The GRAS label tends to give us a false sense of safety, when in reality, it just means that this food additive was in use when the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 was put into place. MSG, and many other additives, were “grandfathered in” and subsequently escaped having to undergo the FDA approval process. But, the term still invokes a feeling of security, and it makes food taste good — so what could go wrong, right? (Related: Learn more about the FDA at FDA.news)

Fortunately, there are plenty of people who remained skeptical of it and continued to question the ingredient’s safety. While the MSG controversy is far from over, there is no shortage of research to suggest that the compound is not as innocuous as it has been made out to be.

Indeed, research indicating the potentially harmful nature of MSG dates back to the 1960s. Research published by Science in May 1969 found that young mice treated with the substance were prone to developing brain lesions, obesity and other abnormalities, including stunted bone growth and sterilization in females. The study also found pathological changes in organs related to the endocrine system.

Subsequent studies have showed similar findings. A 2008 study published by the journal Experimental Neurology found that the age at which MSG exposure was perpetrated had a substantial impact on the overall effect of the compound. In the group 1 mice, which were exposed to MSG between the ages of 1 and 5 days old, very severe hypothalmic lesions were present. The group 2 mice, which were exposed between the age of 6 and 11 days old, presented with less severe hypothalmic lesions. The research team also found that 92 percent of the group 1 mice were overtly obese by the time they were 15 weeks old. About 22 percent of the mice in group 2 became obese. Comparatively, only 3 percent of the mice in a control group — where there was no MSG exposure — were obese at the same age. The research team surmised that the severe brain lesions were related to the onset of obesity.

Because glutamate plays an important role in the hypothalmus, it is not necessarily surprising that monosodium glutamate is prone to causing abnormalities in this region of the brain — but it is nonetheless very alarming.

A 2009 study, published by the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine found that MSG actually causes brain cell swelling and death. Mature neurons were most susceptible to the toxic effects of MSG, while younger cells were much more resilient. The team posits that this finding may explain why children appear to be less effected by the substance when compared to adults. In their experiments, the team found that injury was specific to neuronal cells, and that glial cells seemed to remain unaffected by MSG. They also found that boiling MSG did not diminish its toxic effects on mature neurons.  Additionally, the researchers did discover that vitamin C may be useful in mitigating the harmful effects MSG has on the brain.

Subsequent research has suggested that mice who are made obese via MSG consumption are prone to developing diabetes and insulin resistance. In a Brazillian study, scientists found that glucose uptake was 4 times slower in MSG-obese mice than the control group.

And as for its effect on humans? Well, a 2008 study of the effects of MSG on humans also found that MSG consumption correlated with an increased risk of being overweight or obese, independent of other factors like activity level and calorie intake.

To put it simply, there is no shortage of reasons to be wary of MSG in your food. Stay informed about more food science news at Scientific.news.

Sources:

FoodRenegade.com

ScienceDirect.com

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

LiveScience.com

What’s more, researchers have discovered, if we live in an urban environment, our risk of getting cancer is more pronounced.

As reported by the UK’s Daily Telegraph, the leafy suburbs or the peace and tranquility of country living may not be the ideal life for urbanites, but scientists have found that kind of lifestyle just might keep you alive longer.

According to researchers at Harvard University, people who live in homes surrounded by greenery tend to be 13 percent less likely to die of cancer. In addition, they found, their risk of dying from respiratory disease also falls by 34 percent, the largest study into living in green spaces and health has demonstrated.

Mortality rates overall were 12 percent less for people who had more greenery within a couple hundred yards of their homes, according to the study’s eight-year follow-up period.

Green living is healthy living

Researchers believe that living in the midst of vegetation boosts mental health and lowers depression. In addition, they believe that such surroundings provide more opportunity for people to get out more, giving them better chances to exercise and practice social engagement, both of which are known to serve as protectors against the disease.

That said, the Harvard University team said they did not expect the percentage of effectiveness to be as high as it was.

“We were surprised to observe such strong associations between increased exposure to greenness and lower mortality rates,” said Peter James, a research associate in the Harvard Chan School Department of Epidemiology. He added the team was even more surprised to discover evidence “that a large proportion of the benefit from high levels of vegetation” is attributable to better mental health.

He said that researchers already knew that increased vegetation helps the environment by gobbling up carbon dioxide to create oxygen and reducing wastewater loads. But he added that the new findings suggest that there is a “potential co-benefit” of boosting health that gives “planners, landscape architects, and policymakers” an “actionable tool” in which they can use to grow greener, healthier places.

