The State of the Plate DC (www.StateofthePlateDC.net) daylong conference is set for Monday, October 17, 2011 at George Washington University’s Marvin Center and will feature a series of panels and notable speakers, focused on sharing best practices, information, and strategies. The event is designed for chefs, restaurateurs, distributors, farmers, ranchers, food leaders, students, faculty and those interested in the topic.

Ultimately, producers want to sell meat and restaurants want to buy it. This event will allow both producers and chefs/restaurant owners to discuss the terms of the trade via lively discussions, and then potentially engage in actual deal‐making that satisfies the needs of both groups. Designed to share information in a positive format, focus will be on sustainable farming, animal product preparation, the myths and realities of food labeling, and supply chain management.

This event is organized by Animal Welfare Approved, the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range according to the highest welfare standards. The co‐organizer is Educated Eats (the education foundation arm of RAMW), dedicated to creating the next generation of culinary professionals. The George Washington University’s Urban Food Task Force is the event’s key collaborator.

“DC chefs are increasingly renowned for their commitment to top‐quality, sustainable, healthy, and delicious foods. I’m delighted to see more of them entering the dialogue about sustainable and high‐welfare farming. State of the Plate DC fits well with the mission of George Washington’s Urban Food Task Force; it offers hands‐on opportunities for chefs and producers to work together in advancing the conversation about food policy and action,” says Diane Robinson Knapp, Chair, The George Washington University Urban Food Task Force.

Animal Welfare Approved program director Andrew Gunther added, “We believe that attendees will gain a better understanding of the challenges and rewards of developing sustainable food supply chains, but even more importantly, participants will have the opportunity to meet with and taste products from farmers already delivering solutions.”

“Educated Eats is thrilled to be working with our partners on this sustainable meat conference, continuing our series of seminars for our members,” says Gregory Casten, Chairman of the Board of RAMW. “We look forward to raising awareness for chefs and restaurateurs about the many benefits of sustainable farming practices‐‐including raising animals outdoors on pasture or range. Using sustainably raised animal proteins can help improve a restaurant’s image, efficiency and performance.”

Tickets: $55 includes continental breakfast and boxed lunch from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Advance registration is required. Seating is limited so be sure to register early. To register online visit www.StateofthePlateDC.net. From 5:00‐6:30 pm a sustainable meat tasting reception will bring together members of the RAMW with farmers, distributors and processors.

Location: The conference will be held at the George Washington University’s Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, Washington, DC 20052.

Questions: Contact Laura Colombi with questions at (202) 446‐2138.

Members of the press are encouraged to contact Beth Hauptle at (202) 446‐2155 to reserve complimentary press passes.

I know this first-hand from conversations I have had with Will Witherspoon, linebacker for the Tennessee Titans – and sustainable farmer. Will is a unique human being; a gentle, humble and quiet spoken man whose day job is making the quarterback’s life as uncomfortable as possible. He’s also passionate about producing sustainable, healthy and nutritious food on his family farm, Shire Gate Farm, near Owensville, Missouri.

Through our farming connection, I have been very fortunate to have got to know Will and he’s become a family friend. On several occasions, he has given both my sons one of those talks that only a true sportsman can. As any dad knows, we can talk until we are blue in the face about the need to eat well and look after yourself, and to dedicate yourself to your sport. Yet after one minute chat with Will, my boys are immediately re-energized and focused. Will has the gift of being able to communicate the connection between what goes in their mouths and their performance out on the field in a way that most dads can only dream of. In today’s junk food world, where childhood obesity is common place and diet-related ill health is epidemic, this kind of education is truly priceless.

Will and I have spoken at length about the connection between the food we eat and our health. When Will bought Shire Gate Farm as a working farm in 2007, he wanted to farm it “right.” After much research, he chose the White Park cattle breed to start building up his herd as they are docile, thrive in a grassfed environment, and provide superior milk and meat. His research also led him to Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) and pasture-based farming: “I wanted Shire Gate Farm to be true to nature and true to the way things should be done,” he explained on one of my visits to the farm. “That means putting the welfare and care of the animals first.”
As a professional athlete involved in one of the world’s most physical and competitive sports, Will is particularly aware of the health benefits of grassfed, high-welfare farming. “I want my kids, and all kids really, to grow up in a way that is more in touch with the natural environment,” he explained. “My cattle are raised as nature intended, on grass, and aren’t fed growth hormones, antibiotics or other unnatural additives. As a pro football player, I can’t take over-the-counter cold medicine without letting my trainer know about it. Why would I want my kids eating beef from cattle fed hormones or routine antibiotics?”

Will’s concerns about how he farms and the food his family eats are well founded. We know that the nutritional quality and taste of meat is the result of how an animal is fed, raised and ultimately slaughtered. I mentioned above the old saying ‘You are what you eat;’ so when you buy grassfed meat what are you eating?

Omega-3s are often referred to as “good fats“, because they play a vital role in every cell and organ system in the human body. People who have ample amounts of omega-3s in their diet are less likely to have high blood pressure or an irregular heartbeat. These crucial healthy fats are most plentiful in flaxseeds and fish, and are also found at much higher levels in meat from animals that have been raised on grass when compared to cheap, intensively farmed grain-fed meat. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is another “good” fat worth examining. Scientists now believe that CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer; and when ruminants are raised on fresh pasture, their meat and milk contains three to five times more CLA than from animals fed grain-based diets. Similarly, we know that vitamin E in our diet is linked with a lower risk of heart disease and cancer. Research has also shown that grassfed meat is higher in vitamin E than meat from grainfed animals.

