The recent recall of commercial eggs has led to lots of questions about food safety. Unprecedented numbers of people, many of them new to farmer’s markets, are flocking (pardon the pun) to purchase eggs that they believe to be safer than those in the grocery store.  But there are some missing pieces in the search for “clean and safe food”; it’s not as simple as “buy fresh, buy local”

As Americans have become further removed from their food supply, they have lost touch with the fact that food is a biological product, produced in biological situations from biological animals that have biological functions.  Translation:  everything poops.  We have gotten so used to our food being sterilized that we have forgotten about basic food safety.  I also happen to believe that because we are not exposed to low levels of normally occuring bacteria as we grow up, when we do encounter these normal bugs, they give us a pathogenic reaction. 

ALL foods are subject to ‘conatimination’.  Salmonella occurs in all birds and reptiles.  It is usually not a pathogenic strain, but it is still there.  Similarly, various strains of E. coli are present in every bit of feces.  Pastuerization, irradiation, buying direct from a farmer you trust; none of these are substitutes for basic food safety.

Do I think eggs and ground beef are safer if you buy them from a local source that you can trust?  Generally, yes.  However, even the cleanest hen house will still produce eggs with salmonella on the outside.  Even single-animal, small plant, grass-fed ground beef can harbor E. coli.  So, follow basic food safety guidelines:  Separate preparation areas and utensils between raw items and cooked.  Refrigerate food quickly after cooking, etc. etc. 

If you want to read more, search our Food Safety archives, or check out these posts:

http://downtoearthblog.com/agriculture/is-local-food-safer-or-just-more-accountable/archives/184

http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/no-need-to-avoid-beef-if-you-know-its-source/archives/211

http://downtoearthblog.com/health/teaching-children-about-food-safety/archives/163 

One of the top priorities for our direct-market beef customers is that we raise animals without the routine use of antibiotics. That concern is second only to their desire to purchase meat from animals that have not been raised in a feedlot.

We are not an organic operation, even though we use only organic fertilizer and mechanical (no herbicides) weed control. The main reason we are not organic is that I feel it is in our animals’ best interest to be able to treat them in whatever way needed if they get sick or injured.  Sometimes that means antibiotics.  If we were “no antibiotics” or “organic”, any animal we treated would have to be sold at the sale barn into a feedyard.  

In four years of selling beef, I’ve had only one or two customers who have said they specifically wanted beef from totally non-treated animals.  Since we maintain a production history on each animal and know from which animal each package of beef was harvested, we can accomodate these few.

Over the five years we’ve been stewards of our ranch, the need for antibiotics and other “non-organic” treatement has decreased dramatically.  Our soils have gotten healthier and we’ve developed a complex ecosystem of plants for the animals to graze.  We’ve culled (or harvested) animals that don’t do well with fewer interventions. 

But, what about the mainstream beef industry?  A report by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production included recomendations for a ban on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. This in turn prompted pending legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics of for nontherapeutic purposes.   Nontherapeutic is defined as “any use of the drug as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or other routine purpose.” 

Antibiotics, when used routinely in intensive production (i.e. confinement) do increase feed efficiency, increase growth rates, and lower the incidence of disease.  We designed our operation with a “no routine antibiotics” pledge not because we were against antibiotics, but because we felt that a situation in which routine antibiotics showed significant benefit was one in which the animals were under stress.  I doubt if our cattle would show any benefit from the addition of any antibiotic feed additive.

One doesn’t have to search far to find written opinions on this issue.  BEEF magazine has had articles and an editorial discussion of the PEW report on the issue.   From a bovine veterinarian’s point of view, banning antibiotic use would increase disease, animal suffering and human health risks. 

My own viewpoint is that this is a whole-systems issue, not one that can be addressed piecemeal.  A ban on routine antibiotic use must coordinate with adjustments in production systems resulting in less stress to the animal, less exposure to disease and an overall healthier environment.  These adjustments will also likely result in an increase in the price of meat.  If the ban is passed, there will be casualties; animal and business.  I think it’s an adjustment worth making, but it must be made intelligently and wholistically.

