Chicken: To Eat It, or Not To Eat It?

            That is the question these days, with over 300 people having gotten sick from eating chicken that has been contaminated with an strand of antibiotic resilient Salmonella in the past few weeks. In an editorial in the New York Times titled,"Should You Eat Chicken?", Mark Bittman states the facts about the affect this disease is having on Americans today. He is attempting to appeal to anyone who eats or has eaten chicken from Foster Farms, shops at Costco, or buys any of the products that were processed in the contaminated plant. Basically he is reaching out to common Americans, citizens like you and me.

            In his editorial, Bittman explains that "the Industry" has done little since the outbreak. Foster Farms still hasn't admitted to serving a tainted product and is still putting their chicken on the shelves, even after over 13,000 chicken products were recalled by Costco and taken off their shelves. He argues that we should all stay away from Foster Farms. He states that there's little for the FSIS to do now, although he said that last week they threatened to pull their inspectors from the plant to force the plant to shut down. And 3 days later, Foster Farms “submitted and implemented immediate substantive changes to their slaughter and processing to allow for continued operations.” Now what the heck does that mean? “We cannot tell you what their interventions are, because that’s a proprietary issue,” said Englejohn, adding that the interventions comprise “additional sanitary measures that reduce contamination.” 

            But it doesn't stop there, he also goes on to say that the U.S.D.A. doesn't stand alone here. That the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), knows that these manufacturers are growing these animals under conditions that are virtually guaranteed to breed disease, and allows them to attempt to ward off disease by feeding them antibiotics from birth until death. After rampant amounts of the drugs are used, new strains of bacteria that are resistant to many antibiotics grow. And this situation he claims is only getting worse, because the presence of salmonella on chicken is both common and acceptable. About a quarter of all chicken parts are contaminated, a fact of which F.S.I.S. is fully aware.

            Now all that's left is for the American people to make a decision for themselves. To eat chicken, or not to eat chicken. That truly is the question. I vote no. Although I have to admit, I didn't eat chicken before read this and haven't eaten chicken in over a year.  I guess this is just all the more reason not to. I think Mr. Bittman did a wonderful job presenting the evidence and asserting his opinion. If you're interested in learning a little more on this issue, Mr. Bittman posted additional follow up information on this topic in a editorial titled, More On Chicken. 

Birth Control and The New Affordable Care Act

            Should a boss’s personal religious views be allowed to get in the way of a woman’s right to access birth control through the Affordable Care Act? In an editorial article titled, “Birth Control and a Boss’s Religious Views” in the New York Times, The Editorial Board, doesn’t seem to think so and neither do I. The article attempts to raise awareness among newspaper reading Americans and strives to take a look at the current struggles that we are facing with the new Act. It also attempts to grab the attention of those readers who would need to have access to birth control through the insurance they will be receiving from their employers through the Affordable Care Act.

            According to the Affordable Care Act, employers with more than 50 workers must provide access to contraceptives through their insurance plans or risk being fined $100 per day for each employee. The act excludes houses of worship, hospitals, Universities, and charities. Since this act has been passed, there have been three cases that have been brought to the federal appeals courts. Each one has been attempting to prevent their businesses from having to provide their employees access to birth control products through the new Act. They claim that it goes against the personal religious beliefs of the owners of the establishment, and violates their religious freedom. Such as, Hobby Lobby who has threatened to shut down all stores if they’re forced to provide contraceptives to their employees. Another business that is owned by Mennonites, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, has attempted to say that the new Act violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

            I think that The Editorial Board did a great job providing facts about what the Affordable Care Act is and what it pertains to, they also provided examples of groups who are actively opposing the new Act. I would have liked to have seen more of an argument to support their opposition though.  I will admit that I didn’t know much about this topic before reading this article, and I would have to say after being educated on the subject a little more, that I don’t want my employer, or owner of the establishment where I work, to have any personal sway over whether or not I can have access to birth control. I think that for any one company to think that they have the right to dictate whether or not their employees should be allowed access to birth control through this new Act because they have differing views on the use of contraceptives, should know that that it is a terribly self-centered thing to think that you should have any say over what their employees do in their free time. It's not your body, so you don't have to use it. Being smart about pregnancy prevention is one of the most important things to teach our youth today. Make no mistake, I firmly believe that nobody should be allowed to dictate what I can have access to through the new Act, including birth control.