‘The results are useful because they can support a growing interest in considering the value of natural environment’

The just-released nationwide study is the first of its kind that examines a link between green vegetation and its potential effect on the morality rate over a number of years. More than 100,000 women enrolled in the Nurses’ health Survey and were followed by researchers between 2000-2008. Scientists utilized satellite imagery from different seasons of the year to measure how much greenery surrounded the homes of study participants.

Analyses and findings from all previous related studies have suggested there could be a link between greener spaces and improved wellbeing. However, researchers were unable to factor the possibility that people who are generally in better states of health naturally located to greener areas. But they were able to rule out other risk factors for mortality, including age, socioeconomic condition, race, ethnicity and smoking.

Becca Lovell, a research fellow with the European Centre for Environment and Human Health at the University of Exeter, told the Daily Telegraph that the study indicated that people who live close to greenery could provide themselves with lifelong health benefits.

Lovell said called the study “interesting” and said that it contributes to a growing body of existing research that has suggested living in a greener environment is associated with improvements in health conditions.

“The results are useful because they support a growing interest in government (national and local) to consider and account for the value of the natural environment in determining population health,” she said.

Sources:

Telegraph.co.uk

EHP.NIEHS.NIH.gov

“A recent study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has found that the fat in butter, cream, and cheese can benefit your health, despite what has been taught for decades about the artery clogging and premature death that it can cause. New evidence shows that a diet including full-fat instead of fat-free or low-fat dairy products actually protects you from cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, and cancer, which are the leading causes of death in the world.” Healthy Hubb continues,

“Researchers found that decreasing carbohydrate portions and increasing the intake of saturated fats, which are found mainly in full-fat dairy, meat, and tropical oils, resulted in weight loss in middle-aged overweight men, which resulted in better overall health. Participants in the study who were not categorized as overweight were found to benefit from more balanced blood sugar levels and lower blood pressure on the same eating plan, which disproves any previous theories about saturated fat being bad for your health. In fact, experts say that we need to monitor carbohydrate intake instead, which can cause blood sugar spikes and upset insulin levels, which risks the development of Type 2 diabetes.”

In Healthy Hubb’s article, a heart specialist from the University of Ireland, Professor Sherif Sultan, notes:

• Current dietary guidelines are outmoded and desperately need to be revised.
• Despite decades-old recommendations, high carbohydrate diets should be avoided.
• Diets consisting largely of foods high in good quality fats are the healthiest.
• this essential changeover will stem the epidemic of Type 2 diabetes and weight-related heart problems.

The heart of the matter
How did we come to believe that animal fats are bad for us? The indoctrination of fraudulent science began decades ago, and were perpetrated by physiologist Ancel Keys in the 1950’s. He cherry-picked data to skew the results of his study, and TIME magazine ran a cover story to perpetuate the disinformation. Many studies since have countered the false data and we can only ask, how many have suffered and died by following this bad advice?

The wrong fats were demonized
We now know that the high Omega-6 vegetable oils cause inflammation and illness, margarine and vegetable shortening are comprised of deadly trans fats, and the fats we were told were bad for us, the saturated fats, are actually healthy. Many of us have been dutifully avoiding the foods we love, bacon, sausages, steak, cream, butter, and whole milk, and have been purchasing the supposed healthy alternatives that the packaged food manufacturers have been peddling — the sugar-laden, low-fat foods from a box. Could anything be more perverse than this travesty?

Sources:

HealthyHubb.com

HealthImpactNews.com

NaturalNews.com

The maximum benefit came from eating just a single ounce (20 g) per day. The risk of diabetes, respiratory disease and premature death was also decreased.

“We found a consistent reduction in risk across many different diseases, which is a strong indication there is a real underlying relationship between nut consumption and different health outcomes,” said co-author Dagfinn Aune. “It’s quite a substantial effect for such a small amount of food.”

You don’t have to eat very much

The researchers analyzed the results of 29 prior, worldwide studies conducted on a total of 819,000 participants. They found that people who ate an ounce of nuts daily had a 15 percent lower risk of cancer, a 22 percent lower risk of premature death and a 30 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease.

The benefits for other diseases were even greater, though not as statistically robust. Nuts cut the risk of diabetes by almost 40 percent, and the risk of respiratory disease by 50 percent.

