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 If rBST is withdrawn from the market place, will it also have a corresponding increase in milk prices?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.

Weekly Earthlinks a day early, as we are headed North to my “farma mater” to see family.

An Upside to Higher Food Prices? Do higher food prices have some benefit for humanity? Do higher food prices spur production, mean more income for farmers and discourage use of food for fuel? Or do they destabilize governments and contribute to ill-health? Enter your opinion on this discussion on the poll from The Economist.

Remember Food Safety when Reusing Plastic Containers: Some tips from the USDA–Do not use plastics such as margarine containers in the microwave. Avoid using garbage bags to store food. Do not re-use plastic drink bottles.

Get the dirt on eco-eating: Know your certification programs. From our friends at American Farmland Trust; a handy list (with links) to many eco-conscious and sustainability-focused certification programs.

Label-Wise, American Savvy About On Par With Global Consumers : An online Nielson survey says that despite the plethora of labels on our food, Americans don’t seem to be all that much savvier about food labeling than their counterparts in the rest of the world.

Celebrity Dog Food: Rachel Ray has released “Nutrish”, her own line of dog food. Don’t miss the satirical response from Gallery of the Absurd. And I thought “Angus” branded dog food was silly!

There’s an interesting discussion going on at one of the leading feminist blogs. It’s about one woman’s frustrations surrounding food choices and feeding her family. In one single post, she touches on enough topics to fill this blog for the next six months: How do you feed your family healthy, tasty, economical and appealing meals that you can afford financially and time-wise? Add to that a desire to make your food choices reflect your values and other concerns such as the desire to eat local, support sustainability and ethical accountability, and it’s enough to make any Mom pull out their hair!

I share these frustrations about food choices. It seems like we have more information at our fingertips than we can process. Add to that the fact that much “information” is actually propaganda and it’s even harder to make intelligent food choices.

I get PO’d by label claims that are confusing, relatively meaningless and designed to take advantage of people’s concerns for their health and desire to be environmentally or socially responsible.

I get frustrated when I talk to my farmer’s market customers who think “eggs from vegetarian fed chickens” means the chickens led a life of total freedom(chickens aren’t vegetarians). I find it equally dismaying to hear people blaming beef or milk for early onset of puberty (studies show the leading causes have nothing to do with either).

Then there’s the whole local versus industrial and traditional versus organic thing. To paraphrase one particularly well-written comment:

In practice, there are some things it is nearly impossible for industrial agriculture to do particularly well. Others fare better. Localizing food production more solves some problems, introduces others; it’s not a panacea. Over all of this also hangs the spectre of energy policy; some of the most productive (at least in some sense) industrial techniques are deeply coupled to assumptions about cheap fossil fuel availability. … local’ is no more a magic word than so-called `organic’, but it has a place in the discussion of how to fix some of the more broken parts of our current agricultural system.

Much of what is in the press or on the web is so slanted toward converting the reader to a point of view, it’s hard to believe anything. And who has the time to do all the research?

My frustrations are exactly why I started blogging here. I find myself on a mission to sort through some of the crap, research and propaganda so other moms, consumers, producers and food industry folks can get a sens of understanding on some very confusing issues.

The Troublemaker Mom: From Science Women. I’ve sooo been there, and it seems particularly hard for moms in the hard sciences where there’s not much room for the warm-and-fuzzies integral to parenthood.

The chocolate genome: Mars (the confection company, not the planet) is investing $10 million to help sequence the genome of the cacoa tree (from which we get cocoa). The project is in conjunction with the USDA.

Food and Environmental Justice named as a Church issue: In support of core prinicples regarding the environment and human rights, the Unitarian Universalists (of which Thomas Jefferson and Susan B. Anthony were members), have name Ethical Eating as a primary issue of study and action for the next four years.

Ranch Wife Guide 101: From Chewing the Cud. Funny tips on how to maintain your ranch AND your marriage. Hmmm… but maybe my husband would say I’m the “he” referred to in this post?

Number of women farmers growing: Some insights about women farmers and ranchers in the West, for Suzanne, who asked about it in this post about women farmers in the Northeast.

As the designated science geek here, I was happy to see an report that a majority of voters of both parties list science as an important issue. Although democrats feel more strongly about it that do republicans, voters across the board support research into science and technology, with emphasis on the three E’s: education, environment, and energy.

Sadly, at least with the candidates, agriculture (one of my other favorite subjects) does not appear to hold nearly as strong a position, according to some ag publications. Given the state of the FDA, rising food costs and biofuels, perhaps it should.

10 Tips for Homemade Ice Cream Success: From Serious Eats. What would the 4th of July be without icecream? And I staunchly maintain that if you make it yourself, you can consider it a “local food”!

The Small Screen With a Big Impact: from Blogher. Some scary statistics. The average child in the US sees 15,000 commercials annually that promote candy, highly sweetened and processed food and fast food. One more reason to get the kids off their duff and out into the garden!