So where does AWA fit in all this? AWA has the most rigorous standards for farm animal welfare currently in use by any United States organization, and they exist for good reason. Our standards have been developed in collaboration with scientists, veterinarians, researchers, and farmers across the globe to maximize practicable, high-welfare farm management. Why? Because research shows that if animals are kept on farms where they are not overcrowded, where they can perform their natural behaviors on pasture, where they are fed a diet that matches their natural needs, and where they are managed to promote health and well-being then they are happier and healthier. The end result? Better tasting, more nutritious meat, milk and eggs from sustainably managed family farms that we can all feel good about eating – and that includes the Witherspoon family. Animal Welfare Approved: not just food for thought, but food for sport.

For more information on Shire Gate Farm visit www.shiregatefarm.com

Now, in a report that anyone with even a simple understanding of biology will react to by saying “…and it took you how long?” the FDA has admitted that arsenic does indeed remain in the body of birds fed this dangerous element. This discovery that arsenic persists in the livers of meat chickens has caused Alpharma, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., to voluntarily remove its arsenic containing feed additive Roxarsone from the market. As any high school student knows, the liver of birds and animals is effectively a filter working to remove unwanted contaminants from the body. And like all filters, the liver can become saturated or indeed fail completely if it is overwhelmed by toxins. So the discovery of arsenic in the liver of broiler chickens fed a diet containing this element is of no great surprise.

You might ask why arsenic is in poultry feed at all. When you look up one of the many drugs containing arsenic licensed by the FDA, the indications for use are “for the prevention of coccidiosis, for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency.”  Coccidiosis is a parasite caused by overstocking and intensive facility use. As it is so often with Big Ag, rather than fixing the system, it tries to mitigate it with drugs and poisons–the unintended consequences of Big Ag’s failure to look further than the bottom line when designing food animal systems. Most of the rest of the world recognizes that adding a known poison to something you are going to eat is not a great idea. For example arsenic is prohibited from being added to any animal feed in the Europe. This is not just because of the human health risks but also because of the known pollution problems. Think back to the FDA statement that arsenic will be excreted by the birds and animals it is fed to – where do you think that excreted arsenic ends up? Arsenic is a chemical element in its own right. It doesn’t break down or degrade – once it’s out there in the environment, it’s out there, destroying ecosystems and polluting watercourses.

This is another breathtaking example of the arrogance of the U.S.’s food animal production industry. For this industry, profit comes before everything. Once again we see misrepresentation and rhetoric exposing U.S. consumers to potentially life threatening food products. You want past examples? How about the fact that despite the rest of the world understanding the connection between shoveling antibiotics into animal feed and the same antibiotics becoming resistant to bacteria (and therefore worthless for human treatment) Big Ag stoically questions the science.   This proves again that Big Ag in the U.S. is unwilling to let facts get in the way of profit.

Despite stating that the use of arsenic in chicken feed had previously stopped, major chicken producer Perdue resisted a proposed bill to ban the additive in Maryland last year. Tyson Foods has made similar statements about the use of arsenic but it is estimated that around 2.2 million pounds of arsenical feed additives are used in poultry food each year. Exactly where has this vast mountain of arsenic been going I find myself asking? The FDA study was first available in February. It is interesting that it only seems to have seen the light of day now. Perhaps it was suppressed while waiting for Big Ag to work out a position to police itself.

For those of us with a healthy distrust of the power of Big Ag we are left relying on a voluntary withdrawal of one of the several available arsenic containing products rather than a complete and enforceable ban on all arsenic in feed. With the weight of growing evidence, a complete ban would hardly be groundbreaking – and in fact would just bring the U.S. in line with the rest of the modern world.  But, for now I suppose we’ll settle for the voluntary withdrawal.  I know my family and I will continue eating pastured poultry from Animal Welfare Approved farms.

Published in the latest Environmental Health Perspectives journal, the results suggest that prenatal exposure to OPs can have a lasting and damaging effect on our children. Researchers from the University of California, Columbia University, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine all found that children exposed to higher levels of OP while in the womb were likely to have significantly lower intelligence scores by age seven than children who were not exposed.

The studies began more than ten years ago. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, for example, followed 329 children from before birth, testing urine samples of their mothers for OP residues twice during pregnancy and then after birth from the children at regular intervals between ages six months and five years, before testing the cognitive abilities of the 329 children at age seven. All three studies found evidence linking prenatal OP pesticide exposures with adverse effects on cognitive function that continued into early childhood. According to Brenda Eskenazi, who led the U.C. Berkeley team, the impact on intelligence levels found “could mean, on average, more kids being shifted into the lower end of the spectrum of learning, and more kids needing special services in school.” Stark findings indeed.

OPs are still one of the most widely used pesticides across the world. They are commonly used as insecticides on grains, fruit and vegetables, as well as to control parasites on farm livestock and pets, and for fly control in industrial and commercial premises. I’m sure the danger that OPs present will come as no surprise to some of you.  After all, they were originally developed during World War II for chemical warfare as nerve gases.

But the fact that all three studies noted in the Environmental Health Perspectives reached this conclusion independently is highly significant – and will make the evidence even harder for Big Ag to ignore or dismiss: “As a group, these papers add substantial weight to the evidence linking OP pesticides with adverse effects on cognitive development by simultaneously reporting consistent findings for three different groups of children,” comments Hugh A. Tilson, editor-in-chief of Environmental Health Perspectives.

These disturbing results come hot on the heels of research published in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics last year, which revealed that exposure to OPs could result in a higher risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children, covered in an AWA blog.

As with the three studies noted in the Environmental Health Perspectives, the children involved in the Pediatrics research were not from rural areas or farming families (who might come into direct contact with excessive amounts of OP on farms). Once again, the science clearly shows that that exposure to OP is potentially harmful to our children in all walks of life. It’s worth noting that there is also a known link between OP toxicity and depression and suicide.