“In nutritional studies so far much of the research has been on the big killers such as heart disease, stroke and cancer, but now we’re starting to see data for other diseases,” Aune said.

Little or no health benefits were seen from eating more than an ounce per day.

A growing body of research points to a wide range of health benefits from nuts, which are high in protein, fiber, antioxidants and anti-inflammatories. They are also a key component of the Mediterranean diet, which has been linked to a wide range of benefits against chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease and dementia.

“Some nuts, particularly walnuts and pecan nuts, are also high in antioxidants which can fight oxidative stress and possibly reduce cancer risk,” Aune said. “Even though nuts are quite high in fat they are also high in fibre and protein and there is some evidence that suggests nuts might actually reduce your risk of obesity over time.”

Even eating nuts three times a week provides big benefits

Nuts have been called a superfood, and some experts are even calling for doctors to start prescribing them, and for their cost to be covered by health insurance.

“This analysis adds further value to scores of clinical studies that reveal the positive health impact of regular nut consumption,” said British cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, who was not involved in the study. “Their mechanism of benefit appears to be through anti-inflammatory properties. It’s time doctors started prescribing nuts to patients which will not only help prevent heart attacks and deaths within a short space of time but combined with other lifestyle interventions would save the NHS billions.”

Nearly all research into the benefits of nuts has been conducted on adults. But at least one study, released in 2015, found that nuts provide important protective benefits for adolescents, as well. That study found that adolescents who ate just 12.9 grams per day cut their risk of metabolic syndrome by more than 50 percent. The benefits increased as the teenagers ate more nuts, then dropped off if they consumed more than 50 grams (1.8 ounces) per day.

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of symptoms linked to the risk of heart disease and diabetes. One in nine U.S. teenagers now suffers from the condition.

A 2013 study found that people who ate just three 28 gram servings of nuts per week had a 39 percent lower risk of death from all causes, a 40 percent lower risk of cancer and a 55 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Sources for this article include:

Express.co.uk

ScienceDaily.com

ScienceDaily.com

As reported by the Washington Times, Obama could use the five minutes between Senate sessions that occurs when gaveling the last session closed and the new session open to recess-appoint Left-wing activist Judge Merrick Garland onto the U.S. Supreme Court:

Mr. Obama’s moment will come just before noon, in the five minutes that the Senate gavels the 114th Congress out of session and the time the 115th Congress begins.

In those few moments the Senate will go into what’s known as an “intersession recess,” creating one golden moment when the president could test his recess-appointment powers by sending Judge Garland to the high court.

The move would be a legal gamble under the high court’s last ruling in 2014 on recess appointments. That 9-0 decision overturned a handful of Mr. Obama’s early 2012 picks, saying the Senate was actually in session when the president acted, so he couldn’t use his powers.

A handful of legal scholars interviewed for the Times’ story believe that a president may actually have the power to do this, though it is very uncertain as to whether or not the appointment would stand. No doubt it would be challenged in court and no doubt the Supreme Court would eventually get the case–and Garland would have to recuse himself (not legally but ethically).

And there are other pitfalls as well. If somehow Merrick’s appointment stood, it would be short-lived, lasting only until the end of 2017 and perhaps sooner if President Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed, his own appointee. Plus, Garland would lose his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is often considered the second most powerful court in the land, since the D.C. Circuit hears all cases related to federal and state regulations and rules.

But mark our words, if Obama thinks for a moment he would be able to get away with this and thus set a new precedent for future presidents, he’ll do it. And as in the past, he will dare us to stop him.

More:

• 7 Reasons Why Keeping Hillary Clinton From Appointing Supreme Court Justices Is The Most Important Thing This Election Cycle
• More Proof That Anti-Freedom Forces In Dem-Controlled Labor Unions Are Opposed To Workers’ Rights
• The 10th Amendment Is Completely Null And Void As We Have Become A Nation Of Courts, Not Laws And Rights

© 2017 USA Features Media.

Like us on Facebook! Click here

A less informed era

If you are middle-aged or older, chances are very good that as you grew up, the health risks of secondhand smoke never entered your mind. Many of us recall that when we were children our parents smoked in our homes and cars without any ventilation. Indeed, the warnings only began to be widely disseminated in the 1990s.

