Probably 200 bison forded that stream as they moved to new grazing lands, and witnessing it was an unparalleled experience. Despite their powerful size, bison are graceful creatures and move almost daintily, but with speed and purpose. And they really do thunder.

In 1800, it was estimated that more than 40 million bison roamed the United States; by 1900, after an unprecedented and sustained massacre, fewer than 600 bison remained. Most of the bison you see today are descendents of a ragtag group of several dozen bison who had been saved by conservationists dedicated to their survival.

Historically, bison were the lifeblood of a number of Native American tribes, providing meat, skins, and other important supplies.  Indeed, bison meat has fed humans for thousands of years.  Six years ago was the first time I saw bison being farmed for meat. The animals were being raised on 13,000 acres in Texas and were roaming their homelands in family groups, just as nature intended. They were carefully overseen by skilled stockmen who knew that the best management for these magnificent creatures was to ensure that they had the space and freedom to utilize the land to their own advantage. The animals had no parasites and were totally in harmony with their environment – their only feed was grass and forage, the true and proper diet of a ruminant. At slaughter, selected animals, carefully chosen to be the least disruptive to herd structure, were taken for meat with a single, immediately fatal shot delivered under the supervision of the USDA inspector.

Shortly thereafter I saw the antithesis of that thoughtful, holistic system as I walked among bison on feedlots. Bison are wild animals; they have not been domesticated by man like cattle and sheep. That day, I saw thousands of these undomesticated animals react as their natural behavior dictated they should to any threat. They stood unmoving in defensive circles. When they did move, only to eat and drink, the closely packed feedlot left them unable to fight off any parasitic challenges and many required pharmaceutical treatments. They were fed an unnatural corn- and grain-based diet that is not only alien to them but which leads to unbalanced conditions in their digestive systems, which then acts as a haven for E. Coli O157:H7.  They looked neither strong nor majestic, but confused and defeated.

Must we continue to dominate and control and force our will on everything we see and touch? Must we now subject bison—wild animals—to a system that has already proven inhumane and unsafe?

Given the documented problems with the feedlot system, I wasn’t surprised to read about the recall of bison meat due to E. Coli that has caused the illness of five people in Colorado and one in New York. Although Rocky Mountain Natural Meat (the processor) and the retailers who stocked the product (including some well-known ones)seem to want you to believe their bison is a ”natural” product, in fact, what consumers were buying was feedlot meat with the inherent risks that such production has been shown to  generate.

Bison meat has often been promoted as the healthy alternative to beef. It has a far lower fat content than beef – 5 to 7 percent for bison compared with 25 to 30 percent for beef – and higher protein content. Before this recall most people would have thought of bison as a safe, healthy meat from animals roaming the ranges of the West. We can now see all too well that this isn’t the case.

The only reason to force these stately animals into confinement is to try to speed up their growth so a few greedy ranchers can profit. But by their very nature these kings of the prairie need space to roam in order to fulfill their natural behaviors and keep them healthy. Why on earth would we want to change that? Big Ag’s “improvements” in genetics for chicken and pigs have done little but shorten the lives of the animals, weaken their skeletons, remove maternal traits that have led to cages, and breed the flavor out of them.

Knowing what we know now about our failed attempts to force domesticated animals into unnatural industrialized farming systems, do we seriously need to do the same to a wild animal?  Why on earth do we want to put bison in feedlots just to make it more like beef, particularly when one of the attributes of bison is its lean, light meaty flavor? Why would you want your bison burger to taste like a beef burger?

Aside from the inexplicable need to force feed bison to make them more like cattle, feedlot confinement has the same ill-effects on bison as it can have on cattle.  Which means the revolting acid-resistant E Coli O157:H7 has been found in bison meat. At least six people have fallen ill and one person has instigated proceedings against Rocky Mountain Natural Meats, the bison meat processor. As we have highlighted in previous blogs, the cause of this particularly virulent E. Coli is related to the inappropriate grain feeding of ruminants, creating an unnatural environment in their digestive systems that allows E. Coli to flourish. Bison fed on pasture or range and raised slowly produce lean, healthy meat, free from acid-resistant E. Coli.

As consumers we can vote with our dollar and end the bison feedlot industry before it destroys this noble species. We can refuse to buy bison from feedlots which may in fact be bad for our health as well as for the health and well being of the animals. If you want to play Russian roulette with E. Coli, buy feedlot beef.

