The
Grass-Fed Paradox
Grazing animals that eat their native diet of grass have more
polyunsaturated fat in their meat than animals fed grain and
other types of foodstuff. This is one of the reasons that
grass-fed meat is better for your health. But polyunsaturated
fats are prone to oxidation and oxidized meat can have a rancid
or “off” flavor, and the meat spoils more quickly. It was long
thought that grass-fed meat would suffer this fate.
But
new studies show that grass-fed meat is less likely to
oxidize than ordinary feedlot meat. Why? The answer is that
there are more antioxidants in grass than grain, and these
protective substances keep the polyunsaturated fat from
oxidizing. When you eat meat from a grass-fed cow, you are
consuming more polyunsaturated fat, more antioxidants, and the
meat is less likely to spoil.
Mercier, Y., P. Gatellier, M. Renerre (2004). "Lipid and protein
oxidation in vitro, and antioxidant potential in meat from
Charolais cows finished on pasture or mixed diet." Meat
Science 66: 467-473.
Hallmark
Animal Abuse Update
On
February 4th, the USDA suspended operations at the Hallmark
Packing Plant in Chino, California, the plant that has been
accused of abusing sick and injured dairy cattle. (For more
information, see posting directly below.)
Meat from the Hallmark plant supplied meat for the National
School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
Suspending operations at Hallmark is not going to stop similar
abuse at other slaughter facilities. Clearly, the present
safeguards are inadequate. You can express your concern by
emailing your government representatives. (Go to
www.congress.org for a quick and easy way to find the
names of your representatives and their email links. Enter your
zip code in the box in the upper left hand side of the page.) In
your emails, refer to the “Hallmark Animal Abuse.”
Caught on
Film
On
January 30th, the
Humane Society of the United States released a video
showing extreme animal cruelty at the Hallmark Meat Packing Co.
in Chino, California. Among other atrocities, the video shows
sick and injured cattle being shoved by forklifts, kicked in the
head, and shocked with electric probes in an effort to get them
to stand up.
“Downer” cattle—those that are too sick or lame to walk—have
been banned from human consumption since 2003. A Swiss study
found that downer cattle are 49 to 58 times more likely to have
mad cow disease (BSE) than ambulatory animals. Apparently, the
workers were attempting to get around this ruling by forcing the
animals to stand up.
Click here to see a portion of the video. Warning:
the video shows extreme abuse.
Humane
Slaughter
Ranchers who raise their cattle on grass from birth to market do
not send their animals to large slaughter houses such as the
Hallmark Meat Packing Company where extreme cases of abuse were
recently documented. (See post directly above.) Instead, they
slaughter the animals on the farm or take them to small,
independent slaughter facilities.
Ranchers who drive their grass-fed cattle to an abattoir go to
great lengths to keep the animals calm. Some bring along cattle
that are not earmarked for slaughter to give the animals the
comfort of being with their herd mates. Many ranchers watch the
entire slaughter process to ensure that their animals are being
treated humanely every step of the way.
Some ranchers practice “field slaughter.” In this case, they
approach the animal out on the pasture, making sure not to
trigger alarm. Then they kill it with a bullet to the head. The
animal dies instantly and has no opportunity to experience pain.
Other ranchers contract with a specially designed mobile
slaughter facility that comes to the farm and manages the entire
process from killing the animals to preparing the carcass for
the aging process.
Typically, a grass-based ranch has fewer than 150 animals, and
the owners can identify each animal by sight. Their goal is to
make sure all the animals are well fed and cared for and do not
experience unnecessary stress at any time of their lives.
Corn
Prices Too High?
Feed the Animals Candy Instead
The growing use of corn for fuel has doubled the price of corn
for animal feed. Typically, corn comprises about 70 percent of
the diet of animals raised in confinement. To offset the spiking
cost of corn, many feedlot managers are replacing some of the
corn with candy and other “junk food” that has been declared
unfit for human consumption.