The World Health Organization’s publication Tobacco control in developing countries states:

“… the 1972 report of the Surgeon General (USDHEW 1972) contained only cautious statements about possible health effects of passive smoke, and the 1986 report (USDHHS 1986) was the first to focus on involuntary or passive smoking.”

Let’s clear the air

It may seem counter-intuitive that secondhand smoke poses any significant health risk when one considers that the tobacco smoke inhaled by the smoker directly through the cigarette is much more concentrated than the smoke in the surrounding air. But according to the National Institutes of Health, unpublished studies from the Philip Morris Tobacco Company provide insight as to why secondhand smoke is so dangerous: Sidestream smoke (that which is emitted from the lit end of a cigarette) contains four times as many toxins as mainstream smoke (that which is inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker).

Sidestream smoke burns at a lower temperature than mainstream smoke, and the higher concentration of toxins in sidestream smoke is due to its incomplete combustion. Secondhand smoke is comprised mostly of the more toxic sidestream smoke, and to a lesser extent, the less toxic mainstream smoke. This is key to understanding why secondhand smoke is so bad for you.

But now the message is even more grim.

Quoting from the FDA’s report published on November 30, 2016, the UK’s Daily Mail reports:

“‘Smoking’s not only harmful to people; it’s harmful to pets, too,’ said FDA veterinarian Carmela Stamper. ‘If 58 million non-smoking adults and children are exposed to tobacco smoke, imagine how many pets are exposed at the same time.'”

What’s lingering on your rug, furniture and clothes?

Both secondhand smoke (which lingers in the air your animal breathes in) and third-hand smoke hurt pets. What’s third-hand smoke? It’s residue (harmful compounds that are left behind, such as nicotine) that can get on skin and clothes, as well as on furniture, carpets and other things where a smoker lives.

“Like children, dogs and cats spend a lot of time on or near the floor, where tobacco smoke residue concentrates in house dust, carpets and rugs. Then, it gets on their fur,” Stamper explains. “Dogs, cats and children not only breathe these harmful substances in, but pets can also ingest them by licking their owner’s hair, skin, and clothes.” And of course, if your dog or cat grooms itself or another animal, they’re ingesting the residues as well, Stamper says.

Daily Mail further elucidates on the risks for pets:

Feline risks

Exposure to third-hand smoke brings health problems to cats due to their habit of vigorously licking their fur, which in a smoking environment is laden with carcinogens. This can double a cat’s chance of developing lymphoma, a major cause of death in cats. Those cats living in smoking households have a four-fold increased risk of developing an aggressive oral cancer called squamous cell carcinoma.

Canine risks

Dog breeds with large noses tend to filter toxins from tobacco smoke which protects them from lung cancer, but conversely promotes nasal cancers. Dogs with smaller noses filter less carcinogens there, and thus have a higher risk of lung cancer.

Even your fish are at risk

The inhabitants of your aquarium are also endangered by smoking, as nicotine easily dissolves in water and is a potent poison.

Sources:

DailyMail.co.uk

NIH.gov

FDA.gov

OxfordJournals.org

As reported by MedicalXpress.com, the scientists—from the United States and Austria—have discovered statistical evidence that a boost in the number of mothers having C-sections over the past several decades has led to a change in evolution, with babies’ heads getting bigger even as mothers’ birth canals remain relatively unchanged.

The team, which published its findings recently in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, note that scientists have known for quite a while that humans have more difficulty giving birth to their young than most other animals, and that is largely due to the passage of proportionally larger babies’ heads through a birth canal that is relatively narrow.

When a baby’s head is too big to pass—a condition called fetopelvic disproportion—a surgeon must manually remove the infant via an incision in the mother’s lower abdominal area, a procedure that is called a Caesarean (named after Julius Caesar, who was believed to have been cut from his dying mother’s womb).

That said, what exactly is the evolutionary impact of performing an increasing number of C-sections when a baby cannot easily fit through its mother’s birth canal? Scientists in the U.S.-Austria team believe it has caused an evolutionary effect of babies being born with increasingly larger heads.

Evolutionary changes—or just changes in modern lifestyles?

Using logic and mathematics to reach their conclusion, the team said logic suggests if babies with overly large craniums are allowed to survive into adulthood, instead of dying at birth—which is what occurred throughout most of human history—then they would carry genes for larger skulls and more babies would then be born in the future with bigger heads than in the past. And in fact, larger babies at the time of birth have been shown to be healthier in general than smaller babies, which then increases the odds of reproducing.