Best and Safest Sunscreens: Just in time for the long weekend, Environmental Working Group has released a comprehensive review of sunscreens based on UVA and UVB protection, as well as presence or absence of harmful chemicals.

Cow Fat Motor Oil: from EcoGeek. Another cool green-geek find from one of my favorite sites. This motor oil is made from animal fat, biodegrades sufficiently that it can be safely poured on the ground and is non-toxic!

Common livestock production practices coming under fire. from Advocates for Agriculture. Procedures such as castration are coming under fire as being “mutilations”. Being a big proponent of preventing unwanted pregnancies (in any species), this seems like a slippery slope to me.

WIC-ensuring buying power through prohibiting organic: From US Food Policy. There’s no arguing that organic foods are generally higher priced. The Michigan WIC program has placed limits on foods in an effort to increase the nutritive buying power of food stamps. Along with many convenience items, organics are specifically prohibited on many foods.

Nourishing Frugal Food: found via the Nourished Kitchen . The Nourishing Gourmet is having a frugal food festival. July 11th is main dishes and July 18th is sides and salads. Hmm, I’ll have to post a recipe from here to contribute. With two growing boys, I sure know about stretching the grocery dollar!

A recent research study of conventional and outdoor antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics) production systems showed pigs raised outdoors without the use of routine antibiotics carried more bacteria and parasites, according to Feedstuffs newspaper. The research sampled pigs from three states (WI, NC, OH) and compared “niche-market, outdoor and antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics)” to “intensive indoor (conventional)” rearing systems.

Blood tests showed the outdoor pigs had significantly more exposure to Salmonella and Toxoplasma. Two pigs from different outdoor farms had antibodies to Trichinella. Trichinella is the parasite that infests muscles, and is the primary reason we have all been conditioned to cook pork thoroughly. The parasite has been virtually eliminated from conventional rearing systems.

I admit to being a little surprised by the research. In keeping with my science-geek image, I tracked down the authors, who very kindly sent me a copy of the original research paper. The research seems solid, and the stats are supported by other research in this country and in Europe.

So why the higher infection rate in outdoor pigs? The reasons given by the authors include exposure to wild and domestic animals (i.e. cats can carry trichinella), and access to soil and moisture which are viable environments for pathogens.

The skeptic in me can’t help wondering exactly what the outdoor systems studied were? Were they just raised in outdoor pens, or were they “pasture-raised” where they were foraging for a significant part of their diet? It is common in the chicken industry, where “free-range, vegetarian-fed” chicken and eggs abound, for such chickens to have access to the outdoors, but be no more pasture-raised than if they were confined indoors.

It is important to remember that many production practices that come under fire, such as indoor rearing and antibiotics, were put into place to increase food safety and/or animal welfare in response to increasingly intensive animal production. Merely removing these practices without addressing the reasons they were implemented in the first place does not necessarily bring about the benefits to humans or animals envisioned by consumers who purchase based on a “free-range” label.

Would you like some fish oil with your yogurt? Yoplait and other yogurts now contain added omega-3 oil. Just 29 servings gets your child his/her daily dose of this heart-healthy nutrient. Omega-3 yogurt will dent your wallet more than it will grow their brains. Maybe it’s best to just eat some fish.

Food Prices and Land Use: Via Food Law Prof Blog. Ross Clark maintains our food shortage could be cured by better use of the world’s land.

Living Green: A great article in the Austin-American Statesperson. Are you up to the challenge of buying less, buying used and environmentally friendly cleaners, cosmetics and other products?

The Price of Food: A comparison of retail and farm gate prices for fruit, vegetable, grain and livestock products between May 2007 and May 2008. Looks like peanut butter will be a bargain protein source!

Take a Green Roof Safari. From Ecogeeks. Going to Europe this fall? Take a tour of green roof projects in Germany or Switzerland. More information on green roofs can be found at greenroof.com

In honor of our blogger-on-the-road, Lisa, we’re going geeky with this week’s Earthlinks.

Should Biotech companies Blog? Are blogs by biotech companies a good idea from a corporate standpoint? Maybe if more companies had open blogs, there might actually be some real communication.

Animal Research, Giving the Gift of Life: a guest post on noted Ethicist Terry Etherton’s blog, by Barb Glenn, (a wonderful woman and friend from the Bio Industry Organization) .

Guaranteed Tender Steak: from Feedstuffs Foodlink. Technology to the rescue–University of Nebraska scientists have developed a method of identifying tender beef while it is in the processing plant.

Plants have Social Lives: also from Feedstuffs Foodlink. Plant behavior is more complex than you think. If plants are sentient, does that affect how we should grow, harvest and eat them?

Kudzu-A Potential Biofuel: from Ecogeek. The “plant that ate the South” may be the answer to Suzanne’s biofuel headache.

And as always, one slightly less serious link to end:

Make your own icecream drumsticks:  Does this make icecream count as “local food”?