I came across a editorial about cloning while doing research for a post on food irradiation.  It leads off with

While Dolly lived a painful, arthritic life and died prematurely, possibly due to the imperfections of cloning,…

I am all for people being able to make choices about their food. If it is the right choice, fear and misinformation are not needed.

The article leads off with the widespread myth that Dolly suffered because she was a clone.  Truth is she had arthritis because she lived on concrete, in a display barn. She died of the same respiratory infection that killed many other animals in her barn, none of which were clones. The other sheep cloned at the same time have lived (and I believe some are still living) a normal, productive life on pasture, including lambing.

I have a question for the authors: If you so blatantly publish things that are not true, why should I believe any of what you write, in particular over what is published by the FDA?

Got distracted by Ike, but here are this week’s gleanings from the web.

TV Food Shows teach bad food hygeine:   A study at Texas Tech of 49 food shows on Food Network found inadequate hand washing, cross-contamination and a number of bad-examples that could lead to food illness.

Identify Greenwashing:  from Ecogeek. A new website claims to scientifically evaluate and report on products and their true “green-ness”.

EPA’s Climate Change Kids Site.  Thanks to Mama Joules for finding this cool site with lots of games and information about climate change and what we can do about it.

Does Sarah Palin have a position on crane poop and fresh peas?:  From Barfblog.  18 people in Alaska fell sick with campylobacter appearing to have gotten it from eating raw peas from field peppered with sandhill crane poop.  What geese can do to a sidewalk, cranes do to a field.  So what IS the practical on-farm food safety system for fresh produce?

There is an uplifting story in the UK newspaper The Times about the 20th anniversary of “Send a Cow”.  The program sent live, pregnant cows to Africa as a way to alleviate hunger and poverty and foster independence. The author, an inaugural contributor 20 years ago, went to see if allegations that the program was keeping Africa poor, were true or not.

Some unique and key aspects make this program more than just a “throw money at it” charity:

• The cows (and their resulting income) are the property of the women in the family,
  

  we find that if the profit from the milk goes to the woman, it will end up back with the family. With the men, we couldn’t be quite so certain.

• The first calf of each gift-cow must be given to a new family, who in turn must gift the first calf of that cow.  In Rwanda, a calf born to a Hutu must be given to a Tutsi family

Still, there have been opponents.

Environmentalists argue that the entire scheme is unsound because not only are bovines poor converters of food, but cows frequently break wind and emit damaging methane. But an independent carbon audit of this entire cow-giving process, gas and all, including the huge amount of fertility returned to the soil, has shown it to be so carbon-friendly that they’re practically in love with it. This, fortunately, spares Send a Cow an embarrassing encounter with the redoubtable Mrs Kibuuka where it says: “Sorry, your six kids will not be going to school after all because your cow farts too much.”

Send a Cow is still an active organization.  Also check out another of my favorite charities, Heifer International .  [p.s.  why not give a cow, sheep or goat as a gift in the name of that hard-to-buy-for person?]

News, views and tidbits plucked from the web.

An Attack on ‘Unnatural Agriculture’?.  agEconomist presents some thought-provoking arguments about why it is important to consider all options (including biotech) and the economic impacts of policy changes in our drive for sustainability.

Animal Cloning and Food:  More Than a Feeling.  The “ick factor” is a perfect example of the sentiments behind the opposition to cloning and the larger issue of genetically modified food: “It doesn’t feel right.”

Organic Food is no Middle Class Fad.   Helen Browning of the UK’s Soil Association says that preferences for organic have made it through recessions before.  I find it most interesting that she phrases her descriptions in terms of “ethical choices” and not safety, which is more how I see the reasoning behind many folks’ organic choice.

Cheap, Healthy Food.   Some good advice here, such as reminders that simple, fresh foods are both healthier and cheaper that most junk foods.  Sad that canned fruits and fish win out over fresh in the price wars, though.

Church wine bars?  From Chow.  The Church of England is contemplating opening a series of wine bars to bolster both its membership and support the wine industry.

The first line of the article: “Milk and meat from the offspring of cloned livestock are entering the food supply”, but the headline reads “Animal Clones Are in Food Supply”

I know newspapers are in the business of selling news and must attract customers to do so, but shame on the Wall Street Journal for grabbing attention with something that is sensational and not actually true.