If you feel as I do, buy bison only from herds that live and forage on pasture or range. Demand that your retailer stops selling meats that can kill.  If there is no market for feedlot bison then bison will stop being subjected to feedlots. Let’s not make another mistake that will imperil this magnificent beast.

Talk about a waste of time on top of a waste of money.

According to the Des Moines Register, Secretary Vilsack responded, “I believe cultivating these new markets – not replacing old ones – is critical to revitalizing rural America by preserving wealth, increasing farm income, and reminding us all of the hard work and values that sustain those communities and our Nation.” He also attached 90 pages itemizing funding awards that the USDA has made.

Am I missing something here? According to the 2000 census, nearly 80% of the U.S. population (i.e., eaters) live in urban areas – wouldn’t it make sense to focus our resources there? Though farms may be located in rural areas, their markets are by and large where the people are – in cities. As Katherine Gustafson points out in her recent blog, the senators’ “use of the term ‘propping up,’ …suggests that these markets are not viable and would collapse without government help.” As if “production agriculture” is a function of a free market! To the contrary, government payments eat up a significant portion of our Farm Bill funds – over $12 billion in 2008 alone – in contrast to the meager $65 million released to the KYF2 program since its inception in 2009.

The major beneficiaries of government funding to date have not been farmers but big business and shareholders. Government payments that facilitate production below the market value help the company, not the producer. Is it any coincidence that agribusiness is one of Senator Chambliss’ top campaign contributors at nearly 2 million? As a taxpayer you are paying for the disposal of toxic feedlot waste and chicken manure, all in the name of “affordable” food. And this is not pocket change we are talking about – the most recent farm bill passed will cost the average American family $2,590.27. Will someone please explain to me how we can really “afford” to spend this money subsidizing companies who pollute our waterways, taint our food and destroy the agriculture upon which our country was founded? As Righteous Porkchop author Nicolette Hahn Niman said at our recent panel Green Pastures, Bright Future, our collective funds should be used to “incentivize the kind of agriculture we want” – reallocate the subsidies to support farmers doing the right thing and healthy food will be available to all. I think it’s about time for us to put our money on the food systems that actually benefit us – as eaters and farmers.

AWA Program Director Andrew Gunther moderated the discussion, beginning by posing this question to the panelists: “How does such a diversified group have an opinion on the future of agriculture?” Panelists’ responses highlighted the issues that affect all of us, including truth in labeling, fair and scale-appropriate regulation, overuse of antibiotics, environmental pollution and treatment of farm animals and workers.

Speakers also addressed the role of the consumer in ensuring the sustainability of our food system. Morison explained, “Consumers need to get more involved in their communities. You’re not only sustaining farms, but the communities as well.” Kirby commented on the disconnect between consumer expectation and the realities of the food we eat: “When you get your cheap yogurt at the mall you’re not thinking about how now someone can’t use their well water anymore.” Niman encouraged eaters to do their homework, understand the systems they support with their food dollars and offered the following rule of thumb:  “I want all my food to come from farms I want to visit.” Dr. Whisnant agreed, encouraging us to “start from the consumer side and demand change.”

We were honored to host such an accomplished and articulate panel.  Their work is creating a truly sustainable path forward – one that sustains farm families, animals and the communities that depend on them.

For more quotes from the event visit us on Twitter (@AWAapproved). We will be posting video footage soon!

The future of high-welfare, environmentally and financially sustainable livestock farming is brighter than industrialized agriculture would have us believe, says a panel of experts convening on May 4, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in Washington, DC for a public discussion, “Green Pastures, Bright Future: Taking the Meat We Eat Out of the Factory and Putting it Back on the Farm.” The panel discussion is presented by Animal Welfare Approved in cooperation with the Pew Environment Group.

Participating on the panel are investigative journalist and author of Animal Factory David Kirby; author of the bestselling Righteous Porkchop Nicolette Hahn Niman; chicken farmer and whistle-blower in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Food, Inc.” Carole Morison;  and rancher, veterinarian and president of the American Grassfed Association, Dr. Patricia Whisnant. The discussion will be moderated by Andrew Gunther, program director for Animal Welfare Approved.

“The growth of the Animal Welfare Approved certification program alone points to the success of family farmers who use pasture-based, humane and environmentally responsible methods,” says Gunther. “Our panelists are those who have led the way and are committed to farming that is based in the wisdom of the past and the best practices of the present. They are some of the most knowledgeable people in the field, with extraordinary insight into the past and present of sustainable livestock farming, and we are looking forward to a lively and stimulating dialogue on an issue that affects all of us.”