Remember that this research is looking at the impact of a single family of pesticides on our health. Yet there is mounting concern about the so-called cocktail effect of multiple pesticides on our health – and particularly the health of our children. Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a pathologist at the University of Ulster, Ireland, specializes in toxicology and the cocktail effect of pesticides and food additives on the human body. He is extremely concerned about the combined health effects of modern chemicals, such as pesticides, many of which have only been around for the last 50-60 years. He warns that official safety limits are only based on the potential impacts of single pesticides. “There are no toxicological tests of chemical combinations, despite the fact that studies have suggested that their combined impact, or cocktail effect, can make their impact much more powerful,” he explains. As a result of his studies, Howard is a strong supporter of organic food.

So what is the answer? Well, the most important thing is that we all continue to eat a balanced diet – and that includes fresh fruit and vegetables. Giving up all fresh fruit and vegetables will do us – and our children – far more short-term harm than good, that’s for sure! But this research is further evidence that we all really do need to think about where our food comes from and, above all, how it is produced. It’s no longer safe to just sit back and eat.

We all have the ability to educate ourselves to ensure that we can make the right choices when it comes to feeding our families. And we can all vote with our wallets and force Big Ag to change its farming practices by choosing safe, nutritious, wholesome foods.  If we all start doing it, they’ll soon listen.

At Animal Welfare Approved, we already prohibit the use of OPs on our farms for just these reasons. We are concerned about public health, but we are also concerned about the health of our farmers and their families, as well as farm animals. If you are unsure about whether or not your fruit and vegetables have been sprayed with OP insecticide, you should wash them thoroughly before eating them – using a soft brush, if possible. And if you can, always try to seek out meat, dairy and other products from programs like Animal Welfare Approved that prohibit the use of harmful OPs in farming. Together we can change agriculture for the better.

News is breaking that Chinese scientists have created genetically modified (GM) cattle using human genes to produce “human-like” milk in a bid to make cow’s milk more nutritious. The intention is to produce it on an industrial scale to replace formula milk and breast milk, when normal breast feeding is either not possible or undesirable.

The Telegraph newspaper reports that scientists at the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce what they call “human-like” cow milk. It is well known that human breast milk contains key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections. The scientists wanted to find a way to produce an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk on an industrial scale, with the eventual aim of getting this GM “human-like” cow’s milk on supermarket shelves.

The researchers used both cloning and GM technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the GM embryos were implanted into surrogate cows. Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research, claims that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows and that the cloned GM animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.

Yet we also know from the original research paper that only 24 of the original 37 GM calves that were produced during the experiment survived for more than six months. Seven of these calves died within hours of birth (most with gastrointestinal disease) and six died within six months of birth. The cause? Cloning technology used in such GM research “can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the exact reason why is not well understood,” says the Telegraph article. Fills you with real confidence about the safety of the process – and the end product – doesn’t it?

We already know that cloning has a far lower success rate when compared to natural breeding or other managed breeding techniques. But as this research shows, cloning also has serious implications for animal welfare. Most cloned animals die during pregnancy and a significant proportion of those who do survive die during or shortly after birth from cardiovascular failure, respiratory problems, liver or kidney failure, immune deficiencies, or musculoskeletal abnormalities. While the scientists admit that the reasons are “not well understood,” we know that these problems appear in all species that have been cloned.

Perhaps more troubling is that some abnormalities from cloning may not even show up until later in life. A recent World Organization for Animal Health report states that the development of musculoskeletal problems such as chronic lameness “emphasizes the point that any underlying frailties in cloned animals may not be fully revealed until the animals are stressed in some manner.” The European Commission has recently proposed a five-year moratorium on animal cloning on welfare and ethical grounds. EU advisors concluded that, “considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones,” there is no justification for cloning animals for food production purposes.

And where are the extensive clinical trials to back up Professor Li’s assurances that this GM “human-like” cow milk is as safe to drink as milk from ordinary cows? The Telegraph article states that “Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more [sic] decades.” Yet no clinical trials have ever been undertaken to prove the safety of this GM milk. In fact, no long term independent clinical food safety trials have been undertaken for any GM product. The GM company patents make sure of that.

So the fact that the U.S. population has been unwittingly used as guinea pigs for a GM food experiment over the last two decades is now being used to nullify any food safety concerns people might have about GM products. Is it just me or does this make your blood boil?

The long term health effects of GM foods could take decades to surface, just as it took decades for people to accept the damaging effects of smoking or trans-fats. While people might not be dropping dead from eating GM products, we don’t know about the potential long term health impacts of GM food, such as emerging allergies or other nutritional problems, because no one is carrying out any monitoring.

Whenever I hear claims about the inherent “safety” of GM foods I am always reminded of a statement made by Phil Angell in 1998, who was Monsanto’s director of communications at that time. Angell said: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” Yet the reality is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to approve GM crops is based entirely on safety research conducted by the very company which created it – and which stands to profit from its sale.

Even more troubling is the fact that the biotech industry actively uses intellectual property rights laws to prevent truly independent scientific testing of its GM products. In February 2009, more than 25 leading scientists – all working at public research institutions located in 16 corn producing states – issued a public statement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, claiming that: “As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”

Now here’s some food for thought: In 2008, the FDA approved the consumption of meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring. The FDA’s report stated that cloned animals (and their milk) are “as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals.” Subsequently, there is no actual legal requirement for the meat and milk from cloned animals (or their offspring) to be labeled as such.

We also already know that U.S. food producers are not required to label any food as containing GM products.

So putting aside any animal welfare or food safety concerns that we might have with the production of this “human-like” milk – or the ethical concerns about the use of human DNA to create commercial “pharm animals,” under current U.S. government regulations, this product could end up on the infant formula shelves unidentified as either GM or from cloned animals. This sort of deceptive marketing–brought to you from the laboratories of Big Ag to your baby’s delicate stomach–could quite possibly have serious unintended consequences. I know my grandchildren won’t have any of it.