This is a post that’s been begging to be written ever since the NY Times article came out.  In fact, I could write several posts, but I’ll restrain myself.

Ground beef is the protein backbone of the American diet.  For such a food staple, people are surprisingly ignorant about how it is processed.  Even Chowhound admitted surprise that the hamburger patties in the article were formed from a number of sources, including fat trim and scraps.  The ground beef you typically buy (unless you typically buy locally from a known source) is blended from multiple slaughter facilities, and is primarily the fat and scrap trim and/or cull cows (primarily dairy) and bulls.  The time between when the trim is cut and the beef is ground is typically several days.  Carcasses in most plants are not tested for contaminants (such as E coli), only the beef after its ground.

As a youngster eating homegrown beef, I remember tasting the meatloaf mix before it went into the oven.  It would be insane to do so with typical commercially available ground beef.  Even then, I was taking some risks, but probably less than eating at a typical buffet line.

This year our ranch will sell between 15,000 and 20,000 pounds of packaged beef, about 40% of that in the form of ground beef, hamburger patties or chili beef.  Each package is from a single animal, with a known health history and slaughter date (not to mention pedigree and name), ground and frozen on the day the carcass is cut.  We sell beef from pedigreed Angus stock, completely raised on pasture, no hormone implants or routine antibiotics, on a ranch dedicated to humane animal treatment and environmental stewardship.  Our retail price for a single pound is $5.00; for 10-packs it’s $38.00.  We charge significantly less to wholesale outlets, restaurants and institutions.

Yet, we still struggle to find outlets for our beef.  The grocery chains typically are not anxious to deal with a local supplier for a single food item.  They also want to sell fresh product, delivered weekly, rather than the frozen beef we sell, which is harvested every 2-3 weeks.  Restaurants are struggling with their margins, and even at prices near-zero-profit margins for us, we still are more expensive than mass-market ground beef.  We can’t compete with 60 cents/lb trimmings and $1.20/lb “recovered lean” from melted fat trim (main components of the Cargill burger in the article).

Which points out one of the conundrums of our food system.  Mass production, utilizing discarded resources (cull animals and trim), centralized processing and distribution all lower food prices.  Add on the convenience factor of dealing in large volumes, and beef like ours hardly stands a chance.  Given information and a choice, at equal prices, and equal availability., I like to think a majority of consumers would choose a product similar to our Wild Type Ranch beef.  I’m thankful to all my customers who are willing to go the extra mile (sometimes literally) to do so.

The latest E. coli-related beef recall has prompted me to stop unpacking moving boxes long enough to post.  Obama Foodarama is urging people to “avoid beef like the plague“, pointing out that the recall is voluntary, so there is no guarantee that the recalled beef is actually being pulled from the shelves.  On top of that, of course, is the issue of traceability and identifying exactly where all the contaminated beef ended up.   The identifying establishment ID and processing time stamp do not usually appear on the final consumer package in ground beef and most individual cuts, and certainly not in any cooked products. 

There’s no reason to avoid beef if you know your producer, who knows the date, time, steer and processor from which the ground beef came.

The inside of a muscle or cut of beef is relatively sterile.  It’s only the surface that typically harbors bacteria.  Ground beef is particularly susceptible to food safety issues and recalls for a couple of reasons.    In ground beef, any bacteria on the surface of whatever is being ground gets thoroughly mixed in during the grinding process.  Part of what goes into ground beef tends to be scraps and trimmings, which have lots of surface area and have been handled more than say, a rump roast.   In addition, most ground beef is ground in batches containing meat or trimmings from a large number of cows.  More cows = more chance that one of them will be contaminated. 

And to add a final couple risk factors:  Ground beef is often not ground at the site where the animals are slaughtered, but at a secondary processing plant, further obfuscating the trail to the source.  Even in the few grocery stores that grind their own ground beef, it is a common practice to grind cuts that are nearing their “use by” date.