According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, this
sugary, fatty fare includes banana chips, yogurt-covered raisin,
cookies, licorice, cheese curls, frosted wheat cereal, Tater
Tots, Kit Kat bars, uncooked French fries, pretzels and
chocolate bars. One feedlot operator from Idaho confesses that
he feeds his cattle a 100 percent “by-product” meal.
Grass, the native diet of grazing animals, is a rich source of
protein, antioxidants, and omega-3 fatty acids. Has anyone
measured the nutritional value of meat from junk-food-fed cows?
Candy may be cheap, but it’s cheating consumers out of meat’s
natural nutrition. Consider grass-fed, instead.
“With Corn Prices Rising, Pigs Switch to Fatty Snacks” Lauren
Etter, Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2007
USDA Label for Grass-fed Meat Allows Feedlots and
Hormones
In August, 2006, the USDA
proposed a new label for grass-fed products. The purpose of the
label is to create a universal definition for the term
“grass-fed” to give consumers more clarity about of the type of
meat they are buying.
The proposed definition has
been rejected by most producers of grass-fed meat. As now
written, the proposed ruling allows meat to be labeled
“grass-fed” even if the animals are raised in a feedlot and
given added hormones and feed antibiotics. In fact, the only
stipulation in the USDA ruling is that the animals be raised on
mother’s milk, followed by a diet of 99 percent grass, legumes,
or forage. Although this language makes it clear that the
animals must not be fed grain, it does not require that the
animals be raised outdoors on fresh pasture. Indeed, as now
written, “grass-fed” meat could come from an animal raised in
confinement on a diet of hay. (Hay is less nutritious than fresh
grass and results in meat that is lower in omega-3 fatty acids,
CLA, and key antioxidants.) Also, the animals could be given
routine antibiotics and treated with hormones to speed up their
growth.
Dr. Patricia Whisnant,
president of the American Grassfed Association, told a reporter
for the New York Times that “We are pretty close to our
customers, and their perception of grass-fed means animals that
go from birth to harvest on pasture, not in a feedlot. They also
think pasture-raised means no hormones and no antibiotics.”
The official comment period
is now over. (The deadline was August 10, 2006.) However, you
can still send an email registering your concerns.
Beyond Organic
By Jo
Robinson
Printer Friendly
Version
Organic meat, poultry, and dairy products
are now available at your supermarket, which is a change for the
better. When you see the organic label, you know the food is
going to be free of pesticide residues, synthetic hormones,
genetically modified organisms, and a long list of questionable
additives. You also have the satisfaction of knowing that
raising animals organically causes less harm to the environment.
But when it comes to animal production, organic is not enough.
We need to be raising animals on their species-appropriate
diets.
Few consumers realize that many producers
of "organic" or "naturally raised" animal products, raise their
animals in confinement and feed them grain---just like the
operators of conventional feedlots.
Feeding large amounts of grain to a grazing animal decreases the
nutritional value of its products whether the grain is organic
or conventionally raised.
The reason is simple. Compared with grass, grain
has far fewer omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E.(1)
Therefore, grainfed animals have fewer of these important
nutrients in their meat and dairy products. Grainfeeding also
interferes with the creation of a cancer-fighting fight called
conjugated linoleic acid or CLA.(2)
I A test by an independent lab determined that milk from one of
the largest organic grain-fed dairies had no more omega-3 fatty
acids or CLA than milk from ordinary dairies. Similarly, meat
from organic grain-fed beef has the same nutritional profile as
meat from the largest Kansas feedlot.
The same story holds true for organic but
confinement-raised poultry. Their meat and eggs have no more
omega-3s or vitamin E than the products you find in the
supermarket.(3)
(Unless the birds are given special supplements along with the
grain.)
For many consumers, food safety is an even
bigger concern than nutrition. Once again, grass feeding offers
an important advantage. It has been known for decades that grain
feeding makes a cow's digestive tract more acid. Now we know
that this acidic environment speeds the growth of potentially
dangerous E. coli bacteria and, even
worse, makes the bugs more acid-resistant. Alarmingly, these
acid-resistant bacteria are much more likely to survive the
cleansing acidity of our own digestive juices and make us ill.
