Animal Welfare Approved

Prev Next

More Bad Science: Ground Beef from Grainfed Cattle Healthier than Grassfed. Fact or Fable?

June 21, 2010 on 5:21 pm | By Andrew in Grass-Fed Beef, Nutrition 8 Comments

Cattle feedlotAt the recent Council for Agricultural Science and Technology symposium there seemed to be a consensus that folks didn’t trust science. Now, as some of you might know from my previous blogs (see “Beware of Bad Science”), one of my pet peeves is deceit and spin being masqueraded as real science. I believe that this practice is helping to undermine the vital role that science has to play in our lives, and is a key reason why more and more people don’t trust scientists.

On May 27, 2010, AgriLife Communications posted a press release which appears to refute claims that grassfed beef is healthier than grainfed beef. But the shocking lack of academic rigor behind this seemingly important press release demonstrates to me exactly why people are losing their faith in science.

This press release, entitled “Study shows ground beef from grainfed cattle healthier than grassfed,” claims to highlight new research by Dr. Stephen Smith, a Professor of Meat Science at AgriLife Research, a member of the Texas A&M University System. The background is that Dr. Smith was paid by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to look at the potential effects of eating grassfed or grainfed beef on cholesterol levels.

As Dr. Smith’s report runs counter to many people’s understanding of grassfed beef and its potential health benefits, it’s not surprising that it gained widespread media coverage. Indeed, many websites and blogs have repeated the AgriLife press release word for word. At AWA, however, we don’t simply copy and paste our news stories. We make a point of ensuring that the information we provide is based on up-to-date, proven, peer-reviewed science or published reports. And as we have a large number of grassfed farmers in our program we felt that a report stating that beef from grainfed cattle was healthier than grassfed warranted further investigation.

As we do with all news items, we sought to confirm the authenticity of the report by returning to Dr. Smith’s original study and reviewing its findings. Unfortunately, in this instance, our technical team could not find any references for the reported study. So we contacted Dr. Smith directly on June 6, 2010 to request further details. As we didn’t get a response, we sent another e-mail to Dr. Smith on June 9, asking for further information–this time copying the report’s co-author, Dr. Rosemary Walzem. Again, no response.

Concerned that we were being ignored, on June 14 we contacted the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the Texas A&M University, asking for his help in resolving the issue. To our surprise, we received no reply to this letter either. Just to cover all bases, we contacted the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, which funded the work, to ask if they had a copy of the study. You guessed it: complete silence.

Then, curiously, just as the publication deadline for this blog passed, a letter arrived from Dr. Smith, addressed not directly to our technical team, but to “whom it may concern.” This letter was dated nine days after our first request, but not actually sent until 11 days after the first request and, interestingly, after our e-mail to the Dean.

There are several striking points about this response. Perhaps the most concerning is the fact that it was addressed “to whom it may concern.” Together with some of the other content, this clearly shows that we were not the only people chasing down the real facts of the matter. Other key points are just how many people we had to ask before we got a reply and, of course, the lack of any real weight to the final response. If, as Dr. Smith suggests, the report is heading for a peer review and publication in a recognized scientific journal then I know a couple of nutritionists who would love to review it.

In the letter itself, Dr. Smith refers to a previous piece of research, British Journal of Nutrition, 103:91-98, 2010, which is puzzling in so much as all the ten individuals involved in that study had high cholesterol before the work started, and the diet during and between the trials appears to have been unsupervised. In other words, apart from the few burgers a week that they were required to eat by the trial, there isn’t much detail on what else the ten people ate during the trial. And, yes, that wasn’t a typo: only TEN people took part in this earlier study. In any event, this previously published piece is not overly relevant to the fire storm caused by what appears to be the premature reporting of a study awaiting review.

So what’s the problem? Surely a report wouldn’t have been written and presented at conferences unless it had been reviewed and validated. Well, without seeing the full study we can’t tell you. But what we can tell you is that significant conclusions are being drawn – and publicized in the media – from a study that only included 27 people who ate burgers for only five weeks at a time. We contacted other researchers with expertise in carrying out nutritional trials and the bottom line is that this number of subjects simply isn’t enough to produce any meaningful results.

Aside from the issue of a very small sample size, there are also many unanswered questions about this supposed scientific research. The original AgriLife news release reports that the 27 volunteers ate five 115g burgers a week for each five week trial. Now, we don’t think it’s unrealistic to say that the individuals taking part in the trial probably ate other food as well during the five-week period – but what other food did they eat? Could this other food have affected the results of the blood tests? And what about the health status and initial cholesterol results of the volunteers? Were some of them particularly high or low? We just don’t know.

