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 Sadly, the draft guidance contains only two recommendations, both so weakly worded they would allow the agricultural industry to carry on just as it is has.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So here is what the draft guidance doesn’t do: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.

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

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.

The issue of environmental impact and meat production is a complicated one and open to misinterpretation and confusion. See our past blog, Beware of Bad Science. With my obvious interest in grassfed and pasture-raised production I am always looking to see what new evidence is being presented. After reading both pieces, however, I was left feeling rather disappointed.

These articles are interesting, but they are interesting for all the wrong reasons. While they appear to put forward a strong argument, with independent studies mentioned, if not always actually referenced, they actually expose the problems of scientific reductionism and a general lack of academic rigor.

Helene York’s piece does not make much of a distinction between beef production methods. According to her, from a global warming perspective, all beef is bad. One of her references is a 2006 study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, “Diet, Energy and Global Warming,” which compared industrially produced meat to a vegan diet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).  Eshel’s more recent article focuses on the alleged negative environmental impact of grassfed beef.

York’s contention is that beef is:

“The Hummer of foods—an excessive contributor to environmental ills including climate change, nitrogen blooms, pollution, and depletion of Midwestern aquifers—not to mention E. coli contamination that has sickened and scared thousands.”

Regular readers of our blogs will recognize that we too are aware of the environmental and E. coli risks of feedlot beef. But while it may not be obvious to York, it is clear to others that there is a world of difference between feedlot beef and pastured beef and the environmental, health and welfare implications of each system.

Dr. Eshel does recognize the difference between grassfed beef and feedlot beef but by his account grassfed comes out far worse than feedlot beef. I was pleased to see that Eshel understands that the meat of a “healthy thriving animal is clearly nutritionally superior to the biochemically compromised, microbiologically teeming ecosystem that is the bulk of the nation’s meat supply.” I was also pleased to read that, along with one or two farmers out there, Eshel is well aware of the unique ability of the ruminant to convert forage and other cellulose-rich foods into usable nutrients. As he says, “if it weren’t for the absorption of glucose liberated by bacteria mediated cellulose breakdown inside ruminant bodies, most of this energy would have bypassed the animal kingdom altogether.” So what is his problem with grassfed?

Well, when compared to meat from corn-fed cattle, Eshel argues that meat from grassfed cattle is more–not less–greenhouse gas intensive. He argues that grassfed animals emit two to four times as much methane (a potent greenhouse gas) compared to the more “efficient” corn and soya-based diet of feedlot cattle. This is because the non-forage diet is mostly simple sugars, which requires no rumination for digestion.

Eshel argues that the higher methane emissions of grassfed cattle, combined with the faster weight gain by feedlot animals, result in significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions per pound of meat by grassfed animals than by feedlot ones. He also argues that grazing animals produce “at most a quarter of the calories per acre typical plant based production systems do” and that, ultimately, “grass-feeding produces unnecessary low-quality calories at ostentatious environmental costs while displacing threatened wildlife.”

On face value, he makes a seemingly strong case. Grassfed cattle produce more methane than corn-fed cattle; they grow more slowly and are therefore more “inefficient” when compared to cattle fed a corn-based diet. As a result, they represent an inefficient use of land which could be used to grow corn for feedlot cattle systems.

However, there is one particularly big hole in Dr. Eshel’s argument – which is particularly surprising given that he was once a cattle farmer in Israel. This hole in the argument also applies to Helene York’s contention that there is little difference between grassfed and feedlot cattle. The point is this: while the grassfed cattle are busy munching the grass, the feedlot cattle are busy munching… corn and soya. This corn and soya is rather heavily reliant on regular applications of… nitrogen fertilizers and other agrochemicals. And nitrogen fertilizers and other agrochemicals are produced using… you guessed it…fossil fuels.

According to David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, a typical steer will in effect consume 284 gallons of oil in its lifetime. Why? Because the corn we feed to our feedlot cattle requires artificial fertilizer and other agrochemicals, which require staggering amounts of fossil fuel energy to produce. And what about the growing body of scientific evidence which points to the benefits that grassfed farming systems offer in terms of soil carbon sequestration, and how the grazing process helps to the build the levels of organic matter in the soil, storing carbon in the process? Just two issues directly related to the climate change debate that both York and Eshel’s articles fail to even consider. But there are countless other aspects of the grassfed debate which fall outside of both their views on the issue.