The false advertising lawsuit claims that the “seasoned ground beef” in Taco Bell’s crunchy taco, beefy ground burrito and other products doesn’t actually meet the minimum requirements set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be labeled as “beef.” Taco Bell responded quickly with its “thank you for suing us” ads stating that the filling was indeed beef with added seasonings.

Taco Bell’s response strategy seems to have been somewhat hastily designed. Having served my time in the darkened corridors of corporate America I can hazard a guess at the mayhem following the issue of the lawsuit: lawyers and directors running around trying to protect the brand at all costs. So a statement is crafted and issued in defense of the brand. But there seems to have been an oversight; this statement openly reveals a lack of quality and taste in the brand’s raw ingredients.

Taco Bell agrees that its “seasoned ground beef” is not 100% meat and that other ingredients are added. In a clever trick to protect the brand the company states, “The only reason we add anything to our beef is to give the meat flavor and quality. Otherwise we’d end up with nothing more than the bland flavor of ground beef…”  OK, I think we had all realized that the ingredients in your average beef burrito weren’t the best. How could they be? There are menu items at Taco Bell for $.99. That’s certainly not the price for prime grassfed steak – and according to the allegations in the court documents that isn’t even a price for basic beef.

It’s breathtaking but true.  Taco Bell admits that its meat is bland – defined as lacking taste, lacking flavor and being insipid.  We might speculate as to whether this meat is trim or recovered meat but it’s almost beside the point. Taco Bell is a company that sells us food. It markets its products as tasty. Taco Bell has nutrition calculators and the Taco Bell “drive thru diet” website to help plan our intake. But in this one statement the company has admitted that it uses ingredients that lack key requirements that we all know are crucial in preparing healthy, nutritious, and enjoyable food. Pick up any cook book or listen to any TV chef and you know you’ll be told about the importance of the quality and taste of the ingredients.

Every meathead knows that the taste of meat is a direct result of the breed of the beef animal, its age and what it was fed. Taco Bell’s self proclaimed “bland” beef is almost certainly either from an animal raised on a feedlot or a discarded dairy cow. Either way this is not meat raised with a flavor profile, taste or texture in mind. If the animal spent a significant portion of its life on a feedlot the sole aim was weight gain and fat content – not flavor.  If the meat came from a dairy cow, she was fed to produce milk not flavorful meat. The byproduct of both of these systems is beef (defined solely as “meat from cattle”) and this feedlot and dairy beef has been shown to be really rather unsavory—just look at the millions of pounds of it recalled annually due to E. Coli and other contamination.   I am not, of course, accusing Taco Bell of selling contaminated meat but merely pointing out that “blandness” is almost the least of your problems if you rely on feedlot animals or culled dairy cows for your beef. These systems are inherently flawed: poor animal welfare, poor environmental management and a poor record when it comes to food safety too.

Quality is pretty much going to follow the same path. If your sole aim is fat content then feedlots are the way to go, but if you require taste and texture then you might want to look somewhere different. A recently published book, “Steak,” by Mark Schatzker demonstrated that if you want the best quality product then pasture-raised and traditional genetics win every time. As every Animal Welfare Approved farmer knows, raising ruminants on pasture is what nature intended. Nature certainly did not intend beef animals to be force fed on feedlots to the point they have to be treated for liver lesions while polluting the planet with nitrous oxide and other environmental contaminants.

I understand branding. Part of my job is to ensure that the AWA brand stands out for the right reasons. For us it’s relatively easy. We use substance not spin to promote our brand. We have trained auditors assessing real standards. We are a third-party certification – we have no inducement or cost benefit in approving farms that don’t make the grade. Therefore if we are questioned or challenged we have the very transparency of AWA to support us.

We haven’t had to use our crisis management strategy yet – but it’s pretty simple. Admit any mistake, fix the fault and move on. Certainly nowhere does our plan say:  “If B fails throw A under a bus.” In the Taco Bell case, where the decision seems to have been “the brand is under attack – throw the ingredients under the bus,” I hazard a guess that the value to Yum brands (the parent company) is the symbol or brand of Taco Bell and not its supply chain or the quality of the supply chain’s products.

Here’s my takeaway:  don’t expect big business to give you an inch. In one simple statement Taco Bell tried to get itself out of trouble by accusing its supply chain of providing less than the best ingredients. I abhor the fact that Taco Bell so quickly blamed its supply chain. I cannot believe that Taco Bell does not set specifications or audit the quality, taste and source of its ingredients.

The moral of the story is, as all chefs know, the food on your plate is only as good as the quality of its ingredients. If you eat beef from cattle raised sustainably and humanely then the farmer, the animal and the planet will all benefit – and you’ll get a good quality, tasty meal.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has lauded AWA’s welfare standards for two years running as being the most stringent in the U. S. Ecosalon.com (author Vanessa Barrington) says Animal Welfare Approved is “the best of the best” when it comes to humane farming.

Animal Welfare Approved farms are now in 42 states as well as Canada. That means AWA products are becoming more readily available.  “AWA products can be found at the farm gate, farmers’ markets, national and regional retailers, and restaurants,” says Andrew Gunther, AWA program director. “The good news for consumers is that sustainable, high-welfare farms are growing in numbers. Sustainable farming is losing its quaint, niche persona, as AWA farmers prove on a daily basis. We have individual farms and cooperating farm networks supplying retailers and restaurants all over the country. This directory is yet another connection between the consumer and the farm.”