There may well be offspring of cloned animals in the food supply.  This is not a big deal.  First of all, the FDA’s review of cloning technology has ruled that even meat and milk from cloned animals themselves is OK.  Giving a nod to public concern, they have asked for a voluntary withholding of the clones themselves from the food supply.  Cloning company,  Bovance, (and business partners ViaGen and TransOva) have put a tracking system into place for the cloned animals themselves to facilitate this.

Cloning involves taking a cell from the donor animal and inserting the part of the cell that contains the DNA into an egg (from the same species of animal) from which the DNA has been removed.  This ‘reprograms’ the donor cell into acting like a fertilized egg, and it grows and develops into a regular embryo that is genetically identical to the donor animal.  Reprogramming does not affect the chromosomes or DNA of the animal, but does affect how the DNA (genes) are used to control the development of the embryo.

But as for the offspring of clones? Because the DNA is not changed, offspring of clones are in no way different than any other animals. Even though there is no scientific reason to expect them to be different, there have been studies done on offspring of clones (all the way through production of milk and meat, and sure enough–no differences!

There may well be an insignificant number of offspring of clones that have been harvested.  Based on the facts, I fail to see why we should care. As far as food safety goes, this is really a non-issue.

(tap tap) Is this thing on? Let’s kick the dust off the tires & get this thing rolling.

I’ve always been amazed/confused about how little we all really know about our food. IFIC (International Food Information Council) really knocks a home run with this one.

Check it out on YouTube (can’t seem to embed the video but you can scroll over and find out) … what’s for lunch?

Elanco announced recently that they have purchased worldwide operating rights and supporting operations for Posilac (rBST) from Monsanto.

From the time they announced they were divesting of Posilac, Monsanto has maintained that the decision was because they are concentrating on their plant business and less on livestock. Although I suspect that their poor track record in addressing consumer’s concerns with the product may have had something to do with it, analysis of their business activities lends creedence to it being more a business than a PR decision.

Although the green blogosphere was all over Monsanto’s decision to divest, touting it as a victory for consumer’s voices and preferences, there has been much less coverage of Elanco (whose parent company is Eli Lilly) purchasing the business. The few posts I’ve been able to locate are shamefully playing the fear card: “Maker of Prozac buys Milk Hormone“, with one discussion going so far as to imply that Lilly is going to repackage and give the product to unsuspecting women!

I consider myself green, and run my ranch using mainly non-traditional production methods,. One of my favorite blogs is Ethicurean. But, this whole process of research about rBST has me disgusted with much of what I read. I have seen so many outrageous claims about this product, and milk, meat and traditional agriculture in general, that sometimes I wonder if I can believe anything I read! Through the farmer’s markets, I get to hear many common misconceptions about traditional food. I’ve even been accused of callously contributing to global warming because I raise beef.

On the other hand, Monsanto has a really poor track record for honoring the concerns of the public and has been historically heavy handed in the way it has dealt with the public. The ag sector in general often adopts an adversarial stance relative to alternative production methods and the green movement. I’ve been accused of “damaging agriculture” by producing and selling pasture-raised beef.

Sometimes the debate seems like it’s between two toddlers. Emotion and defending a position become more important than making an informed decision about what’s best. I also get extremely frustrated that it often seems like the viewpoint is “all or none”: It takes a whole set of options to create the optimum, because there are a whole range of people, land and production scenarios. We need food and agriculture, regardless of how it’s produced. I don’t see what is inherently threatening about producing our food under a variety of methods. I do see what is threatening about fear tactics and misinformation. I also see how people feel threatened when they believe they are not getting the whole story.

It’s OK if we don’t all agree on how food should be produced. It’s great (and necessary) to debate pros, cons, risks and rewards. It doesn’t do any of us any good to have decisions influenced by fear, not facts. So, get real, all of you!

Can an Organic Girl go corporate without selling out? A really thought-provoking piece from Ethicurean. From grass-roots to becoming the Martha Stewart of the organic empire, is MaryJane still for real?

What belongs in a Farmer’s Market? Stuff from farms, right? Ahhhh, if only it were so simple! from Slowfoodblog. We get complaints about not enough variety at our local market in the dog-days of August. Would we be better off buying from the San Antonio produce terminal or sticking to our “home-grown only” rule?

