A reporter recently asked that I clarify a position I had taken concerning the USDA 2006 grass fed proposal.

REPORTER:  The Associated Press quoted your concerns about the USDA's recent proposal to broaden the term "grass fed."  They're suggesting that only 99 percent, rather than 100 percent, of a cow's diet come from grass forage and by defining forage more broadly to include things like leftover corn stalks from harvest and silage, which are fermented grasses and legumes.  You seem to be a strict 'grass-is-grass' constructionist on the issue.  Will that 1% really make a difference?  And what is the detrimental effect of silage?

DR. WHISNANT:  No, I do not feel that the 1% will make a difference!  In fact, in the letter I drafted to the USDA, as President of the American Grassfed Association, I applauded them for addressing the previously published claim of 80% and making the change to 99%.  From a pure marketing standpoint I think the 100% would have sounded more genuine, but I appreciate their desire to make the 99% the ” truth in practice” that would allow for inadvertent exposure to grains or any prohibited feed material.

My problem with the use of corn silage as a forage is not so much a problem with it’s inclusion in the standard but with the lack of clarification and precise definition of  the use of the term “immature” grain.  After having observed some of the loopholes in the organic standard I think you open the way for abuse if a sliding scale for maturity is applied to the use of corn silage.  I believe that a better definition can be found to clarify the proper use of silage.  Silage would be great; sliding the scale all the way to grain maturity, which would potentially decrease the perceived health and safety benefits of the product, would not be great.  I just think the standard can be worded more precisely to clearly define permitted forage sources.  The use of vague terminology invites skirting of the intent.

REPORTER:  Speaking for the American Grassfed Association, you said, "We feel very strongly that any grassfed standard must address the issue of confinement as an integral part of that standard: otherwise the label will lose its integrity."  We have two issues at play - the feeding regimen and confinement.  Why do you see them as integral to your definition of grassfed?

DR. WHISNANT:  The USDA has chosen to address only the feeding regimen in its proposed standard.  Yet, I do believe that the consumer would define the term “grassfed” to mean an animal raised on pasture.  If passed into regulation as it now reads you could  have animals raised in feedlots, fed harvested forage and corn silage, fed antibiotics, implanted with synthetic growth hormones and be legally labeled “Grass fed”. It would be taking the family farmed sustainable model and applying the same label to a factory farmed feedlot model.  The feed yard need only change what is technically put in the trough.   That is disingenuous to the consumer who would choose the product not just for the perceived healthiness but because they would support sustainable systems that they believe are more humane to the animal, more environmentally friendly and in support of local family farms.

As I stated in this article the newly emerging grass fed industry is rapidly growing due in most part to the increased attention from various media sources.  More consumers are becoming enlightened as to the differences and benefits of choosing grass fed beef over factory farmed industrial beef.

The majority of grass fed beef is produced on small family farms where they take pride in the care and quality of the product.  Though grass fed still constitutes a small niche market it is exciting to see the increasing number of farms that are looking to niche marketing directly to consumers as a means to breathe new life into the financial viability of these farms.  It is this direct connection to the farm that many consumers are looking for and many producers are willing to offer.

Grass-fed beef worth the wait for many
By Jane Snow Aug. 16, 2006
McClatchy News Service

Akron, Ohio - Cattle graze peacefully on David and Deanna McMaken's farm near Waynesburg in Carroll County. From the time they're born until they become hamburger, the animals wander through pastures, munching grass and slowly gaining weight.

That's how cattle were raised a century ago, but rarely today, when most are weaned from grass at an early age and fattened on grains in feedlots. The McMakens' Rose Ridge Farm is one of a handful in Ohio producing grass-fed beef. But at the rate the industry is growing, you're going to be seeing a lot more of this meat.

Grass-fed beef became so popular with customers at Krieger's in the Akron, Ohio, area, that it's now the only kind the market sells.

"They say they like it better," Krieger meat cutter Rob Fink said.

The beef is touted as a wonder meat that's up to 50 percent lower in fat than regular beef, higher in vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids, environmentally friendly and humanely produced. Some researchers even claim it can help prevent cancer and help you lose weight.

