz-dzPRZ-3fu1LE-dG4EfM-9sQkvY-9sMmXB-9sMno8-ade9Hk-b5EwJg-5bxF3q-a93qFQ-2pWRf-5XCePD-dGMjyU-auK6zP-58vuy-xzJey-eVvc4-adgXL1-9QgAaX-dGiUeT-9sQkTL-9DYh6W-4LwAqe-58iRbK-6nCZSN-3BwdW4-6ZZRVk-58iSUg-vNqf8-vNqfa-7ZoNnK-vNqf3-vNqf4-vNqf6-8jkTMw-7eEfdj">Only Alice</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


China doesn’t have the globe’s most sterling food safety reputation, and its fast-growing pork industry provides an apt example of why. A few months ago, dead pigs were showing up by the thousands in a Chinese river—the result, apparently, of a scandal involving the slaughter of diseased pigs. In 2011, hundreds of people became ill after eating pork tainted with clenbuterol, a growth-enhancing chemical the Chinese government had banned from hog feed nearly a decade earlier.

All of which makes it odd that the decision of a massive Chinese meat processor called Shuanghui Group—the very company at the center of the clenbuterol fiasco—to buy US hog giant Smithfield might actually clean up one dirty aspect of our domestic pork industry.

How can that be? As it turns out, the Chinese government has stricter standards than US food safety authorities on one aspect of industrial hog production: the use of pharmaceuticals that ramp up animals’ stress hormones and heart rates but also make them grow leaner and faster. China bans not only clenbuterol from hog production, but also all chemicals in it class, which are known as beta-agonists. The United States, however, allows certain beta-agonists in animal feed, including one called ractopamine (made by US pharma giant Lilly), which is thought to be less of a threat to meat eaters than clenbuterol because it degrades more quickly in animals’ blood.

Even so, ractopamine traces do routinely show up in US pork. In a 2012 survey of “other white meat” products bought at supermarkets across the United States, Consumer Reports found ractopamine in a fifth of samples. The effect of these small doses on humans remains little-studied. Here’s the ace food safety reporter Helena Bottemiller, from a 2012 story:

The US meat industry’s zeal to access the vast and fast-growing China market has tamped down its appetite for ractopamine.

Elanco [a Lilly subsidiary] mainly tested animals—mice, rats, monkeys and dogs—to judge how much ractopamine could be safely consumed. Only one human study was used in the safety assessment by Elanco, and among the six healthy young men who participated, one was removed because his heart began racing and pounding abnormally, according to a detailed evaluation of the study by European food safety officials.

In banning ractopamine, China joins the European Union, Russia, and Taiwan, among other countries. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR)—whose agriculture negotiations are led by former agrichemical industry lobbyist Isi Siddiqui—has pushed back hard against this resistance, trying to force other countries to accept pork from ractopamine-laced hogs.

The Smithfield deal may signal an end to that fight. Regardless of the USTR’s machinations, the US meat industry’s zeal to access the vast and fast-growing China market has tamped down its appetite for ractopamine. Last year, Bottemiller reported that between 60 and 80 percent of US hogs got regular lashings of ractopamine. But in mid-May, perhaps with an eye on the coming deal with its suitor to the east, Smithfield announced that it would soon be able to ensure that half of its vast pork production will soon be ractopamine-free. Smithfield rival Tyson is also shifting some of its contract producers way from ractopamine because it’s “concerned about how the use of these supplements is restricting US access to some important export markets,” a company spokesman told Reuters on Thursday.

Meanwhile, US food safety authorities have no intention of getting this dodgy, little-tested chemical out of our pork. It would be ironic if China’s less-than-vaunted food safety authorities ended up doing so. It would more ironic still if a two-tiered system emerged, in which China and other trading partners get the ractopamine-free pork raised here, leaving US eaters with the drug-laced stuff. Now if we could just get China to take a stand on another pork-related problem that has flummoxed our domestic food safety watchdogs: the practice of raising animals on regular doses of antibiotics.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate