Deadly Canadian Chicken

Is Canadian chicken safe?  Seems like a simple question, but there is a huge debate about the correct answer to that simple question.

Better Farming posted a story in June 2014 on the increasing market share of chicken, consumer's desire to buy Canadian chicken, and the affordable chicken prices.  I found that posting recently, and added some comments about "affordable chicken" being #ChickenMafia propaganda.  An anonymous poster questioned my concerns about retail chicken prices, as they felt that CFO doesn't control retail prices.  I responded and again with some facts, trying to show that CFO had absolute power to ensure affordable chicken if they chose to exercise that power. Stephen Thompson jumped into the conversation in support of my position that Supply Management ("SM") regularly takes advantage of the Canadian consumer. I decided to add some objective evidence previously researched for this Blog on the unaffordability of chicken in Canada when compared to LICO (Low Income Cut-off poverty level) and Ontario's Minimum Wage. An anonymous poster complained about the use of minimum wage.  I responded with justification of the use of Minimum Wage as a benchmark, and reminded people that the unaffordable and poor quality chicken in Canada was causing or contributing to Canadians are dying every day.  Of course, those statements were jumped and resisted here and here, supported here.  Responding to the Cost of Production ("COP") issue, I shared the secrecy that CFO uses for setting the farm gate price for chicken.  Raube Beuerman reminds the previous poster that the issue was chicken feed costs, not all costs nor all animals.  Then, the worm on the hook is dropped into the stream of questions, asking for me to justify my statement that poor quality, high priced chicken was causing and/or contributing to deaths in Canada.

With all these postings, it's a wonder any farming is getting done in Canada.

Having had the door opened, I shared the source of the disease and death from Canadian chicken.  I told them about the 4 million cases of foodborne illness in Canada, the chronic contamination of chicken with deadly pathogens, the chemical soup that is fed to the chickens so as to reduce the risk and costs of the #ChickenMafia, and the Frankenstein meat that results, with high Omega-6:Omega-3 ratios worse than slow grow and pastured poultry.

Stephen Thompson replied  that there was only weak, circumstantial, or no proven relation between Canadian chicken and disease or death.

In response to Stephen's doubt about cause-effect for deaths from Canadian chicken, I supplied the following (the central theme of this Blog posting):

The cause-effect data for Canada is not readily available at this time. CFIA has started  a Pathogen Reduction Initiative (PRI) for chicken, and is studying the baseline contamination level.

This Canadian program started in 2012, and follows the same format as what the USDA completed in 2008.  The USDA study showed a major problem for raw chicken, mainly from salmonella and campylobacter.  Unfortunately, Canada is 4 yrs behind times.

CDC estimates that 22% of all foodborne illness and 29% of foodborne deaths come from contaminated meats.

Chicken is chronically contaminated, while pork and beef are usually periodically contaminated.

CDC estimates that poultry caused somewhere between 5% to 20.6% of all foodborne illnesses in the USA between 1998 to 2008 (see Table 3 ).  That analysis is based on 4,589 illnesses during that period.

Poultry is blamed for 9.8% of all foodborne outbreaks and illnesses, 11.5% of all foodborne illnesses that required hospitalizations, and 19.1% of all foodborne diseases that resulted in death.

Until Canada catches up on solving the lousy Canadian chicken issue, I suggest that these US percentages are applicable for Canada, until proven otherwise.  Do you agree?  If not, why not?

Do you still insist that my previous posting was "overly dramatic"?

Is my previous posting so easily dismissed as exaggeration and hyperbole?

If you base your opinion on other data that conflicts with this data, please provide the links and explain further so we can all better understand the source and justification for your jaded doubts.

Have I convinced you that we have a problem with poor quality chicken in Canada?

Pastured Poultry and Mental Health

Beyond filling our tummies with yummies, poultry can be an important source of many nutrients that are important for our mental health.  Free range, pastured poultry have significantly better nutrients levels than chickens from mega factory farms.

By Jennifer Halton

Poultry Is Rich in Nutrients that Enhance Mental Well-Being

Mental health problems are more common than many of us realize and according to the Canadian Mental Health Association around 8% of us will experience major depression, with many more suffering from milder forms of this illness. While medication and talking therapies are available to manage depressive symptoms, the role that a nutritious diet can play in its treatment should not be underestimated. In fact, Dietitians of Canada (2012) highlight the importance of nutrient dense foods for promoting good mental health and treating mental illness, including depression. High quality poultry from organic and free range sources fits well within a diet aimed at enhancing mental well-being, as chicken and turkey offer several key nutrients linked to mental wellness.

Omega-3 fatty acids enhance mood

As we recently explored, organic chicken is a useful source of omega-3 fats. This is good news for anyone suffering from depressed mood, as health food store Rachelle Berry points out there is a proven link between enhanced intake of omega-3 fatty acids and easing depressive symptoms. Their report discusses several clinical studies that show clear benefits of upping our intake of omega-3 when it comes to our mood. For instance, a study by Montreal researchers demonstrated that depressed people receiving a daily dose of 1050mg of the omega-3 oil EPA for 8 weeks benefited from improved mood.

EPA is Eicosapentaenoic acid, one of the Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA).  It is also known as icosapentaenoic acid, timnodonic acid, or 20:5(n-3).

They also cite evidence that people with low mood, but who don’t have clinical depression, can also benefit mentally from extra omega-3. When it comes down to the role that omega-3 fatty acids play in combatting mood disorders, EPA acts as a chemical messenger in nerve cells and helps to block production of inflammatory signalling molecules that are linked to depression.

Tryptophan boosts serotonin

Poultry is rich in the essential amino acid tryptophan, which is responsible for that contented and sleepy feeling you get after eating a chicken or turkey dinner. There is a good reason why tryptophan has this effect on us, as Restorative Formulations explains that this amino acid enhances production of the mood boosting chemical messenger serotonin, which also regulates our appetite and sleep. Health Link British Columbia (2013) discusses the link between low levels of serotonin and depressed mood, and how this is used in a class of antidepressants that increase serotonin production. Low serotonin levels aren’t just limited to depression though, as Bulimia highlights that mood disorders are common among patients with anorexia and bulimia, which helps to explain the association between eating disorders and substance abuse. Making chicken and turkey a regular part of your diet is a natural way to increase serotonin levels and keep related disorders at bay.

B vitamins reduce depression risk

There is also interest in the role that B vitamins play in promoting a balanced mood, particularly with reference to vitamin B6 and B12. Poultry is especially a good source of vitamin B6, with 100g of chicken providing almost one-third of our daily requirement for the vitamin. Advanced Orthomolecular Research reports how a higher intake of both B vitamins is associated with a significantly lower risk of depression among seniors. This connection between B vitamins and mood can be explained by the impact they have on a substance known as homocysteine. As JAMA Psychiatry (2008) explains higher levels of homocysteine are linked with a greater chance of depressive symptoms and vitamin B6 and B12 can bring down raised levels of homocysteine, enhancing mental wellness.

Selenium cuts depressive symptoms

The mineral selenium is another nutrient linked to better mood.  Selenium in our diet has been depleted over the years due to intensive farming that has contributed to soil depletion.  Most commercial chicken feeds now contain added selenium to boost the health of the animal as it grows and develops.  It is easy for consumers of good quality poultry to get enough of this mineral, as a 100g portion of chicken provides almost 40% of our daily selenium needs.  This also means that when you eat chicken that has been fed in this way, you're also automatically upping your own levels of this mineral too. An article in Nutrition Research Reviews (2012) presents evidence for the benefits of selenium on mood. The researchers report on studies that show the value of a selenium rich diet, as well as supplementing low selenium intakes, with improved depression scores seen among women with postnatal depression. Selenium’s role in promoting mental well-being may relate to its antioxidant activity, which may help to preserve healthy levels of thyroid hormones and dopamine, both of which control our mood. 

Food Quality & Nutrition: Factory Chicken Vs. Alternatives

By Jennifer Halton

Organic Chicken Offers a More Beneficial Omega-3 to Omega-6 Ratio

Although we were once advised to focus on foods low in saturated fat, and more recently those low in trans fats, the benefits of choosing foods with a favourable ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids is increasingly clear. Therefore not only is it important to increase our intake of omega-3 fatty acids, but at the same time we need to control our intake of omega-6. Traditionally our diet had close to an equal ratio of these polyunsaturated fats, but according to an article published in Canadian Family Physician (2006) a typical North American diet now has a ratio close to 16:1 in favour of omega-6 fatty acids. This increased ratio may explain why cardiovascular disease and other chronic health problems are now much more prevalent. One way to lower this ratio is to carefully select the meats we eat, as the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats can vary widely.