For more information, please see the press release.

To RSVP please click here.

Please help us spread the word by distributing the event flyer!

Entitled, “Where’s the Local Beef?,” the report describes an  monopolistic industry that favors large operations at the expense of smaller ones. Despite a large number of small start-ups, the authors note that most of these will go out of business. The current regulatory and industrial climate is just not designed for independent slaughter plants – existing or planned.

Among the obstacles faced by smaller plants (defined as having fewer than 500 employees) are: scale-inappropriate regulations, lack of skilled personnel, and a near absence of competition in the industry.  For instance in 2005, the top four beef-packing companies controlled over 80% of the market. Highlighting numerous interviews with independent plant owners, the report offers insight into the daily challenges faced by this important component of our local food economies. Finally, the authors offer suggestions and recommendations to facilitate their growth. Download the entire report here.

Education, consumer advocacy and lifting the veil from the practices of industrialized agriculture are transforming shopping habits. Despite industry efforts, concern for farm animal welfare is gaining significant strength. The study finds that the importance of animals being humanely raised is exceeded only by food safety concerns, and animal welfare scores well above “natural” and “organically produced.” Consumers who have grown up more aware of how food is produced are intensifying the demand for meat, dairy and eggs from humanely raised animals: Forty-four percent of shoppers aged 20 to 34 always look for cage-free eggs.

Americans are also turning to labels like Animal Welfare Approved to help them make purchasing decisions; the report finds that ethical claims help consumers identify high quality, safe and humane foods. When credible and relevant, ethical claims also help consumers form deeper emotional connections with brands. Overall, 58 percent of shoppers are more willing to take the time to learn about ethically produced food brands while 44 percent stopped buying a product when the company producing it acted in an unethical way. Forty-two percent are more loyal to more ethically produced food brands.

The report only tells us what we have seen on the ground for a long time— more and more people care about what they eat and they aren’t willing to compromise. AWA believes that informed consumers are our best allies and we are committed to remaining a label that consumers can trust. Check our database to find meat, dairy and eggs that live up your expectations of being good for animals, people and the planet.

Animal Welfare Approved seeking AWA pasture-based farm(s) to supply eggs in Washington, DC area.  If not currently certified, must be willing to pursue free certification. Immediate need.  Please contact Julie Munk at info@animalwelfareapproved.org or at 202.546.5292.  Please pass along.  Thanks.

In falsely marketing its chicken meat as produced from birds “raised without antibiotics” while still feeding them antibiotics, Tyson Foods was shamelessly exploiting the growing public concern over the excessive use of antibiotics in industrial farming, particularly in the form of non-therapeutic growth promoters.

But while the intensive meat industry continues to vigorously oppose any attempts to reduce antibiotic use in farming, the irony is that Tyson Foods may well have inadvertently shot itself in the foot by publicly admitting that the overuse of certain antibiotics in industrial farming really is a threat to human health.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria

The practice of feeding farm animals low doses of antibiotics in food and water began back in the 1950s, and has since become standard practice. Nowadays, virtually all intensively farmed animals will receive low levels of antibiotics in their feed, water or by injection throughout their lives as so called “growth promoters” to help maximize production and minimize costs. This approach allows today’s intensive poultry farmers, for example, to keep tens of thousands of chickens indoors in an unnatural state of false health, whereby the low-level antibiotics suppress key diseases which would otherwise spread like wildfire in such close-confined and all too often unsanitary environments. Sound too good to be true? Well, it is.

Mounting scientific evidence now suggests that Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are a breeding ground for diseases that pose a real threat to human health. Indeed, the routine low-level, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters to suppress diseases – rather than as a therapeutic treatment for outright cure – is leading to the development and proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the animal and human population.

Key antibiotic-resistant bacteria are now starting to hit humans hard, with various emerging resistant strains of E. coli, salmonella and MRSA, to name just a few. The US Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy claims that MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infections are up more than 50% since 1987, while some estimate that antibiotic resistant infections are increasing healthcare costs by $4-5 billion a year. It is clear that antibiotic resistant disease represents a ticking time bomb for human health – and people are finally waking up to this fact.

False marketing

In a rather cynical attempt to capitalize on this growing public concern, in 2007, Tyson Foods began marketing its chicken as “raised without antibiotics” after first gaining approval from the USDA to do so. But the problem was that Tyson Foods wasn’t telling the USDA the whole story; after finding out that the company was still including ionophores in its poultry feed, the USDA quickly revoked its decision.