For example, what about the animal welfare issues associated with feedlot production? What about the fact that although the corn may indeed make the cattle grow much more “efficiently,” cattle are “designed” to convert forage, and not copious quantities of grain? We know that when cattle arrive at feedlots, the change from a forage-based diet to the unnatural corn-based diet (intended to fatten them as fast as possible) must be managed carefully to avoid serious diet and digestive-related problems like acidiosis (a serious form of bovine heart burn which can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, liver disease and a general ill health) and “feedlot bloat.” Feedlot bloat is a major cause of sudden death in feedlots. It occurs when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, which affects the normal operation of the rumen, preventing the natural expulsion of gas (burping). As a result, the rumen literally inflates like a balloon–often very quickly –compressing the animal’s lungs and other internal organs. If the animal is not treated swiftly it can literally suffocate to death.

What about the routine diet of antibiotics used on feedlots to prevent the outbreak of diseases which would otherwise run riot among the immunologically weakened animals living in closely confined conditions? What about the routine feeding of low levels of key antibiotics to “promote growth” and which is leading to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria–meaning that essential antibiotics are fast becoming useless in the treatment of life-threatening human diseases, such as MRSA?

What about the human health implications of the corn-based cattle diet? York mentions E. coli as an issue of beef in general. But what about the fact that feeding corn creates an unnaturally acidic environment in the cattle’s digestive system which results in the growth of acid loving–and human health threatening–bacteria in the cattle’s gut, such as E. coli 0157:H7? We know that when these bacteria are exposed to low doses of antibiotics throughout the cattle’s life they can develop resistance and become “superbugs,” so when the bacteria are inevitably transferred to meat during the slaughter process, and a food poisoning outbreak occurs, the usual drugs no longer work. What about the financial cost of the regular resulting mass beef recalls and the associated human costs for those who are affected?

What about the nutritional advantages of grassfed beef? The fact that, when compared to feedlot beef, it contains far higher levels of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, higher levels of vitamin E and much higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) – a nutrient associated with lower cancer risk?

What about the environmental pollution associated with factory farms? Not to mention the cost of “storing” the millions of tons of manure produced by these feedlots? While grassfed farmers rely on the more modest levels of manure produced by their cattle in order to help maintain the natural fertility of their soils, feedlot farmers see it only as waste.

Science is a vital tool in unraveling the vast complexities of climate change, and the science is changing all the time. By all means, scientists should present their research and contribute to the debate. But while Eshel and I might agree on the need to cut down on our general meat consumption, and York and I might agree on the need to support better quality meats, unfortunately, the case each puts forward isn’t new; it’s based entirely on existing scientific research, much of which is highly contested. But what these articles really highlight is the fact that it really isn’t helpful to only consider one section of the full chain of production while ignoring other very significant areas of the debate.

The Child Nutrition Act is only reauthorized every five years, so now is the time to act. Please join with the chefs and contact your senator to ask for an additional $4 billion per year to improve school nutrition programs. Senators need to hear from you now. To find out how to contact your senator, please visit the U.S. Senate’s directory.

All the heat wasn’t in the kitchen on March 17, when a group of chefs, led by AWA supporter Chef Bill Telepan, wore their traditional white jackets to Capitol Hill to push for increased funding for school lunches. Chef’s Day of Action, coordinated by the NYC Alliance for CNR (Child Nutrition Reauthorization), brought together celebrity chefs and school lunch reform advocates to urge Congress to provide an additional $4 billion in funding per year for school food programs.

The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act comes up every five years and this year President Obama has asked for an additional $1 billion per year. The Senate, however, is considering only authorizing $500 million per year—half of what the President has requested. Even $1 billion wouldn’t make much of a difference to the 30 million school children who depend on the National School Lunch Program for meals. And when you consider the size of the budget—$3.7 trillion—it’s pocket change. $1 billion only equals 17 ½ cents per day per child. The government reimburses schools $2.68 for fully subsidized lunches.

The chefs say much more is needed to really make a difference. An increase in funding to $4 billion will provide an additional $0.70 per child. “We need school lunches to be about the best food, not the cheapest food,” says Chef Bill Telepan, who is also a board member of NYC’s Wellness in the Schools.  “This is what we practice as chefs and we have a responsibility to bring the best food there is into schools.”

All the chefs work regularly to improve nutrition for children.  Chef Ken Oringer, who owns six restaurants in the Boston area, has worked with Share Our Strength’s Operation Frontline Massachusetts to teach kids about cooking and nutrition. The birth of his daughter, Verveine, strengthened his commitment to ensuring every child’s meal is made with safe, fresh and nutritious food. “When I started cooking for my daughter it really hit home what an awesome responsibility feeding a child is. And that’s when I realized some kids will never get to eat a fresh organic vegetable or pasture-raised egg. It’s our responsibility to help all children learn about food and nutrition and eat the best possible food.”