Some of the nutrition claims may be premature, but the meat is indeed more healthful than regular beef, experts say. It's also tougher and some of it is less flavorful than regular beef, although farmers are working on that.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN GRASS FED ASSOCIATION

Grazing America 2006 in Colorado Springs was a great success.  It truly was an “Education and Celebration of Real Farm Food” as it facilitated the building of a bridge from the farm to the consumer.  While relaying important information to the producer, the event opened dialogue and forged relationships between producers and end users.  The tours, the Grassfed Tasting, the seminars, the banquet with Eric Schlosser, the face-to-face meeting with Marty O’Connor (USDA) and the General Session meeting was simply the best grassfed event put forth to date.  I want to express my appreciation to all those who worked so hard to make it happen; the speakers, the sponsors, the attendees, the conference committee and our Executive Director, Carrie Balkcom.

August 8, 2006

Martin E. O’Conner
Chief, Standardization Branch,
Livestock and Seed Program,
AMS, USDA
Room 2607-S
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-0254

RE: Docket No. LS-05-09 

The American Grassfed Association ( AGA) would like to commend the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service for publishing a proposed voluntary claim and standards for grassfed (forage) marketing.  The proposed voluntary regulation should provide a good measure of assurance for protecting the integrity of any label claim using the term grassfed. 

We strongly support this standard as it refers to feeding practices.  Specifically, we support the provision for any meat labeled under this program to be sourced from animals that receive 99 percent of their lifetime energy supply from grass and forage.  However, we also feel very strongly that this forage feeding practice must be linked in the standard to open-range or pasture feeding models in order to protect the integrity of the grassfed term as it is defined by the majority of consumers. AGA would like to offer several suggestions on ways to further strengthen the standard.

Patricia Whisnant, DVM                                             FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
President
American Grassfed Association                               
Phone:  573-996-5333
Email:  pwhisnant@americangrassfedbeef.com
PRESS RELEASE

USDA Regulation Can Potentially Destroy Grass Farming

To most consumers the term Grass Fed means cattle humanely raised in grass pastures until time of harvest, the way nature intended.  If the proposed USDA Grass Fed claim currently published for comment passes into regulation you could see feedlot beef labeled as Grass Fed Beef.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA) represents grassfed producers, food industry professionals, researchers and consumer groups who are very concerned about the proposed grass fed claim.  Dr. Patricia Whisnant, President of AGA states, “We strongly feel that any grass fed standard must address the issue of confinement as an integral part of that standard, otherwise the label will lose its integrity.”

Eric Schlosser was our keynote speaker at the American Grassfed Association conference in Colorado Springs last month.  He was a delight to get to know and held our group of 250 grass fed producers in rapt attention.  It was thrilling to us as producers to hear him speak to the benefits of raising animals on grass the way nature intended rather than opting to enter the world of industrial meat industry with its behemoth feedlots and mega-processing plants. 

I had read Fast Food Nation years ago and found it a good read.  Thoroughly researched, it was as provocative in message focusing in light of the modern meat as Upton Sinclair was in writing about the meat industry in the early part of the century.  Eric has followed through in writing Chew on This which is the kid’s version of his earlier book.  It is required reading at my house. 

It will be exciting to see the reactions to the movie version of Fast Food Nation which will be out this fall.  If you would like a sneak preview peek here:

http://www.fastfoodnation-movie.com/trailer.php

Super Healthy, Not Super Size
Fast Food Nation's Eric Schlosser talks to Epicurious about
getting kids to eat healthy

The movie Fast Food Nation will be released on October 20.
With Americans — and their kids — super sizing themselves, and with one in five public schools in America offering brand-name fast food in the school cafeterias, we are reaching a health crisis. It is particularly alarming in the youngest and most vulnerable segment, our children.
"Since the early 1970s the rate of obesity among adult Americans has risen by 50 percent," writes Schlosser. "Among preschoolers it has doubled. And among children aged six to 11 it has tripled."