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 If rBST is withdrawn from the market place, will it also have a corresponding increase in milk prices?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

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!

A post comparing airlines and food safety got me to thinking: In general, is large-scale-produced food more safe than smaller-scale production?

One factor that is often not considered when we evaluate small-scale production food safety is “assessment bias”. If Joe’s 2 bushels of homegrown tomatoes from the farmer’s market are tainted with Salmonella, it is likely to go undetected or reported. Even if people got sick and reported the illness it is unlikely his tomatoes would be identified as the source and even less likely it would make national headlines.

I don’t think we have good statistics on real safety measures of small versus large production. Yet, food safety, especially for meat, ranked above quality and price in a survey of local food purchasers in the upper midwest.

There are some things “small food” has going for it with regard to food safety:

• Accountability. All producers, large and small are accountable. Small producers are usually directly accountable to the consumer. We put our livelihoods on the line each time we sell an inferior or unsafe product.
• Known source (sometimes). I say sometimes here, because many farmer’s markets sell produce obtained at large terminal produce hubs. Here in Texas, that means that unless you know that your market vendor is growing their own, you may be buying jalapenos and tomatoes from the Rio Grande valley or Mexico (one of the sources for the recent salmonella outbreak).
• Direct relationship with consumer. Having to look my customers in the eye when they buy my beef or ask me questions about my production, quality and safety practices is more effective than a whole slew of federal regulations.

On the other hand, “big food” is often under more rigorous scrutiny and regulation to ensure food safety. Many types of food have mandatory testing not requred for small and local producers. Many of the regulations and production practices in use were put in place to ensure food safety. Small producers often do not have food safety training or food safety plans.

So, don’t presume that local = safe. Ask questions of your local producer about productions practices, food safety, etc. Ask about sources for produce, handling and refrigeration practices for meat and eggs. When purchasing from a small producer it is up to you to be your own “food safety authority”.

We are pleased to present this guest post from Terry Etherton, who normally blogs here.

In the first peer-reviewed study of its kind, a paper*** published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of an in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST).

The study looked specifically at three label claims related to dairy-cow management: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk. The recent trend in misleading food labeling based on agricultural management prompted the study.

While minor differences were observed for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The authors of the study (including me) concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

The study will help food and nutritional professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about confusing and deceptive milk-label claims that are designed to differentiate rbST-free and organic milk from conventional milk. The objective of these marketing campaigns it to have consumers pay a whole lot for rbST-free or organic milk when, in fact, they are compositionally the same as conventional milk.

***Vicini, J, T.D. Etherton, P. Kris-Etherton, J. Ballam, S. Denham, R. Staub, D. Goldstein, R. Cady, M. McGrath and M. Lucy. 2008. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 108:1198-1203.

WARNING: Take the headline with a grain of salt.

I came across a blog post claiming organic milk is worse than regular milk, and is in fact dangerous. The blog editor has posted liberally elsewhere about dioxins in organic milk: As background to the quote below, the author states that 80% of organic milk worldwide is Ultra-High Temperature processed.

You get far more dioxins with UHT milk than you do with regular pasteurized milk because more dioxins gets digested instead of being flushed out of the body. This occurs because the micronized fat globules in UHT milk are much smaller. As a result, significantly more dioxins from organic UHT milk get into the bloodstream.

This “news” even made it into the mainstream ag news service to which I subscribe.

BUT-being the skeptic I am, I followed up… The bottom line is that I don’t trust the author. His posts claim milk is responsible for acne, death, global warming and is the biggest cause of illness in the world. He is selling a book called “Organic Milk Myth”, among several other books, all of which seem to be aimed at eliminating milk consumption altogether (to be substituted by the “milks” he’ll gladly sell you the recipes to make). Anyone with that clear an agenda is not going to weigh the often conflicting scientific data. In my book, if you don’t consider the validity of the other side’s viewpoint, your arguments don’t hold much water.

There are some valid points in his posts, however. The main thing of value I see in his writing is a point that I have made here many times. Often people buy organic thinking they are getting something they are not. Most organic milk is produced in very similar ways to regular milk. Many organic milk products are UHT pasteurized where their regular counterparts may not be.

There was a good study published recently in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) on nutrient and hormone composition of conventional, rbST-free and organic milk.    More on that soon.

There is a post on What to Eat discussing a suite of lawsuits between a meat packing company and a church regarding responsibility for sickening people who ate meatballs at a church fundraiser.

I raise beef to sell at local farmer’s markets. Concern about food safety is one of the reasons my customers buy my beef. Even though my beef is 100% pasture-raised, any beef can still contain e-coli (and even the 0157 strain), because it is present in most environments to some degree. Is my beef safer? Maybe.

There are several reasons we have more ground beef recalls now than in the “good old days” that have nothing to do with whether the animal is grain or grass-fed;

1) we have better surveillance and identification systems. Tainted beef is sometimes identified by random testing and illnesses can be definitively determined to be caused by specific strains associated with ground beef.

2) beef is often ground before it hits the grocery store, giving the organisms time to spread through the product. In the “old days” when grocery stores employed butchers, ground beef was often or usually ground at the store, giving less time for the organisms on the surface of relatively large cuts of beef to be mixed throughout the product.

3) the grind is a mix of several or many animals, sometimes from different processing batches or sources. This increases the chance that one animal carried a pathogen. [theoretically, this would result in diluting the contaminant as well, but the bugs can multiply pretty quickly].

So what’s the bottom line for local beef?

On the plus side for food safety; Local ground beef usually comes from a single animal and is typically ground and frozen within 24 hours of when the beef is processed into individual cuts. It also usually stays frozen until it is purchased. In most localities, beef for resale must be processed under the supervision of a state-licensed inspector, similar to inspectors at larger plants. There is also direct (or at least more direct) accountability between the producer and the customer.

BUT, local producers/vendors are not required to (and usually don’t) have an approved or professional food safety plan. Locally processed beef does not undergo random testing for contamination. Food safety regulations for storing and selling beef vary greatly by location–from the ridiculously restrictive to absent. In our own case, we are concerned enough to monitor our freezers daily and to sell from freezers rather than coolers. We also eat beef from each animal before we sell it.

Nevertheless, there are no guarantees. You can provide the best insurance on ground beef safety. Cooking to 160 degrees, being aware of (and not consuming) beef that smells off or is past the “use by” date, keeping meat preparation areas and utensils separate from other utensils and areas (especially serving) and proper hand-washing before and after handling raw meat are your best assurances of safe ground beef. The American Meat Institute has a handy site for safe handling of all types of meat.

I believe that our meat supply is currently safer than it was 40 or 50 years ago, whether you buy your meat locally produced or at the grocery store.

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.