Former Top Chef contestant Chef Spike Mendelsohn of D.C.’s Good Stuff Eatery came along to support his fellow chefs. As a D.C. resident he has no voting members of Congress, but he also owns a home in Florida and will be contacting Florida’s senators and his local Florida congressperson to urge them to support increased funding.  Chef Spike works with a D.C. KIPP Academy and with Horton’s Kids, an afterschool program that works one-on-one with children from D.C.’s Ward 8 neighborhood. Chef Spike teaches the kids about cooking and nutrition and a trip to Good Stuff Eatery is a popular reward for doing well in school. “School is about learning,” Chef Spike says. “We need to provide the money to schools not just to serve the best food, but to teach kids about great food—what it is, where it comes from, how you prepare it.”

Chef M. Mitchell of Brain Food, an innovative school lunch program providing meals for schools, moved his operation from wealthy northwest D.C. to the more challenging environment of nearby Prince George’s County, MD.  “I wanted to work where good food wasn’t really accessible. People feel that it doesn’t matter what the kids are eating as long as they are eating, so kids eat junk. Adults make decisions for kids and right now they’ve decided that what kids eat at school doesn’t matter. If we aren’t making the right food decisions for our kids, how can we expect them to do it for themselves?”

D.C. Chef Jose Andres’ restaurant Oyamel served as the D.C. headquarters for the chefs and advocates. While Chef Jose was unable to be present, he wanted to provide his support to his colleagues. Between Senate visits, Chef Spike hosted the group at Good Stuff Eatery, just blocks from the Capitol building.

By the end of the day, chefs in their signature white jackets had visited senators and congresspersons from around the nation, including the offices of Senators Kerry, Schumer and Gillibrand. There is still a long fight ahead, but the chefs all agreed—the Hill hasn’t seen the last of them.

Of course, the underlying principle here arguably has its roots in basic human biology: the more germs we are exposed to when we are younger, the stronger our immune systems are in later life. And this very same principle extends to the way many of us choose to farm.

Animal Welfare Approved farmers know that allowing animals to behave naturally and providing them with a low-stress environment helps to maintain their natural immune systems–their so-called “positive health.” And by working with nature, and not against her, we know that exposing stock to low levels of disease or internal parasite challenges in their early lives–as opposed to routinely using non-therapeutic medicines–will help to produce robust animals with vigor and resilience who only need veterinary treatments for disease or injury.

Over the last decade or two, however, this commonsense principle has been largely swept aside at both the home and the farm, as our ongoing war against Mother Nature entered a new “biological” phase. With the seemingly endless supply of powerful medicines and plentiful sanitation products, our healthy respect for the unseen bacteria around us rapidly developed into an obsession with hygiene and cleanliness at both home and on the farm. We sprayed and wiped our homes in order to kill “99% of known household germs,” while our intensive farmers used copious amounts of antibiotics to achieve ever higher levels of productivity and prevent the inevitable outbreak of disease among the closely confined animals on their holdings.

Of course, we are now rapidly learning of the hidden costs of this naive pursuit to eradicate or dominate the microbial world. As many of us suspected, excessive day-to-day domestic hygiene practices have been linked directly with the recent boom in allergies in developed countries, as our children’s immune systems are threatened. Similarly, our attempts to control disease outbreaks in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) through the routine use of antibiotics is leading to the emergence of antibiotic resistant diseases which now present a very real threat to human health.

Scientists are discovering that our relationship with the bacteria around us –and inside us–is much more complex than we first thought. Indeed, animal researchers in the UK have now established a direct link between exposure to bacteria in early in life and the reduction of allergies and other autoimmune diseases later on. They tested three groups of piglets:  one raised in an outdoor environment, another raised in an indoor environment, and the third reared in an isolated environment (where they were fed antibiotics daily). After examining their gut tissues and faeces at different growth stages, the scientists found that the outdoor pigs quickly developed communities of “friendly” bacteria in their guts which then helped them develop healthy immune systems later in life. They found that 90% of bacteria in the gut of outdoor piglets were species known for their health promoting effects and for their ability to minimize intestinal pathogens, such as E. coli and salmonella. In contrast, “friendly” bacteria made up less than 70% and less than 50% of the gut flora of the indoor pigs and isolated bred pigs, respectively. The researchers also found the differences in gut microbial communities affected the piglets’ immune systems, with the outdoor pigs able to respond more appropriately and effectively to disease challenge. It now appears that exposure to dirt during a pig’s early life actually plays an important part in the development of its natural immunity.