In order to lend more weight to their argument, the research team crunched and then analyzed figures data numbers from the past 50 years; they discovered that the world rate of fetopelvic disproportion grew from about 3 percent of births in the 1960s to 3.3 percent of births today, which is an overall increase of between 10 and 20 percent, depending upon which births are added and which are not.

The team further suggested that the higher rate of births of babies with larger heads could also be due to evolutionary change brought about by increased C-section cases that allow such births to proceed rather than be terminated. The team did say, however, they did not discover proof or a direct link to their conclusions. They said there is the possibility that the overall increase in the size of newborns’ heads generally could be due to the modern lifestyle, which is much more sedentary and rich in calories than that of past generations.

Sources:

MedicalXpress.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Type 1 diabetes occurs when the body doesn’t produce adequate levels of the hormone insulin, which causes cells to absorb sugar from the blood. Without enough insulin, the cells and organs starve. Additionally, the high levels of blood sugar can also cause damage to various organs, such as the eyes.

The more common Type 2 diabetes occurs when the body becomes desensitized to insulin, usually due to a poor diet and sedentary lifestyle.

Medical starvation

Type 1 diabetes is a major risk factor for disordered eating and weight-related behaviors, although the reason for this connection is not fully understood. Even without taking diabulimia into account, a recent study suggested that 60 percent of women with type 1 diabetes will suffer from a “clinically significant” eating disorder by age 25. Other research shows that the rate of eating disorders is twice as high among Type 1 diabetics as among the general population.

Additionally, about 40 percent of all women aged 15–30 with Type 1 diabetes at least sometimes deliberately withhold prescribed insulin in order to lose weight. While some of these cases may be one-time events or too sporadic to qualify as diabulimia, the shocking figure illustrates the scale of the problem – and it is considered a conservative estimate.

Men with Type 1 diabetes are also at higher risk of eating- and body-image-related disorders than men without the disease.

Like regular eating disorders – which have the highest fatality rate of any mental illness – diabulimia is incredibly dangerous. The immediate result of skipping insulin shots is hyperglycemia, or high blood sugar. The reason it leads to weight loss is that calories consumed are being excreted by the body instead of being taken into the cells. So of course, the body and its organs begin to starve.

Body cannibalizes itself

Untreated, hyperglycemia will develop into diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), in which the body begins to cannibalize itself, with potentially fatal results. This is where the “desired” weight loss in diabulimia comes from.

Hyperglycemia also causes damage to various organ systems, which is why poorly managed diabetes (of either type) carries serious side effects. Thus, diabulimics hasten the onset of diabetic side effects such as damage to the eyes, nerves and kidneys. Infertility is another potential effect.

Severe, untreated DKA can lead to heart and organ failure.

“I had a friend in inpatient treatment and they were watching her eat, but they weren’t watching her inject so the whole time she was losing weight,” said Jacqueline Allan, founder of Diabetics with Eating Disorders. “Eventually she actually keeled over and died on the ward.”

Because diabulimia is not listed as a medical or psychiatric diagnosis, however, it can be hard for patients to find help. Professionals who specialize in diabetes may have little experience with eating disorders, and vice versa.

Due to pressure from patient support groups, that is starting to change. The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association now considers insulin omission to be an eating disorder characteristic. New eating disorder treatment guidelines from the UK’s National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (expected in early 2017) will include how to treat those with diabetes.

And a few specialized treatment programs are starting to turn up, such as at King’s College in London, and Center for Hope of the Sierras in Nevada.

Sources for this article include:

Independent.co.uk

Diabetes.org.uk

BBC.co.uk

HarmonyPoint.com

ANAD.org

Vice.com

While drowsy driving doesn’t sound as serious as drunk driving, a new report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that a driver who has slept less than six hours has a crash risk that is comparable to someone who is drunk. Furthermore, the report also revealed that drivers who sleep only five or six hours a day double their risk of being involved in a car accident.

“If you have not slept seven or more hours in a given 24-hour period, you really shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car,” says Jake Nelson, director of Traffic Safety Advocacy & Research for AAA.

Sleep deprivation doubles accident risk

For their study, the AAA used data from the NHTSA’s National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey based on 7,234 drivers involved in 4,571 crashes between July 2005 and December 2007. Each crash included in the survey involved at least one vehicle that was towed from the scene, and which resulted in emergency medical services being dispatched.