BUT, rather than go without your hamburger on the 4th of July, you can minimize your risk by purchasing ground beef through local producers.  Our own Wild Type Ranch ground beef, for instance, is ground from a single animal and is packaged and frozen within a short time of its being cut from the side of beef.  When we sell a package of ground beef, we know which animal it came from, when it was processed (and can usually tell you its name and pedigree, if you ask).  This is fairly typical among the producers you meet at the local farmer’s market, or through Local Harvest or Eat Wild.   

Ground beef produced like we do ours does not have that kind of icky smell (reminds me of sour feet).  I was so sensitive to that smell after growing up on home-grown beef that I became a vegetarian while I was away at college!  And the flavor is as different from grocery store ground beef as a homegrown tomato is from a grocery store tomato.

If you can’t get to the farmer’s market, the next best alternative is to purchase roasts (chuck, rump, etc) and grind them yourself using a grinder attachment on your mixer.

Just when I finally got myself trained to remember to take my reusable “green” grocery bags to the store (at least most of the time), I read a report on “food safety threats” from them!  Apparently, reusing the bags can result in the accumulation of coliform bacteria and molds.

Before you trash all those bags, however, please keep in mind that the study was funded by the Environment and Plastic Industry Council (I read that as a vested interest in plastic bags).  And it appears that no E. coli or salmonella were found in the tests.

Still, common sense should come into play:

• Put potentially leaky items, such as meat, or dirt-bearing produce in a separate bag before placing in a reusable bag.
• Wash your bags after multiple uses, turn inside out and air dry, preferably in the sun to allow UV rays to help the sterilization process.
• Replace your bags if they become moldy, smelly or stained
• Wash all foods placed in direct contact with a reused bag

No reason not to keep using those bags.  In many industrialized countries, green bags are the norm, not the exception.

Despite the nomenclature “swine flu”, the CDC assures us that there is no danger of contracting influenza from eating or handling pork.  Here’s some facts:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
•    People cannot get swine influenza from eating pork or pork products. Most influenza viruses, including the swine flu virus, are not spread by food.
•    Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe.
•    No food safety issues have been identified, related to the flu.
•    Preliminary investigations have determined that none of the people infected with the flu had contact with hogs.
•    The virus is spreading by human-to-human transmission.

 The CDC recommends the following measures to prevent the transmission of flu: 
•     Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze.
•    Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
•     Wash your hands frequently and use alcohol-based sanitizers.
•     Try not touch surfaces that may be contaminated with the flu virus.
•     Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
•     Try to stay in good general health.
•     Get plenty of sleep, be physically active, manage your stress, drink plenty of fluids, and eat nutritious food.

Detailed information and updates on the flu outbreak may be obtained at:
Texas Department of State Health Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

If you own swine, consider the following practices to enhance the biosecurity on your farm to prevent the disease from being transmitted to your herd:
•     Workers should shower and change into farm-specific clothes and shoes before entering swine facilities.
•     Establish, implement and enforce strict sick leave policies for workers presenting influenza-like symptoms.
•     Recommend that workers with symptoms be seen by a medical provider immediately.
•     Restrict the entry of people into your facility to only workers and essential service personnel.
•     Prevent international visitors from entering your facilities.
•     Ensure adequate ventilation in facilities to minimize re-circulation of air inside animal housing facilities.
•     Vaccinate pigs against the influenza virus.  Vaccination of pigs can reduce the levels of virus shed by infected animals
•     Contact your swine veterinarian if swine exhibit flu-like or respiratory illness, especially if the onset or presentation of the illness is unusual.

Functional Foods are defined as foods that, in addition to nutrition, offer distinct health benefits.

The term usually brings to mind “added” features, such as enrichment with probiotics, omega-3’s, or other components that are added through processing.

I was pleased to see that 4 of the 5 “best functional foods” listed by the New York Dietetic Association are whole, unprocessed and readily available.   Pro-biotic enhanced yogurt was the only processed food to make the top 5, and it came in at number 5.   As an added benefit, they all are on my list of favorite foods!