(4)
Depriving our livestock of fresh greens
and vastly increasing their consumption of grain has jeopardized
our health in ways people never imagined. Although feeding
organically raised grain reduces our reliance on pesticides and
synthetic fertilizers, it does not provide the food
that nature intended us to eat.
Jo Robinson is a New York Times
bestselling writer. Visit
http://eatwild.com, to find local suppliers of grassfed
products and the latest research about the benefits of
grassfarming.
1. Garton, G. A.. "Fatty Acid Composition
of the Lipids of Pasture Grasses." Nature 187(4736): 511-12.
2. Dhiman, T. R., G. R.
Anand, et al. (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk
from cows fed different diets." J Dairy Sci 82(10): 2146-56.
3. Lopez-Bote, C. J.,
R.Sanz Arias, A.I. Rey, A. Castano, B. Isabel, J. Thos (1998).
"Effect of free-range feeding on n-3 fatty acid and alpha-tocopherol
(vitamin E) content and oxidative stability of eggs." Animal
Feed Science and Technology 72: 33-40.
4. Diez-Gonzalez, F., T. R.
Callaway, et al. (1998). "Grain feeding and the dissemination of
acid-resistant Escherichia coli from cattle." Science 281(5383):
1666-8.
Your Beef On 'O'; Your Beef On 'Co'
By Rick Weiss
The Washington Post
Published:
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - Picture two steaks
on a grocer's shelf, each hermetically sealed in clear plastic wrap.
One is bright pink, rimmed
with a crescent of pearly white fat. The other is brown, its fat the
color of a smoker's teeth.
Which do you reach for?
The meat industry knows the
answer, which is why it has quietly begun to spike meat packages
with carbon monoxide.
The gas, harmless to health at
the levels being used, gives meat a bright pink color that lasts for
weeks. The hope is that it will save the industry much of the $1
billion it says it loses annually from having to discount or discard
meat that is reasonably fresh and perfectly safe but no longer
pretty.
But the growing use of carbon
monoxide as a "pigment fixative'' is alarming consumer advocates and
others who say it deceives shoppers who depend on color to help them
avoid spoiled meat. Those critics are challenging the Food and Drug
Administration and the nation's powerful meat industry, saying the
agency violated its own rules by allowing the practice without a
formal evaluation of its impact on consumer safety.
"This
meat stays red and stays red and stays red,'' said Don Berdahl, vice
president and laboratory director at Kalsec Foods in Kalamazoo,
Mich., a maker of natural food extracts that has petitioned the FDA
to ban the practice.
If nothing else, Berdahl and
others say, carbon-monoxide-treated meat should be labeled so
consumers will know not to trust their eyes.
The legal offensive has the
meat industry seeing red. Officials deny their foes' claim that
carbon monoxide is a "colorant'' - a category that would require a
full FDA review - saying it helps meat retain its naturally red
color.
Besides, industry
representatives say, color is a poor indicator of freshness as meat
turns brown from exposure to oxygen long before it goes bad.
"When
a product reaches the point of spoilage, there will be other signs
that will be evidenced - for example odor, slime formation and a
bulging package - so the product will not smell or look right,''
said Ann Boeckman, a lawyer with the Washington law firm Hogan &
Hartson. It represents Precept Foods LLC, a joint venture between
Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. and Hormel Foods Corp. that helped
pioneer the technology.
Much is at stake. The U.S.
market in "case ready'' meats - those packaged immediately after
slaughter, eliminating the need for butchers at grocery stores - is
approaching $10 billion and growing, said Steve Kay, of Cattle
Buyers Weekly, which tracks the industry from Petaluma, Calif. Tyson
Foods, for example - one of three meat packagers that has received a
green light from the FDA to use carbon monoxide - just opened a $100
million plant in Texas to churn out more case-ready "modified
atmosphere'' packaged meats, Kay said.
No one knows how much
carbon-monoxide-treated meat is being sold; the companies involved
are privately held or keep that information secret. But the
potential is seen as great. The new technology ``will finally make
this the case-ready revolution, rather than the case-ready
evolution,'' said Mark Klein, director of communications for
Cargill's meat business.