As a part of the study, the drivers were asked the number of hours they had slept – including naps if they were longer than 30 minutes each – in the 24 hours before the accident. Furthermore, they were questioned about some other factors that could have contributed to the crash, including mechanical failures, errors committed by drivers and environmental conditions.

The researchers found that the chance of causing a collision significantly increased with a decrease in sleeping hours. They reported a 1.3 times increased risk of car accidents when a driver had six to seven hours of sleep, a 1.9 increase when the driver had five to six hours of shut-eye, and a 4.5 times higher risk when they had slept for four to five hours. However, most drivers involved in a crash were found to have had less than four hours of sleep, which increased the risk by a whopping 11.5 times.

Previous studies have reported that sleep-deprived or drowsy drivers cause about 20 percent of fatal accidents in the United States. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about 35,092 people died in car crashes in the U.S last year, which is a 7.2 percent increase over 2014.

Too drowsy to drive? What are the warning signs?

Nowadays, it has become very tough to maintain the right balance between work and life. Many of us struggle to get everything done during the day. Therefore, we often sacrifice sleep to bridge the gap. According to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than one in three Americans doesn’t get enough quality sleep on a regular basis, which not only puts their lives at risk, but also the lives of others on the road.

While most of the drivers acknowledged the danger of drowsy driving, about one in three admitted to doing so in the past month. Warning signs of drowsy driving include drooping eyes, constant yawning, a nodding head, drifting across lanes and not remembering the last few miles driven.

Despite the clear signs, half of the drivers involved in crashes caused by drowsiness said they didn’t feel sleepy before falling asleep behind the wheel. Therefore, for safe driving it is crucial to prioritize sleep and scan for warning signs every time you get behind the wheel. The National Sleep Foundation recommends seven to nine hours of sleep per night.

Sources:

NPR.org

AAAFoundation.org^[PDF]

CBSNews.com

The allowance currently makes no economic sense, as it would cost far more to haul all that meat around from country to country as opposed to just getting the job done here, not to mention the serious risks of spoilage and contamination. But the ruling is there, and should a poultry company figure out a way to oblige slave labor in China as a way to make the setup financially feasible, Americans could soon see world-traveling chickens on their dinner plates.

As it currently stands, the USDA permits only countries that adhere to strict USDA-approved poultry standards to export chicken to China, and the only three countries that meet these standards are the U.S., Canada, and Chile. None of these countries has developed a workable plan for exporting and re-importing chicken, though, and thus the ruling is moot, at least for now — but not necessarily in the long term.

“By most accounts, chicken producers have not found a way to make it economically viable,” wrote Ben Rooney for CNN Money in a piece about the changing landscape for poultry processing. “Still, the move is seen as a victory for China’s poultry industry, since it means that at least some of its processors are up to U.S. Standards.”

As usual, profits trump food safety

Perhaps the biggest concern with sending frozen U.S. chicken to China to be defrosted, deboned and/or separated, processed, refrozen, repackaged, and shipped back to the U.S. is the possibility of contamination and food poisoning. It would seem sanitarily prudent to simply process U.S. chickens in the U.S. to avoid the potential food safety risks, especially as they pertain to poultry — salmonella anyone?

But as usual, the even bigger concern is profits, as poultry producers at some point in the future could save a few bucks outsourcing their chicken processing operations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), American poultry processors currently net about $11 per hour – not a huge amount of money but still significant. Meanwhile, Chinese workers currently earn anywhere between $1-2 per hour doing the exact same work.

Seafood producers in Washington State are already doing this type of thing with Alaskan salmon and Dungeness crab, according to reports. Companies like the Seattle-based Trident Seafood company routinely ship fish and crab to China for processing, including the deboning of salmon, the Chinese labor costs of which are one-fifth what they are in the U.S.

“There are 36 pin bones in a salmon and the best way to remove them is by hand,” Charles Bundrant, founder of Trident, which ships some 30 million pounds of its 1.2 billion-pound harvest to China for processing, told The Seattle Times. “Something that would cost us $1 per pound labor here, they get it done for 20 cents in China.”

Meat processing in general appears to be a dying industry in the U.S., at least in terms of seafood. In the years between 1995 and 2005, Alaska and Washington each lost about 20 percent of their processing jobs. Depending on how the Trump Administration handles international trade deals moving forward, the same scenario could befall the poultry industry as well.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalHealingMagazine.com

CNN.com

SeattleTimes.com