Classified by the USDA as antibiotics, ionophores are a group of animal medicines commonly added to industrial poultry feed to help prevent coccidiosis, an intestinal parasite. Ionophores are just one of several groups of antibiotics that are used by the major industrial farming businesses; the problem is that many are also vital for treating disease in humans.

Initially, Tyson’s legal team tried to argue that ionophores weren’t officially classified as antibiotics, but the USDA quickly reaffirmed that they were and that Tyson must therefore stop selling its chicken as “raised without antibiotics.”

Tyson approached the USDA again, this time arguing that because ionophores were not actually used in human medicine, their use in farming could not lead to the possible emergence of diseases with antibiotic resistance to important human drugs. On this basis, Tyson said that they were willing to compromise and would modify their labels to state “chicken raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans.” But it never got that far; once Tyson’s key competitors got wind of the issue, they filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Tyson Foods’ labeling ideas constituted false advertising. In June 2008, Tyson Foods voluntarily withdrew the label entirely, and finally settled the case in early 2010.

Tyson backfires…

But while many journalists will simply dismiss this whole episode as yet another damning indictment of our troubled food and farming systems, this story might not end there: for Tyson Foods has inadvertently shot itself – and the industrial food lobby – in the foot.

By modifying its label from “chicken raised without antibiotics” to “chicken raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans,” Tyson Foods is implicitly admitting that the non-ionophore antibiotics used in industrial farming “impact antibiotic resistance in humans.” It’s there in black and white for us all to see (http://www.tyson.com/Corporate/PressRoom/ViewArticle.aspx?id=2955).

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that about 70% of all antibiotics used in the United States are given to farm animals, so it’s understandable that you might think that this practice is essential for the production of our meat. But the US farming industry is already four years behind the European Union, 14 years behind Denmark and 24 years behind Sweden in banning the non-therapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in farm animal production. All of these countries have taken positive action to protect the long-term viability of their citizens and the antibiotics that protect them against disease. And, unless I’ve missed something, I am pretty sure that all of these countries still have a thriving livestock farming industry. Indeed, early evidence suggests that the antibiotic bans are already leading to a lower prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in animal bacterial populations – and increased livestock growth rates. It seems that managing animals in order to make sure they don’t get ill in the first place leads to more productive animals. Common sense, don’t you think?

Industry opposition

So why does the US industrial farming industry – including the American Farm Bureau, American Meat Institute and the National Pork Producers Council – still have such an issue with recent proposals which seek only to reduce the (mis)use of antibiotics in agriculture and preserve these tools which are so vital for the protection of human health?

Well, the sad truth is that intensive farming operations have knowingly profited from the misuse of medically important antibiotics for years, at the expense of human health and animal welfare. How else can you explain their dogged opposition to the introduction of simple safeguards that would help to prevent the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of life-threatening diseases, such as E. coli and MRSA?

In 2008, after a lengthy independent investigation to assess the farm animal industry’s impact on the public’s health, the environment, farm communities and animal welfare, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production called for stricter regulation of antibiotic use in large-scale animal operations, stating that “the present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health.” Without any real research its calls were refuted by the industrial farming lobby, which claimed that limiting antibiotic use would threaten animal health and welfare and increase the risk of food-borne disease.

PAMTA – a step in the right direction

Similarly, the recent proposal to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) is at risk of being derailed by the intensive farming lobby – despite the fact that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the National Association of County and City Health Departments and hundreds of other health, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and humane organizations all support the legislation.

PAMTA would still allow therapeutic use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, but would prohibit the non-therapeutic feeding of medically important antibiotics to livestock, as well as require any antibiotics that are destined for non-therapeutic livestock use to undergo safety tests to ensure that they will not harm human health due to antibiotic resistance. Surely this is just plain commonsense?

Yet the industrial farming lobby – and even the usually very enlightened American Veterinary Medical Association – is forcefully opposing PAMTA, claiming that animal health and welfare would suffer and food-borne diseases would increase. Again, as far as I am aware, I’m not hearing regular reports of mass public food poisoning incidents from countries which have banned non-therapeutic use of antibiotics.

We’re already doing it – naturally…

The truth is that farmers don’t need to use non-therapeutic antibiotic treatments in order to keep their animals healthy and productive. Just like farmers in other countries, thousands of farmers across the USA – including Animal Welfare Approved farmers – already rear their livestock without ongoing reliance on non-therapeutic antibiotics.