Health benefits of adjusting the ratio

As mentioned in the article in Canadian Family Physician, omega-3 fatty acids are cardio-protective in several ways, helping to reduce inflammation, arterial narrowing and blood clot formation, while controlling the rhythm of our heartbeat. Meanwhile, Healthy Canada explains that omega-6 fatty acids are associated with inflammation, a risk factor for heart disease and stroke, as well as various other chronic health problems. Omega-3 fatty acids exert their benefits beyond the health of our blood vessels though. For instance, KwikMed advises that omega-3 fatty acids are needed for healthy brain development both in the uterus and during a child’s early years of life. These essential fatty acids also seem to protect our mental health, as Ascenta Health informs us that low intakes of omega-3 are associated with an increased risk of depression. Besides protecting our cardiovascular and brain health, Auum Omega 3 describes how the anti-inflammatory effects of omega-3s may also reduce our risk of diabetes, cancer and multiple sclerosis, which are less common among populations with a more favourable intake of omega-3.

Modifying our dietary intake

Oily fish are one of the best dietary sources of omega-3 available, with wild salmon providing more than 10 times as much omega-3 as omega-6 fats. However, choosing meats with a healthier ratio of these two fatty acids is another helpful way to regulate our intake of these fats. As shown in the table below, the ratio of commonly consumed meats varies between close to 2:1 and 27:1. Caribou offers the most favourable ratio of omega-3 and 6 thanks to the fact that the meat is naturally organic, grazing on grasses and other plants, which themselves are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. This is also why grass-fed beef also offers a more beneficial ratio of fats when compared to other domestic meats and particularly to grain fed beef. Of the other domesticated meats, chicken offers the best ratio of polyunsaturated fats, coming ahead of turkey and even beating wild duck. Offering the least favourable ratio by far is pork, so even if you choose lean pork, which is low in saturated fat, it has far more omega-6 by ratio than any of the other meats considered.

Meat	Omega 6 (mg)	Omega 3 (mg)	Omega 6: omega 3
Caribou	230	100	2.3
Grass-fed beef	80	21	3.8
Chicken	170	40	4.3
Lamb	310	60	5.2
Turkey	270	40	6.8
Duck (wild)	372	51	7.3
Duck (domestic)	670	80	8.4
Beef	187	20	9.4
Pork	222	8	27.8

Figures based on 100g of raw meat, using values provided by Nutrition Data

Omega-3 and omega-6 in organic chicken

While a nutrient analysis report by the Chicken Farmers of Canada (2014) showed there was no significant difference between the amounts of omega-3 and omega-6 contained in organic and non-organic chicken, this is contrary to previous findings. For example, a research paper shared on Academia.edu (2012) highlighted that a systematic review by scientists at Stanford University found that organic chicken contains significantly more omega-3 than its grain fed counterparts. As with grass-fed beef, this is due to the higher omega-3 content of plants growing in the pasture, especially leguminous varieties such as vetch and clover. Indeed an article published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2005) showed that the fatty acid content of poultry is strongly influenced by the omega-3 and omega-6 content of their diet.

Based on this, nutritional data for commercially reared birds should show a less favourable omega-3 to 6 ratio. However, companies such as Tyson and MapleLodge do not provide complete nutritional information for their chicken, merely showing that it is low in saturated and trans fats, without giving a breakdown of their polyunsaturated fat content. For consumers still focused on saturated and trans fats, this is reassurance enough, but with increasing awareness of the benefits of meat with an optimal ratio of omega-3 and omega-6, this is not sufficient to convince those of us who know that organic poultry is a healthier choice.

Condemned Chicken

CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) say they are all about quality and continuous improvement.  Do they offer any proof of their accomplishments which is independently verifiable ?  There does seem to be lots of effort at CFO, and some changes, but I wonder if their focus is in the right area.

To me, CFO's prime role is to serve the greater good of the public.  One of the most important aspects of serving the public is having safe chicken of excellent quality.  To maximize the safety and quality of chicken, you have to have healthy birds.  Just how healthy are the birds raised in Ontario?

The following table is derived from data provided by CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) here.  I confirmed with a CFIA DVM (Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine) who is in charge of producing the reports that the numbers presented there are correct, and I was understanding them.

I see that in 2012, Ontario's Federally Inspected slaughter plants received about 370,000 dead or diseased chickens from chicken producers. That is a defect rate of 1.26%.

In addition, I observe that Ontario's chicken crop is 23.3% worse than Atlantic Canada, and 21.7% worse than BC.

I wonder why?

If chicken farmers in BC and the Atlantic Provinces can deliver fewer dead and diseased chickens to the slaughter plants, why can't Ontario?

If CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) has their "Team Ontario" trained to be the best they can be, then why is Ontario significantly worse in bird health than what the farmers in BC and the Atlantic provinces can achieve?

If anybody knows the answers to these puzzling and disturbing results, I'm interested in learning why.