On this new directory you’ll find listings for AWA farms, farmers’ markets, restaurants, grocery stores and online shopping sources that will help bring better quality foods to your table.  “Each week we receive countless requests from consumers who want to know where they can find AWA products,” says Gunther. “Our online directory will make it easier for people to find products from farms where animal welfare and the environment really do come first.”

Recently John Stossel of FOX Business Channel has aired a number of segments disparaging sustainable agriculture.  His issues have included the use of herbicides and pesticides, grainfed vs. grassfed beef, genetically modified food and food safety. Is Stossel going out of his way to be outrageously provocative? To what end? And for whose benefit? Certainly we are not the only ones to condemn these reports as being inaccurate, unbalanced and biased, as the many comments to the reports attest.

Stossel would no doubt accuse me of being unrealistic and only supporting small scale farms. However, the reality is that to keep the planet healthy and fed we will need to employ a wide range of solutions. Sadly, the last 40 years of ”big ag’s” version of the solution has shown chronic failure in the form of antibiotic resistance, tainted water and some of the largest food recalls in history. Too bad Stossel doesn’t recognize that we have to stop using the planet – a finite resource – as “big ag’s” test tube.

Let’s take a look at Stossel’s grassfed versus grainfed beef segment. Determining which of these methods of production is “best” is a complicated matter involving animal welfare, human health and environmental outcomes. It is unfortunate that as with the other topics in his series, Stossel appears to have taken a rather close-minded and biased approach to a very complex subject.

In making the claim about grassfed meat that “there’s no evidence it’s better for the environment or better for you,” Stossel relies heavily on the evidence of Dr. Jude Capper, Assistant Professor of Dairy Sciences in the Department of Animal Sciences at Washington State University. I have recently spent time with Dr. Capper and found her understanding of the greenhouse gas issue to be somewhat in harmony with my own. However, when it comes to solutions, our approaches are as different as night and day.

Dr. Capper states that a ”whole-system approach” proves that intensive livestock systems – in which meat or milk production is maximized per animal, per acre – are less environmentally damaging than what she calls ”inefficient” pasture or grass-based systems. Yet it is Dr. Capper who is not looking at the “whole system” – or indeed the bigger picture we all face. In reality, the vast majority of scientists who are working on climate related issues contend that it is intensive agriculture – with its heavy reliance on fossil fuels and other damaging environmental practices – that is the real climate culprit. And in the face of the reality of climate change and ever-decreasing oil reserves, “business as usual” agriculture is just no longer an option.

One of the biggest problems is that any report which states that grassfed meat is less environmentally friendly than grainfed meat has ignored the environmental costs of all the inputs needed for the system. The true cost of feedlot beef has to consider the full environmental footprint caused by producing cattle feed – all the way back to the destruction of vast tracts of rainforest in order to grow soy and corn fed to cattle confined to massive feedlots. This is before we start adding in the environmental pollution from feedlots and the greenhouse gas emissions from the stockpiled manure. On the side of grassfed beef, the positive influence of carbon sequestration that is specific to grazing grassfed animals must be considered.

Stossel sadly relied on only one source for his information on grassfed. He didn’t take the time to understand both sides of the argument and, like a student with a poorly researched school paper, published his report without review or evidence. This lack of rigor appears to be the only way industrial agriculture and its mouthpieces can defend themselves.

Moving on to Stossel’s report about herbicides and pesticides, here, too, he is off the mark. Atrazine is regularly found in water across the U.S. at levels above the designated “safe” maximum residue level. This pesticide has been banned in Europe for more than five years due to its toxicity and presence in water sources. I therefore wonder why Stossel feels we should subject America’s children to this potentially dangerous chemical with no known antidote.

In 2002, two studies raised new concerns about the herbicide: one connecting extremely low levels of atrazine with sexual abnormalities in frogs, and another pointing to increased prostate cancer among workers at atrazine factories. Why do we have to keep using this when Syngenta (the manufacturer of atrazine) has an alternate product? Perhaps it’s because atrazine is highly profitable so why worry that it makes people sick by polluting our water? As long as it has good shareholder return! Nice work, John, good to see you have the interests of the population at heart.

And finally, in Stossel’s segment on genetically modified food, he takes a swipe at one of his guest’s reference to the 2006 recall of spinach contaminated with E.coli. While debating the fine point of whether the spinach was from a field in organic conversion, Stossel ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room: Where did the deadly E. coli O157:H7 pathogens come from in the first place?  Certainly not organic spinach. Studies report that confinement feeding of grain to cattle and low dose antibiotics are the main culprits in the evolution of the E. coli O157:H7 at the core of the explosion in food poisoning outbreaks.

As disturbing as Stossel’s lack of balanced reporting is, there is a real positive here. Clearly, someone has put huge sums of money and effort into trying to distort the truth. This tells those of us working with alternatives to the industrial agricultural model that we are making a difference and that our message is getting through. In the parlance of bomber pilots, you know you are near the target when the flak really starts to fly. Stossel’s biased attacks should be a rallying cry to all of us to redouble our efforts…there’s no stopping us now! We are getting the message out there and we will continue our rallying cry against “business as usual” agriculture.

The National Beef Packing Company has a lot to say about the benefits of its feedlot-raised, grain-fed beef versus grassfed beef, and is currently using an edited version of an article by James E. McWilliams, entitled “Beware the Myths of Grassfed Beef,” to support its argument.

I’m not sure if the editing of this newer version was done by McWilliams himself, or if National realized that if they printed the original article in its entirety they would at the very least find themselves promoting the animal welfare and health benefits of grassfed over feedlot beef. Because in his original article, McWilliams states that “the comparative health benefits of grass-fed beef are well documented” and that “scores of studies indicate that it’s higher in omega 3s and lower in saturated fat.” He also says that grassfed systems are “kinder to the animals” – all points which have miraculously disappeared from the National Beef Packing Company’s current version. But let’s not worry about that now, and go straight to the “meat” of the article.

