Why Grass Fed > Articles on Grass Fed Beef

Articles on Grass Fed beef

 

Do You Want Ammonia With That?

Ring in the new decade with yet another disturbing story about commercial hamburger. A New York Times expose, published on December 30, 2009, revealed that Beef Products, Inc (BPI), a South Dakota meat processor, has been injecting ammonia into “fatty slaughterhouse trimmings” to kill bacteria and render it safe for human consumption.

The USDA has approved this novel process. Indeed, studies conducted by BPI showed the product to be so effective that the government agency exempted BPI products from routine testing. In another bow to the company, the USDA agreed with BPI that the word “ammonia” need not appear on ingredient labels. Instead, it can be described as a generic “processing agent.” 

Why does this matter to you? If you eat commercial hamburger, the chances are very good that you’ve eaten ammoniated beef. BPI claims that its processed scraps are used in a majority of the hamburger sold in the United States. Even our kids have been treated to the meat. According to the Times, “The federal school lunch program used an estimated 5.5 million pounds of the processed beef last year alone,” saving an estimated $1 million a year.

There are a number of problems using ammonia to sanitize beef, beginning with the obvious “ugh, yuck” factor; the very idea of sterilizing meat with ammonia is revolting to many. Then there’s the odor. Even though the BPI meat is mixed with untreated meat which dilutes the smell, some consumers have still complained of a gaseous odor. The Times reports that meat buyers for Georgia State prisons rejected 7,000 pounds of the stuff because it had “a very strong odor of ammonia.”
This “odor problem” could explain why some batches of BPI meat have been treated with lesser amounts of ammonia—significantly, not enough to kill the harmful bacteria! Consumers get a product that has a more acceptable odor and flavor, but it’s not safe to eat! Last year, more than 53,000 pounds of BPI meat designated for school lunch programs tested positive for either E. coli or salmonella.

Several USDA microbiologists, including Gerald Zirnstein, have been critical of the USDA’s approval of ammoniated beef. In a 2002 email message obtained by the Times, Zirnstein described the BPI beef product as “pink slime” and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

The entire New York Times investigation is worth reading. (Safety of Beef Processing Method is Questioned” by Michael Moss.) Find it online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html   

Confused About Fat? Choose Grassfed!
by Jo Robinson

In my Grandma's day, there was no such thing as a bad fat. All fat was "good" simply because it tasted good. My Grandma fried her eggs in bacon grease, added bacon grease to her cakes and pancakes, made her pie crusts from lard, and served butter with her homemade bread. My grandmother was able to thrive on all that saturated fat - but not my grandfather. He suffered from angina and died from heart failure at a relatively young age.

My grandfather wasn't alone. Population studies from the first half of the 20th century showed that Americans in general had a much higher risk of cardiovascular disease than people from other countries, especially Japan, Italy and Greece. Was all that saturated fat to blame? The Japanese were eating very little fat of any kind, while the people of the Mediterranean were swimming in olive oil, an oil that is very low in saturated fat but high in monounsaturated oils.

So, in the 1960s, word came from on high that we should cut back on the butter, cream, eggs and red meat. But, interestingly, the experts did not advise us to switch to an ultra-low fat diet like the Japanese, nor to use monounsaturated oils like the Greeks or Italians. Instead, we were advised to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated oils - primarily corn oil and safflower. Never mind the fact that no people in the history of this planet had ever eaten large amounts of this type of oil. It was deemed "the right thing to do." Why? First of all, the United States had far more corn fields than olive groves, so it seemed reasonable to use the type of oil that we had in abundance. But just as important, according to the best medical data at the time, corn oil and safflower oil seemed to lower cholesterol levels better than monounsaturated oils.

Today, we know that's not true. In the 1960s, researchers did not differentiate between "good" HDL cholesterol and "bad" LDL cholesterol. Instead, they lumped both types together and focused on lowering the sum of the two. Polyunsaturated oils seemed to do this better than monounsaturated oils. We now know they achieve this feat by lowering both our bad and our good cholesterol, in effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Monounsaturated oils leave our HDL intact.

In hindsight, it's not surprising, then, that our death rate from cardiovascular disease remained high in the 1970s and 80s even though we were eating far less butter, eggs, bacon grease, and red meat: We had been told to replace saturated fat with the wrong kind of oil.

During this same era, our national health statistics were highlighting another problem, this one even more ominous: an increasing number of people were dying from cancer. Why were cancer deaths going up? Was it the fact that our environment was more polluted? That our food had more additives, herbicides and pesticides? That our lives were more stressful? That we were not eating enough fruits and vegetables? Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

But there was another reason we were losing the war against cancer: the supposedly "heart-healthy" corn oil and safflower oil that the doctors had advised us to pour on our salads and spread on our bread contained high amounts of a type of fat called "omega-6 fatty acids." There is now strong evidence that omega-6s can make cancer cells grow faster and more invasive. For example, if you were to inject a colony of rats with human cancer cells and then put some of the rats on a corn oil diet, some on a butterfat diet, and some on a beef fat diet, the ones given the omega-6 rich corn oil would be afflicted with larger and more aggressive tumors.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to us, we were getting a second helping of omega-6s from our animal products. Starting in the 1950s, the meat industry had begun taking our animals off pasture and fattening them on grains high in omega-6s, adding to our intake of these potentially cancer-promoting fats.

