One of the issues that people often bring up to me as a beef producer is the “footrprint” of eating meat versus a strictly vegetarian diet.  I know that my cattle are raised on land that could not be (or should not be) used for any sort of cultivation, but I’ve been looking for some good research reports on the subject.   I got some leads from friends at the American Farmland Trust.

A study at Cornell University looked at a range of diets in terms of how much of New York’s population could be fed by food produced within the state.  Although a strictly vegetarian diet uses the least total land mass, a diet that includes some meat and dairy is more efficient in terms of total land use and sustainability.  The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay.

The Delta Farm Press cites the same study, but also points out that biotechnology can further reduce the footprint through less chemicals (i.e. bt Cotton) or getting more production from fewer animals (i.e. rBST).

According to a study released by the Environmental Working Group, bottled water is no better than filtered tap water, despite being considerably more expensive (not to mention the carbon footprint of bottles and transportation, or the reports of phlalates from the bottles!).

• Many bottled waters use municipal water sources that have been filtered or otherwise purified.  As much as I complain about Cameron, TX tap water, I’m not sure I’d rather be drinking water from Las Vegas or Houston.
• Bottled water manufacturers are not required to disclose test results for contaminants, unlike municipal water.  The report showed that faith in bottled water purity is not always well-founded
• The same chemical profile is found in many bottled waters as in tap water.  Those images of mountain springs don’t have much to do with the source or the purity.

I geeked the study, and it passed the transparency test of having the actual data available.  Although somewhat alarmist in its executive summary, the basic truths have not been twisted.

The bottom line:  You are better off financially and environmentally buying a good water purification system for your own tap water.

The New York Times recently published an open letter by Michael Pollan to the next “Farmer in Chief”.  It begins:

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food.

Although we don’t think about it too often, our food production system is inextricably linked with health, climate change, use/dependence on fossil fuels and economics.

Some of my favorite points in the letter:

• Cheap food  that is highly processed, high fat and/or highly sweetened has hidden costs in an increase in partially preventable  illnesses, such as obesity, heart disease, type II diabetes.
• New policies in food subsidies should promote healthy food choices, local economies, diversity and quality over quantity (as measured in calories).
• Conservation is not an either/or proposition relative to food production.  We can produce food in ways that have minimal, or even beneficial effects on the environment.
• Farmland preservation and support of more of our population making a living at agriculture are critical to a healthy food system.  This means training and incentivising young farmers.
• Decentralizing food production will get more people in touch with where their food comes from.  Consumers that really understand food production are less likely to make unreasonable legislative demands and more reasonable diet choices.
• The new first family should establish their own “Victory Garden” on the South lawn of the White House.
• Lunch needs to be an educational part of the school day.  We need to raise kids that can make good food choices and  know how to cook.

We touched on this same topic earlier in this blog.  Most of all, I agree with Pollan that the food crisis paired with our energy costs presents an exceptional opportunity for real reform.

Kids cereals still too sugary.  According to Consumer Reports, 11 top kids cereals have as much sugar as a glazed donut, and two are more than 50% sugar by weight.  Best bets for fiber and low sugar? Cheerios, Kix, Honey Nut Cheerios (all General Mills), and Life (Quaker Oats).

 The Organic Milk Debate: Is big the same as bad? Consumers and activist groups are saying yes.  Do industrial-scale organic farms violate the intentions of the organic laber, or is it the next step in bringing organic to the masses?

Eating Healthy on a Budget:  Lots of links and tips in this post from BlogHer.  I’m still a fan of more fresh, less processed, more home-grown and home-cooked.

Bill of Rights for Young Athletes.  From Arizona Mama.  Not food-safety related, but relevant to all of us who have school-age children involved in athletics or any other myriad of activities.  Hitting home for me in particular is every child’s right (athlete or not) to be treated with dignity.

Yo-Yo powered i-phone charger.  From Ecogeek.  Several times cooler, more convenient, and better for the environment than a solar powered charger.  Not sure you’ll be seeing this one the market any time soon, but it’s a fun idea!

Does Eating Local really do any good?  Economic Sense makes the case for increased efficiency of production as a viable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather than eliminating whole types of food.  Revisit our earlier post on the same National Geographic article.

The case of the disappearing supermarket:  From Chow.  Critics argue that San Francisco’s trend away from big supermarkets and toward smaller groceries (like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods) is harmful to those with lower incomes.  Chow maintains “The fact that, in general, high-calorie food is cheaper than fruits and vegetables is entirely unrelated to supermarkets”.

PETA asks Ben and Jerry’s to use human breast milk instead of cow’s milk .  From Barfblog.  Ben and Jerry’s responded by saying, “We applaud PETA’s novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother’s milk is best used for her child.”

Lead warnings from SmartMama. One in 10 children in the United States has blood lead levels about 5 micrograms lead per deciliter of blood according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Here’s a good update on lead sources in children, including a cool device that tests for lead, cadmium and other heavy metals on toys and surfaces.

Make it a Green Halloween:  From Natural Family Online.  A grassroots movement to brand treats and other items that are child/environment/people friendly.  Think outside the candy-box.

Eco-choice:  Toilet Paper or Bidet?  I’m not going to spoil it by answering here.  You’ll have to go to Green Daily’s blog to find out.

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.

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.