The following article is written by Jo Robinson, a passionate advocate of grassfed meats.  Her website www.eatwild.com has served as a cornerstone in the grassfed industry for years.  We value being able to call her our friend.  It offers a stark contrast between the industrial beef industry and a small-scale pasture-based system. 

What You Need to Know About The Beef You Eat

By Jo Robinson
Reprinted from Mother Earth News
February/March 2008

You can’t see it. And you can’t always recognize it by reading the label. But the beef in your supermarket has gone industrial.

Before factory farming took hold in the 1960s, cattle were raised on family farms or ranches around the country. The process was elemental. Young calves were born in the spring and spent their first months suckling milk and grazing on grass. When they were weaned, they were turned out onto pastures. Some cattle were given a moderate amount of grain to enhance marbling (the fat interlaced in the muscle). The calves grew to maturity at a natural pace, reaching market weight at two to three years of age. After the animals were slaughtered, the carcasses were kept cool for a couple weeks to enhance flavor and tenderness, a traditional process called dry aging. The meat was then shipped in large cuts to meat markets. The local butcher divided it into individual cuts upon request and wrapped it in white paper and string.

This meat was free of antibiotics, added hormones, feed additives, flavor enhancers, age-delaying gases and salt-water solutions. Mad cow disease and the deadliest strain of E. coli — 0157:H7 — did not exist. People dined on rare steaks and steak tartare (raw ground beef) with little fear.

What’s in Your Beef?

Today’s industrialized process brings cattle to slaughter weight in just one or two years. But it reduces the nutritional value of the meat, stresses the animals, increases the risk of bacterial contamination, pollutes the environment and exposes consumers to a long list of unwanted chemicals.

The beef contains traces of hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals that were never produced by any cow. That hamburger looks fresh, but it may be two weeks old and injected with gases to keep it cherry red. Take a closer look at that “guaranteed tender and juicy” filet of beef. The juiciness may have been “enhanced” with a concoction of water, salt, preservatives and other additives.

More ominous, the beef also may be infected with food-borne bacteria, including E. coli 0157:H7. Some experts believe this toxic E. coli evolved in cattle that were fed high-grain diets. Every year, hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef products are recalled. One of the largest recalls to date took place in October 2007 when Topps Meat company recalled 21.7 million pounds of hamburger because of potential E. coli contamination. The massive recall actually put the company out of business. 

And now there’s mad cow disease, a mysterious disease that is not destroyed by cooking and has been fatal. You could ingest “prions” (abnormal proteins) by eating even a well-done rib roast. These prions infiltrate your brain, perforate it with holes, and cause death in a few years’ time.

The artificial manipulation of beef begins prior to conception. Many cows are treated with synthetic hormones, such as “melengestrol acetate,” that regulate the timing of conception, allowing all the calves to be born within days of each other — a “more efficient” process. In many ranches, herd bulls have been replaced by artificial insemination, which is a fast (read: more efficient) way to improve herd genetics. The goal is consistent size, tenderness and marbling. But industry insiders predict that many ranchers will be using cloned cattle in five or 10 years. The mass-produced calves will be carbon copies of each other. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted preliminary approval of cloning in December 2006, declaring that the meat is indistinguishable from normal meat, and is as safe for human consumption. In similar circumstances, no labeling has been required.

The USDA recently published for comment a voluntary label aimed at clarifying standards for livestock used for meat and meat products under the “natural” label.  Currently, the term “natural” only applies to products with minimal processing.  All fresh meat could essentially earn the label “natural”.  The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has proposed the new term “naturally raised” to develop a marketing claim standard for naturally raised with the idea of bringing clarity to the marketplace.  However, in the attempts to make this standard a minimal threshold it will only add more confusion to an already confused consumer. 

November 28, 2007 the USDA-AMS proposed label for naturally-raised was published for comment and the public has until January 28 to weigh in with their opinions.  The claim reads as follows:

“Naturally Raised – Livestock used for the production of meat and meat products have been raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics, and have never been fed mammalian or avian by-products.  This information shall be contained on any label claim that an animal has beef naturally raised.” 

This Federal Register notice can be found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/naturalclaim.htm.

This proposed label claim makes no reference to animal welfare or housing conditions and is entirely based on the feeding practices.  I have deep concerns, as do many sustainable producers with this proposed label claim and the flaws contained within.  The flaws that I see with the proposed naturally raised label are as follows:
• There is a lack of any reference to animal welfare or to how an animal is raised.
• The proposal gives minimum standards with a bar set so low that it will make the claim meaningless; it would more properly be called “Naturally-Fed” since it does not address how the animal is raised. 
• It will allow for large factory-farm producers to comply with minimal standards and not address animal welfare or confinement feeding operations.
• It will lead to further consumer confusion over natural products and their labeling. 

Quality production practices established by sustainable livestock producers are appreciated and have value with many consumers in the market today.  This label threatens to erode this reputation.  I feel like it is another example of how industrial agriculture is trying to hijack a name.  We have seen it in organic, in grassfed and now in naturally-raised.  A marketing claim that uses “Naturally Raised” should include standards for animals care, stewardship of land and resources, health and feeding, and include standards for allowing the animal to fulfill its natural behaviors such as grazing.  That natural behavior doesn’t happen in a feedlot where the producer is only making a concession to not feed growth promotants, antibiotics and animal by-products.