My initial reaction to McWilliams report was utter disappointment. How can someone who wants to refute claims that grassfed beef is safer – and who actually promotes the view that grassfed beef could be a public health hazard – have missed so much evidence to the contrary? Indeed, the biggest problem in pointing out the mass of scientific evidence that supports the health-giving benefits of grassfed beef both in terms of its beneficial nutritional composition (unaccountably overlooked in this newer version of the article) and the lower risks of food borne illness is this:  exactly where should I begin?

Well, let’s start by looking at some of the references that McWilliams uses to support his article. Sadly, he doesn’t actually give a full list of references which would allow an interested reader to look up the particular studies to which he has referred. (For the record, you’ll find all my references at the end of this article.) Nevertheless, McWilliams does provide the occasional weblink to research, or at least a place and a year where the research was carried out. So I’ve done my best to track down his references to assess their relevance. Let’s take this one to start with. McWilliams states that:

“An Australian study actually found a higher prevalence of O157:H7 in the feces of grass-fed rather than grain-fed cows.”

McWilliams provides no clear reference to substantiate this claim. A review of online scientific journals drew a blank. However, another piece written on the topic of the comparative food safety of cattle fed hay vs. cattle fed grain (Hancock and Besser 2006) makes the following statement:

One study (Fegan et al, 2004a) found that a higher prevalence among pastured cattle and, among positive cattle, similar concentrations of E. coli O157:H7 in feces.

Fegan is Australian, so this must be the study referred to in McWilliams article. But if you read this particular piece from Fegan et al you also find the following statement:

There was no significant difference (P = 0.06) between the numbers of E. coli O157 in pasture-fed or grain-fed cattle feces, although the geometric mean (antilog of the mean of log10 transformed MPN values) was higher in grain-fed (130 MPN g-1) than in pasture-fed (13 MPN g-1).

Leaving out all the “MPN g-1” jargon, this statement directly contradicts both Hancock and Besser – and McWilliams’ assertions. The level of E. Coli O157 is higher in grain-fed than in pasture-fed cattle. Are the two misleading references to this research related, I wonder?

There’s another Australian study which McWilliams’ “Beware the Myths of Grassfed Beef,” article links to – and it’s Fegan et al again, this time with a different piece of research (Fegan et al 2004b). McWilliams uses it to back up his claim that grassfed cattle do become colonized with E. coli O157:H7 at rates nearly the same as grain-fed cattle.  That’s what the abstract of the original research article says.  Yet, when you read the full report – and it’s always worth finding out what particular researchers define as being “grassfed” when it comes to cattle – you find the following statement:

“It was observed that on some occasions, the feces of grass-fed cattle contained remnants of grain. This could indicate supplemental feeding of such animals or changes in the husbandry of these animals during transport and/or holding before slaughter. However, such animals would not have fit the definition of lot-fed (60 days on grain) applied to animals defined as lot-fed in the study. This survey was conducted during a period of widespread drought in Australia, and it is possible that some husbandry practices (e.g. supplemental feeding) may have changed in some areas and that this influenced the results of the survey”.

So it is clear from this statement that the “grassfed” cattle in this study may have been fed supplemental grain at a time when pasture quality and quantity was low due to a widespread drought. Is this therefore a true comparison of grassfed and grain-fed? I don’t think so.

Here’s another Australian study that McWilliams doesn’t consider. Barlow and Mellor (2010) investigated the concentration of E. coli and the prevalence of non-O157 E. coli in grassfed and grain-fed cattle fecal samples. They found that “feed type was shown to have an effect on mean E. coli counts with grain-fed cattle significantly more likely to have a higher concentration of E. coli in their feces than grass-fed cattle.”

OK, so Barlow and Mellor looked at non-O157 E. coli. But O157 is not the only pathogenic type of E. coli: it’s just the one we hear about most, and any system that has reduced the overall levels of E. coli is better than one with high levels.

In another study – again with a wider focus than just E. coli O157 – Bailey and Vantelow in 2003 looked at food borne pathogens and found that, among truck loads of feedlot and grassfed cattle, 58 percent of the feedlot cattle carried the campylobacter bacteria. Only 2 percent of cattle raised on pasture had these food poisoning bacteria, which can cause symptoms including fever, upset stomach, headache and muscle pain.

So, I hope you will agree that that the situation is not quite what McWilliams would have us believe. But there are other points that we also need to examine. The piece of work that started to show that grassfed beef could be less risky in terms of food borne illness was Diez-Gonzalez et al 1998. This study showed that grain-fed beef had far greater numbers of acid resistant E. coli than grassfed beef. Yes, they only looked at a limited sample size of animals in that study, but the important point is that this isn’t the only piece of scientific research that Diez-Gonzalez was involved in on this topic. He also worked with Russell et al (2000), which summarized research to date and provided some updated graphs from the original research which confirmed the original finding that grassfed beef presented less of a risk in terms of E. coli.

Further references to support the point that grain-fed cattle have a far higher load of E. coli include Scott et al (1999) who switched cattle from grain-based diets to hay and found that acid-resistant E.coli decreased from 10,000 to 20 viable cells per gram in 7 days. Scott et al did not specifically look at E. coli O157 but Keen et al (1999) did. They noted that a similar diet shift (grain to hay for 7 days) caused a large decrease (53 percent to 18 percent) in the number of cattle that were E. coli O157:H7 positive.