Food Safety Consumer Survey: Through Food Law Prof Blog. The results of a 2006 telephone survey of consumers says that 56% of respondents thought one was more like to get food poisoning from eating at a restaurant than from eating at home.

Bagged Lunch Safety Tips. From Natural Family Recipes blog, just in time for the start of school.

Cow Poo Powers Carnival Ride. From Ecogeek. At the California state fair, the Barnyard Animal Train is powered by locally produced biogas made from dairy cow manure. Local, sustainable AND educational! How much better can you get?

As a local foodie, small producer and farmer’s market vendor, I found myself in an odd position in my last post; defending Monsanto. Although I think Monsanto has a less-than-great track record in the PR department, as a scientist, it was relatively easy to post on the facts. As I cruised the internet looking for blogs, articles and op-ed pieces on rBST, most of what I read about why we should oppose the use of rBST was scientifically unfounded and sometimes completely at odds with reality. There are some legitimate concerns about the use of the product, and (believe it or not), there are also some legitimate reasons to support its continued availability.

So, here’s some issues to think about:

Is it ethical to remove from the marketplace a product that is scientifically safe, but has significant public opposition, if its removal raises the prices of a basic foodstuff? Remember that those most adversely affected are likely to be the least vocal and least politically represented. If rBST is withdrawn from the market place, will it also have a corresponding increase in milk prices?

Who bears the cost when farmers use lower efficiency production methods in favor of other factors such as sustainability, animal welfare, or organic? Dairy farmers use rBST because it lowers their cost of production per gallon of milk. I suspect that the first “rBST-free” brands may have paid a premium to farmers for foregoing the use of the product. But, as major processors became “rBST-free”, they simply imposed a restriction on the product’s use without any change in compensation to the producer.

What is the meaning behind the “rBST-free labels“? Last time I researched it, many claims such as “our milk is produced from cows not treated with rBST” had minimal checks to make sure the producers were not using the product. Milk bearing the label is very likely produced on large-scale dairy farms, and no more likely to be organic, pastured, or local than non-labelled milk. And finally, it has been shown to have no less “hormones” than non-labelled milk.

Optimal versus maximal production: Whether it be through the administration of rBST or traditional selection for extreme milk production, there is no doubt that the extra production comes as some costs. Productive life of dairy cattle (the length of time they remain in the milking herd before they become salvage beef) has decreased dramatically as pounds of milk produced per cow have increased. rBST increases production, as does selective breeding. What is optimum? Is it the same as maximum?

So, before you make your purchasing decision based on that “rBST-free” label, or demand that Monsanto pull the product from the market, make sure that your reasons are sound and you are getting what you pay for.

Monsanto recently issued a press release announcing they are divesting of the rBST product. Monsanto states they are not removing the product from the market, but rather looking to offload the business to a different company. In this first of several posts on rBST, I’ll try to provide some scientific background.

rBST or recombinant bovine somatotropin is a synthetically produced hormone that is identical to a hormone produced in the pituitary gland of cattle. In cattle, BST is present in milk at about 10 parts per billion, whether they receive rBST or not. BST is broken down by the digestive tract when milk is consumed. Even when injected directly into pituitary glands in humans, the BST hormone has no effect (this was tried when BST was first discovered, thinking it might be a way to treat growth hormone deficiency in humans).

The FDA’s review of the product, including levels of IGF-1 and BST in the milk concluded that rBST was safe and that milk from rBST-treated cows was indistinguishable from non-treated animals. Much of the original data submitted to the FDA has been subsequently validated in other research.

The recent JADA paper we discussed here also found no biologically meaningful differences in rBST-free, traditional and organic milk. In fact, the few statistical differences were often in a direction counter to what opponents of rBST would have us believe.

A study at Cornell University concluded that the use of rBST reduced the carbon footprint of milk production. It does this through increasing the efficiency with which cows convert feed to milk. Less feed per gallon = less poop, less greenhouse gas and less cows needed per gallon.

Given all the “rBST-free” labels appearing on the shelves though, there is obviously some controversy here: Wikipedia presents a reasonable summary of the rBST issues. The use of rBST does increase mastitis (inflammation of the udder), although this is similar to what is seen in high-producing dairy cows that are not treated with rBST. So, the question is more of how high the production rate is, than of rBST.

Scientifically, I don’t believe there is any food safety reason to base your milk choices on rBST status of the cows that produce it.