The press release states that the work was carried out because there was a lack of research on the health effects of grassfed versus grainfed beef. We would beg to differ on this point. Without this news report, and based on what is already published, we know that the science shows that grassfed products are far healthier for you than grainfed, as grassfed products contain higher levels of vitamin E and omega 3. Grassfed beef is also safer. As we have previously reported aside from the extra vitamins and omega 3, grassfed beef is unlikely to be carrying E coli 157 – sadly not something you can say of all grainfed, feedlot beef.

The title of this blog is “More Bad Science: Fact or Fiction” but at the moment we can’t even say if this report is science at all. At AWA we welcome all research that contributes to the debate around grassfed versus grainfed beef. But it must be credible research, not just fairy tale stuff.

Sorry guys, but it’s time to put up or shut up if you want consumers to believe your science. Make sure your science is unbiased, accurate and, in this case, that it actually exists. Maybe I don’t have a Ph.D in nutrition, but I have trusted friends who do, and I do have a healthy cynicism for deceit and spin. I look forward to reading this study that, according to Dr. Smith, is awaiting review and publication. But until then I’m afraid I’ll be sticking to what we already know, and which is backed up by peer reviewed, published science: grassfed beef really is better for you than grainfed. I hope all the pro-feedlot folks who naively promoted this unpublished, un-reviewed report with banner headlines will offer their grassfed friends an apology for not checking their sources – and will improve their journalistic practices in the future.

As I have said before, I believe that sound science is a key to the future, but only in the hands of ethical scientists. We need to expose these shameless media stunts and the bad science they promote. Only then will consumers once again have confidence in the many great and revered scientists who are working tirelessly to make the world a better, more sustainable place.

Chronology
Initial e-mail to Dr. Smith: June 6, 2010
Follow up e-mail to Dr. Smith and Dr. Walzem: June 9, 2010
E-mail to the Dean of Agricultural Sciences: June 14, 2010
E-mail to Bethany Shively, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: June 18, 2010
E-mail from Dr Smith: June 18, 2010


RSS Facebook ReTweet Animal Welfare Approved on Twitter Animal Welfare Approved on My Space SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Prev Next

8 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Can’t we all just get along?
    The entire ag community needs to be sticking together during these times. As long as we are all promoting the consumption of animal products does it really matter if it is grass or grain fed? We all know that the beef produced in the US is safe and wholesome. As long as the animals are raised humanely can’t we just let the consumer decide which product they prefer with less bickering amongst ourselves. I don’t feel this is an issue that can have a simple answer as to which is healthier.

    Comment by Erin — June 22, 2010 #

  2. I would love to do just this, sadly we cannot let this type of mis-messaging stand. America has some of the greatest farmers in the world. My job is to protect and promote pasture-based Animal Welfare Approved farmers. I would so much prefer to do that in a positive way. I hope the author and reporters hear your voice.

    Comment by Andrew — June 23, 2010 #

  3. Propaganda at its finest? (worst?)

    When they finally understand their product doesn’t measure up, they fall back to the old “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with your brilliance, baffle with your BS!” approach.

    –Tim Koegel

    Comment by Tim Koegel — June 23, 2010 #

  4. Industry-financed “science” = junk science.

    It’s no wonder that people don’t trust science any more. Too bad they don’t realise that they shouldn’t trust the media that prints this rubbish.

    BTW, I find Google Alerts very useful. Just plug the article title in, and Google will send you a link every time the article is “reprinted” (title intact) in another paper. Happens all the time, unfortunately.

    Comment by Carol — June 23, 2010 #

  5. Perhaps you should do more research yourself before stating “the science”, from your “trusted nutrition sources”.
    Therefore, to help make your readers more informaed from a non-bias source, here is some actual facts, in regards to the nutrition science of the matter. And from now on, please do your OWN research the next time you want to scold someone for not doing thiers…
    Beef cattle that are grass fed are higher in omega 3’s, (you are correct here) than grain fed cattle. However, they are higher in omega 3’s by only 19 milligrams. This number, while it is statistically significant in terms of the research studies generated does NOT proceeed to give credibility to the claim that it is better for you in the context of one’s overall diet. For example, the receommendation for Omega 3’s that one should be consuming on a daily basis in the diet are 285 milligrams of omega 3’s (based on American Heart Association Recommendations). Therefore, by your logic stating that grass fed beef is more impactful on health/ “nutritious” than grain fed beef, this would ultimately mean, to get dietary benefits from choosing grass fed beef over grain fed beef, we would need to consume 33 ounces of grass fed beef a day.
    However, what Dr. Smith’s research does point out is this: Grain fed beef when compared to grass fed beef is 4% higher in monounsaturated fatty acids. This is importatnt because we know that grain fed beef is an excellent source of monunsaturated fatty acids to the diet, in just a single 3oz. serving. And contrary to what most people know or realize, grain fed beef was actually,as stated by the FSIS 2005 survey, found to be the #1 source of monunsaturated fats to the diet. We also KNOW, from SOUND SCIENCE, that momunsaturated fats are VERY beneficial in regards to cardiovascular health and CVD prevention. So, since you are obviously NOT a nutrition scientist, I will gladly give you the jist in regards to this research. Basically, what it is telling us is that for health purposes, to get dietary benefit from beef, we are better off, in terms of nutrition, going with grain feed beef versus grass fed beef, so that we may see some results on health in regards to its corresponding fatty acid profile. If nutritionally, we want to see return on health for omega 3’s, we would be much better off going for a 3 oz serving of salmon versus a 3oz. serving of grass fed beef. This research is very informative and helpful in terms of overall dietary patterns, which correct me if I am wrong, is HOW people eat, not just based on ONE single food item. This, therefore, is the reason we have nutrition research to provide us with information for health, in regards to nutrition based on overall dietary patterns.
    Please, next time you speak ill of current science or research, think about the fact that you MAY just be confused or find something false, merely based on the fact that you are OBVIOUSLY NOT a scientist, and that it’s goal may be far beyond your depths of understanding in terms of its use to the scientific community and allied health professionals.