And there’s so much more: Dargatz et al (1997) and Buchko et al (2000) both showed that grain feeding – particularly barley – was linked to increased shedding of E. coli O157:H7 by feedlot cattle. All I’m interested in is grassfed versus grain – as far as I am concerned, the grain could be corn or wheat or barley. But it’s interesting to note that some grains may actually be worse than corn for providing an environment in the cattle gut for E. coli to thrive. This fact was clearly demonstrated by Berg et al (2004) in their study, while Bach et al (2005) showed that survival of E. coli O157:H7 in manure from corn- and barley-fed cattle is approximately equal, and that simple survival in the feces is not responsible for the increased prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in barley-fed cattle. To summarize all of the points above, the scientific consensus when comparing grain-fed to forage-fed cattle still indicates that more E. coli (including O157:H7) are present in the feces of cattle fed grain diets.

As stated at the beginning of this report, while McWilliams disputes the “food safety” claims of grassfed beef over feedlot beef, in his original article he accepts that “the comparative health benefits of grass-fed beef are well documented.” Yet in the more recent version of his article which is being promoted by the National Beef Program, it seems that someone has apparently chosen to remove this particular argument entirely. So I will summarize just a few of the many published scientific studies which show that meat and milk from grassfed animals is better for us.

Firstly, let’s consider the omega-3 content of grassfed meat. Studies from around the world – including the European Union’s “Healthy Beef” project and Ponnampalem (2006) – have shown that meat from grassfed animals has two to four times more omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain-fed animals. Omega-3s are often called good fats because they play a vital role in every cell and system in the body. It might surprise you to know that, of all the fats, they are also the most heart-friendly. Indeed, people who have ample amounts of omega-3s in their diet are less likely to have high blood pressure or an irregular heartbeat.

Let’s look at another good fat – this time conjugated linoleic acid (or CLA for short). When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their meat and milk contain from three to five times more CLA than similar products from animals fed a conventional grain-based diet. Scientists now believe that CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer. In laboratory animals, a very small percentage of CLA—a mere 0.1 percent of total calories—greatly reduced tumor growth. In addition, other studies have shown that a study group of hamsters fed a diet of CLA had lower amounts of LDL (low density lipoprotein) in the blood, as well as a reduced risk of developing early aortic atherosclerosis (Wilson et al 2002). Another study from Iran (Aryaeian et al 2008) found that adults with rheumatoid arthritis showed a significant decrease in blood pressure after CLA additions to their diet.

Finally, scientists have shown that grassfed meat is higher in vitamin E than either grain-fed animals or, surprisingly, grain-fed animals that were given high doses of synthetic vitamin E (Smith and Realini 2003). In humans, we know that vitamin E is linked with a lower risk of heart disease and cancer.

As a final note, I wonder whether McWilliams is aware of the irony of the situation when his article is being used by the National Beef Packing Company to promote meat from systems that, aside from the potential E. coli risks, have an appalling record when it comes to environmental management. The irony being that McWilliams is a vegetarian who promotes the virtues of this lifestyle choice in terms of its environmental benefits.

Perhaps Mc Williams hasn’t read our extensive blogs on this topic, “Beware of Bad Science” or “The Bigger Picture,” which refute other articles which have also attempted to paint grassfed beef in a similar bad light. Our fully referenced reports clearly show that if the whole system of meat production is taken into account – and not some selected part of the cycle – then grassfed beef has a huge role to play in assuaging climate change. While McWilliams rightly points out that feeding ruminants on grain that could be supporting humans is neither right nor sustainable, he fails to develop this concept further in recognizing that we can move to grass-based livestock systems that are not directly competing with humans for food and which have a vital role to play in carbon sequestration, too – aside from the proven animal welfare and human health benefits that he acknowledges such systems already offer.

But sadly McWilliams is of the view that: “Issues of animal welfare are equally implicated in all forms of meat production.” I’m sorry, Mr. McWilliams, but I simply cannot agree. We must not lump all meat production – feedlot and industrial and pasture-based and grassfed –together. You may well oppose livestock production in any form, but I know that pasture-based systems can deliver high animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and improved nutritional qualities – and present a much lower risk of E. coli, too.

References

Aryaeian N, Shahram F, Djalali M, Eshragian M R, and Djazayeri A 2008. Effect of conjugated linoleic acid, vitamin E and their combination on lipid profiles and blood pressure of Iranian adults with active rheumatoid arthritis. Vascular Health and Risk Management volume 4(6)  1423 – 1432.

Bach, S.J., K. Stanford and T.A. McAllister. 2005b. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feces from corn- and barley-fed steers. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 252:25-33.

Bailey, G.D., B.A. Vantelow et al. (2003) A study of the food borne pathogens Campylobacter, Listeria and Yersinia, in faeces from slaughter-age cattle and sheep. Australia. Commun Dis Intell. 2003; 27(2): 249-57.

Barlow R, S., Mellor, G. E. YEAR. Prevalence of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli Serotypes. Australian Beef Cattle. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 7(10): 1239-1245.

Berg, J.L., T.A. McAllister, S.J. Bach, R.P. Stillborn, D.D. Hancock and J.T. LeJeune. 2004. Escherichia coli
O157:H7 excretion by commerical feedlot cattle fed either barley- or corn-based finishing diets. J. Food Prot. 67:666-671.

Buchko, S.J., R.A. Holley, W.O. Olson, V.P.J. Gannon and D.M. Veira. 2000a. The effect of different grain diets on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by steers. J. Food Prot. 63:1467-1474.

Dargatz, D.A., S.J. Wells, L.A. Thomas, D.D. Hancock and L.P. Garber. 1997. Factors associated with the presence of Escherichia coli O157 in feces of feedlot cattle. J. Food Prot. 60:466-470.

Dewhurst, R.J., Shingfield, K.J., Lee, M.R.F., and Scollan, N.D. 2006. Increasing the concentrations of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in milk produced by dairy cows in high-forage systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131:168–206.