The other foods were

Number 1:  Salmon (Omega-3 content for heart and brain health)

Number 2:  Whole-grain Oatmeal (fiber for digestive health and lowering risk of heart disease, cholesterol, diabetes and cancer)

Number 3: Blueberries (antioxidants for protection against free radicals and anti-aging)

Number 4:  Low-fat milk (high levels of calcium and vitamin D for strong bones, regulating blood pressure and heart rate)

Looks like a breakfast of oatmeal cooked in milk and topped with blueberries, with a yogurt lunch and salmon for supper is a top rate menu for the day!

Like many of my colleagues, I’ve been swamped by forwarded e-mails about the pending “Food Safety” legislation, HR 875.  Most, if not all, of the e-mails tell me that this will be the end of my direct-to-consumer marketing, farmer’s markets, organic gardening and so on; such as “… if NAIS and 875 both pass, we will all be forced to eat ONLY imported foods or that processed by big corporations”

I admit I’ve not had the time to investigate the matter thoroughly.  And being a skeptic, I tend to think that the more often and more emphatic these type of forwarded e-mails are, the more likely they are to contain inaccuracies.

I was delighted to see a very thorough post on the subject on Ethicurean.  The bill is actually quite reasonable, does not interfere with within-state commerce and certainly do not make it illegal to be an organic farmer.   Before you hit the forward button, or write to your congressman, please read this very thoughtful post (and some very good comments).

I recently read a new report on consumer’s attitudes about food technologies.  The report was done by the Food Standards Agency (an independent UK Government department aiming to protect the public’s health and consumer interests in relation to food).

“Overall, the public was found to be wary, uneasy and uncertain about emerging food technologies. Having said
this, emerging food technologies tend not to be top-of-mind concerns”

I’m not all that surprised, but it set me to thinking about our attitudes toward “new” in food and how it’s changed since the 50s and 60s.
Over at Texas Locavore, I saw a video of a new short film on slow food:  “Slowing Down” by Adrian Tapia

The film blames our fascination with new technology as a big part of the reason we got so far away from “slow food” and became that infamous fast-food nation.But if we were so anxious to try everything new “back when’; from microwaves to Mel-mac dinnerware (remember when plastic was “cool”?) what’s changed?  I think there are several reasons:

• “New” is no longer new; technology is advancing so rapidly that we are being overrun with ‘new’ every day.  Perhaps we are feeling out of control?
• Trust; I suspect that those making food purchase decisions in the 50s and 60s had a much greater trust level in government and the media than consumers do now.
• Balance: Personally, I think we’ve gotten out of balance with consuming in many ways.  There is increasing nostalgia for simpler times and new technologies don’t fit in with that.
• Emotional Arguments: In our web-enabled age, consumers are bombarded with information and emotional arguments against technologies (often with slanted science) abound.  The report found that emotion was a primary driver in opinions about food technologies.

All of this begs the question which prompted the report in the first place:  Should consumer opinion shape government policy on food technology?

The American Meat Institute (AMI) has released a YouTube Video which seeks to counter some of the recent press about health risks from eating processed meats.   I admit I am a big fan of bacon.  In fact, I have read in several places that bacon is the single most frequent food that lures people out of vegetarianism.

Even though this comes from an industry group, (so obviously there is an agenda) there are some good facts in here.  For example, only 5% of the nitrate in our diet comes from processed meats–far more comes from green leafy vegetables and other plant sources.   Although I’d fall short of calling lunch meat a health food, the video points out that lunch meats can be low-fat and/or low sodium.  They also correctly say that many of the sensational press articles about “processed meat” have confused pickled and very high-salt meat-based diets (such as in parts of Asia) with the typical lunch-meat in the US.

I’m a huge advocate for simple, less processed foods.  But, the take-home message is that you don’t have to feel guilty for eating an occasional hot-dog or giving your children lunch meat on some days.  In moderation, lunch meat or nitrate-cured bacon is not something to lose sleep over.