    Comment by mp — June 28, 2010 #

  6. Thank you for your detailed response.

    The point we are making is that we must stop letting complex research hit the press when it’s not yet published or reviewed. This is particularly the case when it has the potential to negatively affect hard-working American farmers and confuse well-intentioned consumers. I completely agree that the evidence shows that monosaturated fats have a positive benefit on cardiovascular health. The piece I wrote covered far more than the missing research, it highlighted the many positive reasons for eating grass fed beef. Omega 3 is just one part of a raft of positive benefits, such as food safety, environmental protection and animal welfare.

    This blog was written from the point of view of not seeing the so-called research. Dr. Smith was unable to send it as it was awaiting review (see letter from Dr. Smith–http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/S-B-Smith-letter.pdf). Dr. Smith also pointed out that the cattle may have been fed hay rather than a pasture diet and refers to pasture feeding rather than grassfed. The system described is probably not the diet most grassfed animals finish on. This is important to the fatty qualities of the meat. This does not reflect grassfed protocols AWA farmers use. This would potentially–and without seeing the feed protocol in detail–make the outcome somewhat flawed. If you have Dr. Smith’s report, please let us have a copy and we will get it reviewed. I made a very clear statement that I was not a nutritionist. Sadly we couldn’t engage one to review the paper because the paper isn’t published.

    Research and science are going to be crucial to the future of our food systems.

    Comment by Andrew — June 29, 2010 #

  7. Interesting points, mp.

    Nutrition is complicated, and, as we learn more every day, the pendulum may swing back and forth on the relative impact of various foods on human health. That may be the case for grass fed vs. grain fed beef, and, in any case, I am willing to bet that the difference is rather small.

    However, I do think it is important to try to look at it from a larger picture than just the effects of the meat itself. What about the effects on the environment of producing meat via the conventional feed lot system vs. producing it organically and/or humanely? Surely the impact on the environment has implications for human health as well.

    For me personally, it is important to consider the well being of the animals, too. Even if it could be proven that eating meat from grain fed animals was better for my health and would add a few years to my life, I would still refuse to eat it because, to me, it is not worth torturing animals in order for me to gain those few years.

    Finally, I think it is important to consider the impact on human psychological health as well. Yes, I said psychological health. Here, I am talking about common sense, not scientific studies. Is it healthy to raise our children in a society where the vast majority of people are closing their eyes to the obvious torture of other creatures? We, as a society, might say that it is bad to cause extreme suffering, but at the same time make little effort to find out how we treat livestock, and, once finding out, to change for the better. What are we teaching our kids, here? That if you pretend it’s not happening, you don’t have to do anything about it? Or,that it’s okay to torture another being if it tastes good?

    So, to all of you out there who think grain fed beef is better: No thank you. You can keep eating it for as long as it is available, but I’ll stick with my own policy of minimal animal products, and only those which have been produced in a system where the animals were allowed to express their natural behaviors, and to eat what their own physiology is equipped to properly digest.

    Comment by janet — July 13, 2010 #

  8. Hats off to you! We – meaning every US citizen and beyond – need this type of investigation. My passion is pouring through studies. The contriditions between studies is amazing – seems no two studies can produce the same result. There are variances between individuals in a study but the overall results should be consistant provided the people conducting the study follow proper guidelines. The forementioned study is obviously flawed (intentionally) thus leading to results that are contrary to the results of countless other studies. This Dr and his associates need to be called out and defamed. – Really tired of people like him. For a nickle he’s willing to poison the world. Hopefully his deceit comes full circle.

    Comment by Jack Russell — April 20, 2011 #

Leave a comment





1007 Queen Street | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 202-546-5292 (5AWA) | Fax: 202-446-2151
© 2010 Animal Welfare Approved. All rights reserved.