It is a revolution some want
stopped in its tracks.
"We
feel it's a huge consumer right-to-know issue,'' said Donna
Rosenbaum of Safe Tables Our Priority, an advocacy group in
Burlington, Vt., created after four children died and hundreds
became sick after eating tainted hamburgers from Jack in the Box
restaurants in 1992 and 1993. Last month, the Burlington group and
the Consumer Federation of America wrote in support of a ban.
At the core of the issue is how
the FDA has assessed companies' requests to use carbon monoxide in
their packaging.
It started about five years
ago, when Pactiv Corp. of Lake Forest, Ill., urged the FDA to
declare the approach "generally recognized as safe,'' or GRAS - a
regulatory category that allows a firm to proceed with its plans
without public review or formal agency "approval.''
The FDA told Pactiv in 2002 it
had no argument with the proposal. In 2004, Precept Foods received a
similar letter, and recently Tyson did as well.
The FDA also has deemed carbon
monoxide GRAS for keeping tuna looking fresh.
Kalsec acknowledges having an
economic interest in fighting the practice. The company sells
extracts of rosemary and other natural essences that help block the
oxidation that turns meat brown. Its products have allowed meat
packagers to use high-oxygen atmospheres in sealed packages to
maintain freshness without having to worry about browning.
That is a market that could
largely disappear as packagers switch to low-oxygen atmospheres with
carbon monoxide - an approach that keeps meat looking red not just
longer, but almost indefinitely.
But Kalsec and the consumer
advocates who have signed on to the fight say it is not just the
market in extracts that is at risk.
They say the European Union has
banned the use of carbon monoxide as a color stabilizer in meat and
fish. A December 2001 report from the European Commission's
Scientific Committee on Food concluded that the gas (whose chemical
abbreviation is "CO'') did not pose a risk as long as food was kept
cold enough during storage and transport to prevent microbial
growth. But should the meat become inadvertently warmer at some
point, it warned, "the presence of CO may mask visual evidence of
spoilage.''
How is it, Berdahl and others
ask, that something can be deemed "generally recognized as safe''
when there is enough scientific debate over the issue to warrant a
ban in Europe?
"I
just picture a refrigerator truck breaking down in Arizona and
sitting there for an afternoon. Then, `Hey, we got it repaired and
nobody knows the difference,' and there you go.''
Opponents also say the FDA was
wrong to consider carbon monoxide a color fixative rather than a
color additive - a crucial decision because additives must pass a
rigorous FDA review. They note that freshly cut meat looks purplish
red, and that the addition of carbon monoxide - which binds to a
muscle protein called myoglobin - turns it irreversibly pink.
Proponents of the gas counter
that meat turns from purple to red just from sitting in air, and
that CO prevents the next step, in which meats turn brown. They also
say consumers should pay attention to ``sell or freeze by'' dates as
the best indicator of freshness.
George Pauli, associate
director for science and policy in the FDA's Office of Food Additive
Safety, defended the agency's decisions. "In general, statute says
you cannot use (substances) in a deceptive manner, and the question
is what is a deceptive manner,'' Pauli said.
He emphasized that the agency
has never formally approved the gas' use, but rather looked at
information provided by the companies and decided not to object.
"We
said, 'Thank you, you've helped inform us,' '' Pauli said.
That is what has opponents most
upset.
"The
FDA should not have accepted carbon monoxide in meat without doing
its own independent evaluation of the safety implications,''
Elizabeth Campbell, former head of the FDA's office of food
labeling, wrote in a statement released in November.
Bucky Gwartney, executive
director for research and knowledge management for the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, chafes at the idea that the industry
is trying to fool consumers.
"It
would be ludicrous for a company to adopt a process that would
undermine what we all want, which is to assure that food is safe,''
Gwartney said. "Maybe it needs to be more transparent and public,''
he acknowledged. "If that's what we need to do, we'll probably do
that as an industry.''
|