A Zogby survey conducted in 2007 showed that 48% of respondents believe that meat, dairy and eggs labeled as “natural” come from animals that are raised with free access to the outdoors where they can move around and live in a manner in which nature intended them to live.  This label addresses nothing concerning how the animal is raised.  Hence, large industrial producers could have a CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) omit the antibiotics and hormones and label the product “Naturally Raised”. 

In 2006 when the USDA grassfed claim was published for comment nearly 20,000 consumers and producers answered the USDA and expressed the idea that they believed the term belonged to animals raised on pasture not in a feedlot.  I believe that the same would apply here and that consumers have the image that “Naturally Raised” involves the idea that these animals (ruminants anyway) are raised with free access to pasture.  This label will not provide the consumer with enough information to make an informed choice concerning their food purchases.  As such it is a disservice to those consumers who would vote for what exists in the world by how they spend their money.

What would cause the AMS to allow for a label that causes more confusion instead of making clear standards that would leave the producer and the consumer in complete understanding?  Is there something more sinister behind this claim?  One wonders if large industrial producers who see the label as having value in the marketplace and hence adding profit to the bottom line have lobbied and pushed for this vague standard.  It will allow these producers to jump on the natural bandwagon.

If you share a concern about this label then please comment to the USDA concerning how you feel.

by Dr. Patricia Whisnant

This week the FDA approved the sale of cloned animals and products. The FDA declared that meat and milk from cloned cattle, swine and goats are as safe to consume as food from conventionally bred animals.

The controversial decision removes a hurdle for the small cadre of American biotechnology companies that have waited for the approval to lift a voluntary freeze on selling cloned animals.

Proponents of cloned animals argue that their use will improve the consistency, quality and speed at which livestock products can be produced.  Hence, it would eventually also create cheaper protein products.  This is the same argument used by the behemoth industrial agriculture machine in regards to their factory-farmed model.  Many consumers have come to appreciate that this cheaper food carries its own cost.  Cheap food in the industrial factory farm system charges a cost to our environment, creates issues concerning the health and humane treatment of our animals, brings into question the healthiness and safety of our food systems and is set against the survival of the small-scale family farm. So, I say, cheap food but at what cost?

Regardless of what the proponents claim cloning is all about bottom-line profit and producing more and more of our food from industrial-scale farming operations.  Many consumers are seeking out choices and agricultural models that come closer to the farm and the intimate connection between the land, animals, and the people who care for them in a sustainable and regenerative system.  To these consumers and to the people who produce these small-scale family farmed products the idea of cloning is in opposition to their whole food and back to basic approach.

Consider also some of the realities of cloning that include some disturbing phenomena.  64 % of cattle, 40% of sheep, and 93% of cloned mice exhibit some form of abnormality with a large percentage of the animals dying during gestation or shortly after birth.  High rates of late abortion and early prenatal death, with failure rates of 95% to 97% in most mammal cloning attempts. (Mark Kastel, Cornucopia Institute)  You cannot consider this natural when so high a percentage is rejected by body systems whose built in defenses reject the application.

Defects such as grossly oversized calves, enlarged tongues, squashed faces, intestinal blockages, immune deficiencies, and diabetes are some of the recorded complications.  When cloning does not produce a normal animal, many of the difficult pregnancies cause physical suffering or death to the surrogate mothers.  (Kastel)

Additionally, the widespread adoption of cloning could lead to the dramatic loss of genetic diversity in livestock.  This may leave farmers and our nation’s food supply susceptible to devastating epidemics due to a monoculture gene pool.

However, in the increasing demand by consumers to know where the food is sourced cloning may very well lead many to seek out and purchase whole, pure products such as grassfed and organic foods.  Grassfed and organic production protocols represent some of the last bastion of authenticity in the human food chain.

The National Organic Program at the USDA and the American Grassfed Association have made it very clear that cloned animals and their progeny are strictly banned from the livestock production models.

Consumers concerned about experiments with their food supply or humane treatment of livestock are very uncomfortable with cloning technology.  A recent opinion poll conducted by the Food Information Council found that 58% of American surveyed would be unlikely to buy meat or dairy from cloned animals, irregardless if the FDA said it was safe.

By Georgina Gustin
ggustin@post-dispatch.com

ST. LOUIS -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared on Tuesday that meat and milk from cloned cattle, swine and goats are as safe to consume as food from conventionally bred animals.

The controversial decision removes a hurdle for the small cadre of American biotechnology companies that have waited for the approval to lift a voluntary freeze on selling cloned animals.

It also triggered a wave of angry responses from consumer groups, concerned about long-term human safety, animal welfare and the financial impact on farmers and producers from wariness in the marketplace.

Some Missouri and Illinois milk and meat producers, joining some major national companies, have already said they won't sell food from cloned animals because of consumer trepidation.

On Tuesday, regulators and the cloning industry celebrated the decision, saying livestock cloning is just the latest advance in reproductive science - after such widely used techniques as in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. The goal is to produce superior animals with more tender meat and higher milk production, more consistently.

Researchers stress that there is no genetic difference between a cloned animal, which is essentially a twin, and sexually produced livestock. Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which changes genetic material, or DNA.

''We've done a very extensive job of looking at anything that could possibly be a food hazard, and to be honest, we found nothing,'' said Stephen Sundlof, of the federal agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. ''The likelihood that anything could go wrong from a food safety standpoint is unimaginably small.''

The public, however, remains unconvinced. Most polls and surveys, including those commissioned by the industry, show that a majority of Americans are wary of food from clones. Regulators in other countries are also cautious, including those in Canada, who have said there isn't enough long-term evidence that products and byproducts, such as rendered fat, from clones are safe.