Diez-Gonzalez, F., T. R. Callaway, M. G. Kizoulis, and J. B. Russell. 1998. Grain feeding and the dissemination of acid-resistant Escherichia coli from cattle. Science 281:1666–1668.

Fegan N, Higgs G, Vanderlinde P, Desmarchelier P.  2004a Enumeration of Escherichia coli O157 in cattle faeces using most probable number technique and automated immunomagnetic separation. Lett Appl Microbiol. 38(1):56-9.

Fegan N, Vanderline P, Higgs G, and Desmarchelier P. 2004b The prevalence and concentration of Escherichia coli O157 in faeces of cattle from different production systems at slaughter. Journal of Applied Microbiology 97 (2)  362-370

Hancock D and Besser T 2006 E. coli O157:H7 in hay- or grain-fed cattle College of Veterinary Medicine  Washington State University. at: http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/dairy/nutrient-management/data/publications/E%20coli%20O157%20in%20hay-%20or%20grain-fed%20cattle%20Hancock%20and%20Besser%2011%2006.pdf Accessed on 16 October 2010

Keen, J. E., G. A. Urlich, and R. O. Elder. 1999. Effects of hay and grain-based diets on the fecal shedding of naturally-acquired enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) 157:H7 in beef feedlot cattle. 80th Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, Abstract #86, November 7–9, 1999. Chicago, IL.

Noziere, P., Graulet, B., Lucas, A., Martin, B., Grolier, P., and Doreau, M. 2006. Carotenoids for ruminants: From forages to dairy products. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131:418–450.

Ponnammpalam E N, Mann N J and Sinclair A J 2006. Effect of feeding systems on omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian beef cuts: potential impact on human health. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 15(1):21-9

Realini C E, Duckett S K, Brito G W, Dalla Rizza M and De Mattos D (2003)Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Meat Science 66 (2004) 567–577

Russell J B, Diez-Gonzalez F, and Jarvis G N 2000. Effects of Diet Shifts on Escherichia coli in Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 4

Scollan, N., Hocquette, J., Nuernberg, K., Dannenberger, D., Richardson, I., and Moloney, A. 2006. Innovations in beef production systems that enhance the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with meat quality. Meat Science 74:17–33.

Scott, T., C. Wilson, D. Bailey, T. Klopfenstein, T. Milton, R. Moxley, D. Smith, J. Gray, and L. Hungerford. 1999. Influence of diet on total and acid-resistant E. coli and colonic pH. Nebraska Beef Rep. 2000:39–41.

Smith, G.C. Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle to improve shelf life and case life of beef for domestic and international markets.” Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Wilson T.A,  Nicolosi R.J,  Chrysam M and Kritchevsky, D 2002. Conjugated linoleic acid reduces early arotic atherosclerosis greater than linoleic acid in hypercholesterolemic hamsters. Nutr-res. New York, N.Y v. 20 (12) p. 1795-1805.

Good news? Sadly, the draft guidance contains only two recommendations, both so weakly worded they would allow the agricultural industry to carry on just as it is has. Even more distressing, once the document is finalized, it only represents the FDA’s current thinking on the topic; it doesn’t carry any regulatory power whatsoever.

In what appears to be a saving grace, the guidance summarizes many reports dating back to 1968 showing the link between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance. In fact the best part of 10 of the 19 pages is used to demonstrate this very point. In fact the FDA press release announcing the release of this guidance states “that the overall weight of evidence available to date supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production or growth enhancing purposes (i.e., non-therapeutic or sub-therapeutic uses) in food-producing animals is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.”

However, the rest of the world has already acknowledged this link and has acted to reduce the very real risk of indiscriminate antibiotic use in the livestock industry. In the U.S. we have listened to Big Ag, allowed the powerful agricultural and pharmaceutical lobbies to have their way, and continued to put tons of antibiotics into farm animal feed and water. There are estimates that as much as 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are used to promote growth in farm animals, not to treat animals that are sick or ailing.

Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein, the agency’s principal deputy commissioner, won’t say if the FDA will eventually move toward enforcement of antibiotic use in farm animals. Right now, they are just making “recommendations.”

So here is what the draft guidance doesn’t do:

• It doesn’t ban the profit driven use of antibiotics for growth promotion
• It doesn’t ban the use of antibiotics that are critical for human health
• It doesn’t control the indiscriminate feeding of antibiotics
• It doesn’t make control of the use of antibiotics mandatory
• It doesn’t require a diagnosis before or after any antibiotic is administered

Here is what it does do:

• It delays or avoids a critically important step in protecting human health—which is controlling the use of drugs that we need to treat our families and friends so we can live without fear of deadly, antibiotic resistant infections.

What we need is mandatory control of antibiotic use in food animal production. Any antibiotic treatment must be just that—a treatment for a particular health problem. Antibiotic use must be overseen and tightly regulated. If it isn’t we will continue to see increased drug-resistant and untreatable infections.

Animal Welfare Approved is not alone in its belief that this “action” by the FDA is totally inadequate. It’s  a well-known fact that politicians, drug companies and Big Ag are very cozy, a point well illustrated by David Kirby’s recent piece in the Huffington Post. But, as the New York Times notes, the guidance could lay the groundwork for regulation. Since Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY28) bill, H.R. 1549, Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, continues to languish in committee, the FDA is currently our best hope.

As Rep. Slaughter said her statement, released on June 28, “The FDA has proposed good steps, but they have not gone far enough or moved fast enough. We cannot wait any longer. Scientists and public health experts have known for many years that these drugs were being overused…”

We will be working alongside interested partners to garner as many comments as possible.

Submit your comments on the draft guidance (Docket ID FDA-2010-D-0094).

Submit written comments on the draft guidance to:

Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852.

The 60-day comment period is open until the end of August.