Of course, I am not suggesting a return to the “Dark Ages” for farming, nor a regular diet of fresh soil for our kids. But the emerging science around these issues is now raising important questions about what we really mean by good health and hygiene at home and on the farm. And this new research also represents a small but important step in establishing the scientific facts behind the wide-ranging benefits of grass-based outdoor farming systems. Because it’s not all just “mud and magic.”

To investigate some of these issues, Animal Welfare Approved sponsored a one-week, three-city tour for the UK Dinner Lady, Jeanette Orrey.  Jeanette is credited with changing school food in the UK, and AWA sponsored this visit to promote cross cultural dialogue and share her experiences with people working to make change in several US school districts. Following two days in New York City, the tour continued south (via Amtrak), as Jeanette was guided along by AWA staffers Andrew Gunther, Brigid Sweeney and Beth Hauptle, joined Chef Bill Telepan and Nancy Easton, both of NYC nonprofit Wellness in the Schools. (Pictured above:  Nancy Easton and Chef Bill Telepan from Wellness in the Schools in NYC talk with Greg Strella, Farm Manager of Great Kids Farm, a part of the Baltimore Public School system.  The farm currently grows crops and raises chickens and goats.)

On Wednesday as the tour continued, we visited with the Baltimore City Public Schools’ Great Kids Farm and a Culinary Center where students in the program prepared lunch for us.  Tony Geraci has been lauded for the efforts he is making in changing food in the schools in Baltimore and his plans are impressive.  The visit was covered by the Baltimore Sun.

On Thursday we hosted a luncheon at the Arlington location of Jaleo (ThinkFoodGroup), and shared meaningful dialogue about school lunches with representatives from the Arlington, VA school district, Alex Ashbrook, Director of DC Hunger Solutions, Maria Enie and Brandi Horton from Vanguard Communications and others committed to childhood nutrition and school food. (Right:  Andrew Gunther, Jeanette Orrey, Nancy Easton and Bill Telepan on Amtrak to Baltimore.)

On Thursday, we visited Washington-Lee High School, a high school in the Arlington Public School system. Arlington is a county (and city) adjacent to Washington, DC, across the Potomac River. We were hosted by Amy Maclosky, Director of Food Service and Mary Beth Chambers, Assistant Superintendent, Management and Finance Services. We were impressed with the efforts being made by this school district and the openness to share information and desire to effect positive change. AWA is looking forward to working with Arlington to identify local farms and help raise awareness among the staff and students about “where our food comes from.”

The trip concluded yesterday as Jeanette traveled back to the UK. We are all looking forward to the next steps and for the opportunity to draw upon her many years of experience in making change happen. More in depth coverage of the trip will be featured in our next newsletter. (Right:  Jeanette meets cafeteria workers at Washington-Lee High School in Arlington, VA.)

During her stay, Orrey met with the following:

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
Mary Beth Chambers, Assistant Superintendent, Management and Finance Services

(Above: Students in one of Baltimore City Public Schools’ culinary centers proudly prepared a delicious gourmet lunch for Jeanette and the other visitors!)

We are headed to Baltimore this morning on an early train.  Yesterday while meeting with Queens Farm we got a call from Tony Geraci (soon to be dubbed the US Dinner Man?!), Director of Food and Nutrition Services for Baltimore City Public Schools.  He prepared us for our reception at the train station in Baltimore, where we will be greeted by a camera crew from a Baltimore City High School.  The students are excited to meet us and we are looking forward to a productive day!  We’re going to have lunch prepared by high school students in the culinary program as well as visit with Greg Strella, the Farm Manager of the Great Kids Farm, actually owned by the school system.

More to come tomorrow.

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’.

While Animal Welfare Approved farmers supply numerous Whole Foods Market stores, typically it has been difficult for consumers to find Animal Welfare Approved products at these stores because most AWA products will lack the familiar AWA label. And since Whole Foods Market stores offer a variety of meat products from a host of different sources, consumers need to ask for Animal Welfare Approved products  by the specific farm or farm group where the animals were raised on pasture or range.

A state-by-state list of Whole Foods Market stores that stock AWA meats, and specifically what you should ask for at the meat counter, is available on www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org/whole-foods/. Since the AWA products lack labels, asking the butcher for meat from a specific farm is the key to ensuring Animal Welfare Approved meat is a part of your meaningful holiday meal.

Consumers can find a searchable database of other Animal Welfare Approved products on the AWA website.  AWA wishes everyone a humane and happy holiday season!