This Tuesday, the FDA announced a ban on three arsenic-containing compounds that have been used in over 100 drugs that are fed to pigs, chicken, and turkey. This was because of a recent discovery that chicken sold in grocery stores (and probably at Redifer and Pollock buffet) contained more than four times the arsenic it is allowed to. These chemicals are used to “prevent disease, increase feed efficiency, and promote growth.” I had no idea what “feed efficiency” meant, so I Googled it and found out that it’s “a ratio describing the amount of feed consumed per unit of production (e.g. milk, eggs, gain).”

This is an important issue because arsenic can cause lung and skin cancer, hard black scab-like growths on skin, liver lesions, and a whole host of problems with almost every organ system.

So why didn’t the FDA ban these chemicals in the first place? Doesn’t every chemical that could possibly end up in our food have to go through FDA approval first?

It’s important to realize that in low amounts, dangerous chemicals often don’t have major health effects. Mercury levels in shrimp are so low that even the cholesterol is probably more harmful. We’ve been eating a little bit of arsenic in our meat for years before the FDA banned it several days ago. And on a molecular level, all proteins are just really fancy ammonia molecules, which sounds a lot more horrifying than it really is.

<– really fancy ammonia molecule

It’s often easy to demand that all unpalatable chemicals be banned, but there are few other practical options for raising animals on such a large scale. If we don’t want the cost of meat to skyrocket and entire forests to be shaved to clear land for pastures, lab-produced (and possibly dangerous) chemicals would need to be used. In fact, a fourth arsenic-containing compound that many people would like banned, is the only known treatment for histomoniasis, a liver parasite that can kill many young turkeys.

With these three drugs withdrawn, factory farms will have to replace them with others. Diseases still have to be prevented, and growth (both animal growth and economic growth) still has to be promoted, arsenic or no arsenic.

Should the FDA start specifying what companies should do, instead of what they shouldn’t do? Or will they just be playing Whack-a-Mole with dangerous chemicals in food, no matter what? Should we demand a list of the ingredients in animal feed as well as the ingredients in our food?

This issue is much more complex than it first seems, but could there be a solution?