AWA farmers maintain herd health through vaccination, pasture management, exceptional hygiene, and the reduction of stress which weakens animal immune systems. Of course, if an animal is sick and needs medical treatment AWA standards allow the use of antibiotics, where appropriate. It’s just plain old reasonable farming; nothing more, nothing less.

Despite its continued opposition to PAMTA and the Pew Commission, Tyson Foods has now openly admitted that some antibiotics used in agriculture risk creating “antibiotic resistance in humans.” We also know from experience here and in Europe that we can farm successfully without reliance on these growth promoters. We cannot afford to allow industrial farming to carry on misusing antibiotics for profit, at the expense of public health and animal welfare. It is time that we stop using antibiotics to prop up unsustainable and poor welfare farming systems, and instead do everything we can to ensure that these remarkable medicinal tools remain as effective as possible for treating killer human diseases. The alternative is simply unthinkable.

Jeanette Orrey, UK Pioneer in Reforming School Lunches, Visits US

Animal Welfare Approved, the nation’s leading certification label for family farmers raising their animals with high welfare standards, is hosting Jeanette Orrey, the United Kingdom’s famous “Dinner Lady” (that would be a lunch lady on this side of the pond) the week of January 11th. Orrey is a leader in the U.K.’s efforts to provide school lunches made of fresh, local organic food. She will be visiting with school officials, farmers and proponents of healthy school lunches in New York City, Baltimore, Maryland and Arlington, Virginia.

According to Andrew Gunther, Program Director for Animal Welfare Approved, Orrey’s work in the U.K. dovetails nicely with the U.S. movement to educate children about food and improve school lunches. “Right now, U.S. work focuses very strongly on fresh fruits and vegetables,” he says. “Jeanette began by sourcing beef from local farmers for her school, so we felt her work would be of interest to her U.S. counterparts. Farmers in the Animal Welfare Approved program provide healthy, safe, nutritionally superior products which should be part of any child’s school-provided lunch. To this end, being a part of the dialogue regarding healthy eating by our nation’s youth and in our nation’s schools helps us to achieve our mission of promoting our family farmers while ensuring children receive the best food possible.”

Accompanying Orrey on her journey will be Animal Welfare Approved staff, Bill Telepan, chef/owner of Manhattan’s Telepan Restaurant, and Nancy Easton, a New York City teacher for 20 years. Telepan is a long-time Animal Welfare Approved supporter and a board member of Wellness in the Schools. Wellness in the Schools is a grassroots organization that promotes children’s environmental health, nutrition and fitness within the New York City public schools. Easton co-founded Wellness in the Schools and serves on its board. The New York City school system serves approximately 1.1 million students.

“We’re excited to join the conversation about the best way to serve safe, nutritious and delicious food in schools,” Gunther commented. “Each country faces different challenges in achieving the same goal and everyone is looking forward to talking shop and exchanging ideas and stories. It’s a coming together of those dedicated to serving great food in schools.”

During her stay, Orrey will meet with the following proponents of healthy school lunches in addition to visiting a number of schools in each of the three school districts:

New York City Department of Education
Eric Goldstein, Chief Executive Officer for Nutrition and Transportation
Dianne Frankel, Director of Operations
Chef Jorge Collazo, SchoolFood Executive Chef
Stephen O’Brien, Director of Food and Food Support

Queens County Farm Museum, NYC
Amy Fischetti-Boncardo, Executive Director
Michael Grady Robertson, Director of Agriculture

Baltimore City Public Schools, MD
Tony Geraci, Director of Food and Nutrition Services
Greg Strella, Farm Manager, Great Kids Farm

ThinkFoodGroup, Washington, DC
Richard Brandenburg, Kitchen Director

Arlington County Public Schools, VA
Amy Maclosky, Food Service Director

Jeanette Orrey is the School Meals Policy Advisor to the Soil Association. Jeanette’s achievements and guidance were central to the success of the Food For Life campaign and an inspiration for Jamie Oliver’s fight to improve school meals. Her life has been a whirlwind of training, lecturing, meetings with ministers and, of course, awards ceremonies. She has received recognition of her work from, amongst others, Radio 4’s ‘The Food Programme’ (2003); The Observer (2004); Good Housekeeping (2005) and the Guild of Food Writers (2006) for her book ‘The Dinner Lady’.