In the early 1990s, we learned that our modern diet was harboring yet another unhealthy fat: trans-fatty acids. Trans-fatty acids are formed during the hydrogenation process that converts vegetable oil into margarine and shortening. Carefully designed studies were showing that these manmade fats are worse for our cardiovascular system than the animal fats they replaced. Like some saturated fats, they raise our bad cholesterol. But unlike the fats found in nature, they also lower our good cholesterol - delivering a double whammy to our coronary arteries. "Maybe butter is better after all," conceded the health experts.

Given all this conflicting advice about fat, consumers were ready to lob their tubs of margarine at their doctors. For decades they had been skimping on butter, even though margarine tasted little better than salty Vaseline. Now they were being told that margarine might increase their risk of a heart attack!

Some people revolted by trying to abandon fat altogether. For breakfast, they made do with dry toast and fat-free cottage cheese. For lunch, they ate salad greens sprinkled with pepper and vinegar. Dinner was a skinless chicken breast poached in broth. Or better yet, a soy burger topped with lettuce. Dessert? Well, after all that self-denial, what else but a big bowl of fat-free ice cream and a box of Snackwell cookies. Thank goodness calories no longer counted! Only fat made you fat!

Or, so the diet gurus had told us. Paradoxically, while we were doing our best to ferret out all the fat grams, we were getting fatter and fatter. We were also becoming more prone to diabetes. Replacing fat with sugar and refined carbohydrates was proving to be no more beneficial than replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated oils.

At long last, in the mid-1990s, the first truly good news about fat began to emerge from the medical labs. The first fats to be given the green light were the monounsaturated oils, the ones that had helped protect the health of the Mediterraneans for so many generations. These oils are great for the heart, the scientists discovered, and they do not promote cancer. They are also a deterrent against diabetes. The news came fifty years too late, but it was welcome nonetheless. Please pass the olive oil!

Stearic acid, the most abundant fat in beef and chocolate, was also found to be beneficial. Unlike some other saturated fats, stearic acid does not raise your bad cholesterol and it may even give your good cholesterol a little boost. Hooray!

Then, at the tail end of the 20th century, two more "good" fats were added to the roster - omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA, the fat found in the meat and dairy products of ruminants. Both of these fats show signs of being potent weapons against cancer. However, the omega-3s may be the best of all the good fats because they are also linked with a lower risk of virtually all the so-called "diseases of civilization," including cardiovascular disease, depression, ADHD, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, obesity, asthma, and autoimmune diseases.

So, some of you may be wondering, what does this brief history of fat have to do with grassfarming? Few people realize that all omega-3s originate in the green leaves of plants and algae. Fish have large amounts of this good fat because they eat small fish that eat smaller fish that dine on omega-3 rich algae and phytoplankton. Grazing animals have more omega-3s because they get the omega-3s directly from the grass. In both cases, the omega-3s are ultimately passed on to humans, the top of the food chain.

Products from grassfed animals offer us more than omega-3s. They contain significant amounts of two "good" fats, monounsaturated oils and stearic acid, but no manmade trans-fatty acids. They are also the richest known natural source of CLA and contain extra amounts of vitamin E and beta-carotene. Finally, grassfed meat is lower than feedlot meat in total fat and calories, making it ideally suited for our sedentary lifestyles.

I don't believe it's a matter of luck or chance that grassfed products have so many of the good fats but so few of the bad. In fact, I'll wager that the more that is discovered about fat in the coming years, the more grassfed meat will shine. The reason for my confidence is simple: our bodies are superbly adapted to this type of food. In the distant past, grassfed meat was the only meat around. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors either brought home a grazing ruminant such as elk, deer, or bison, or a predator that preyed on those animals. Either way, the nutrients found in grass made their way into the animals' flesh, and ultimately, into our own.

Over the eons, our bodies began to "expect" the kinds and amounts of fat found in grassfed meat. Our hearts counted on the omega-3s to stabilize their rhythm and keep blood clots from forming. Our brain cells relied on omega-3 to build flexible, receptor-rich membranes. Our immune systems used the omega-3s and CLA to help fend off cancer. And because wild game is relatively lean, our bodies weren't burdened with unnecessary amounts of fat or calories.

When we switch from grainfed to grassfed meat, then, we are simply returning to our original diet, the diet that is most in harmony with our physiology. Every cell and system of our bodies function better when we eat products from animals raised on grass.

Jo Robinson is a New York Times bestselling writer. She is the author or coauthor of 11 nationally published books including Pasture Perfect, which is a comprehensive overview of the benefits of choosing products from pasture-raised animals, and The Omega Diet (with Dr. Artemis Simopoulos) that describes an omega-3 enriched Mediterranean diet that may be the healthiest eating program of all. To order her books or learn more about grassfed products, visit http://eatwild.com.

Grass-fed Beef Clearly Superior, Says New German and Canadian Study

Yet another study shows that grass-fed meat is nutritionally superior to feedlot meat. This newest study examined the differences in fat content between four breeds of cattle that were either 1) raised on pasture or 2) given grain and other feedstuff in a feedlot.

As in previous research, the results showed that meat from cattle raised on pasture had much healthier fats. The researchers concluded that grass-fed meat is "clearly superior" and "remarkably beneficial."  They stated that grass-fed meat "should be promoted as an important part of a healthy balanced diet."

(Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, June 2008, 56:4775-4782.)

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

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'

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.''

© 2010 Lazy69Ranch