I am a small beef producer.  Last year, Wild Type Ranch sold about 11,000 pounds of beef at Farmer’s Markets and through local delivery.  Not only do I know the life history of each animal we harvested, I also tasted the beef from each one.  Often, I know the entire pedigree.  All this information helps us design our breeding program and select genetics that make our pasture-raised beef more tender and tasty than anything Donald Trump puts his over-priced name on.

I also know the names of the animals we harvest.

It freaks people out; “how can you eat something with a name?” they’ll ask in horror.  “Don’t tell me it’s name, just sell it to me!” is another common comment.

We name ALL the cattle born on our ranch, not just those we believe will go on to reproductive glory as cows or bulls.  Not to do so would be hypocritical.  The founding principle of our ranch is “respect for all life”.  The cattle destined for beef are no less worthy (in the most universal sense) than those destined for breeding.  Their “best use” is just different.

Our registered cattle mostly have names related to music (such as Pink Floyd, Sinatra, Layla).  I give the kids free rein on the unregistered calves.  Last year, we had all the planets-starting with Jupiter who was the biggest, Mars was red, etc.  I had to draw the line at Uranus, though.  Even I don’t want to eat beef from Uranus.

*****

For additional discussion, visit Rebecca, over at Honest Meat who is bravely delving into our disconnect from our meat and how it affects our food choices.

 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer posted a commentary on a food safety laywer’s Top Ten Food Safety Challenges for 2009.  Number two on the list of concerns is local food.  We’ve posted about “Big food vs. Small Food Safety” here before.  Small food isn’t necessarily safer just because it’s locally produced.

The longer I sell at farmer’s markets, the more I am convinced that the accountability I have as a producer who also interacts with the final consumer is both a great asset and great responsibility.  My customers trust me to tell them the truth. I have to look them in the eyes directly when they ask about what I mean by “Angus beef” or “Pastured” or “Natural”.    I can’t hide behind the USDA label definitions while working loopholes to sell something other than what people think they are getting. I also know my customers will tell me next week or next month if I’ve sold them an unsatisfactory product.

By the same token, because I am a producer-vendor, I find that although my customers want beef that fits the general definition of “natural” (no antibiotics, no hormone implants)  they are comfortable purchasing beef from cattle that may have been treated with antibiotics if they were sick, so long as it wasn’t a daily part of their feed ration.   Similarly, most of my customers are quite happy with “pastured beef” which receives a small amount of grain supplementation to maintain a minimal growth rate during droughts and tough times rather than being purely grass-fed.  Those I’ve asked said that if they were purchasing at a larger store, however, they would purchase only a “no antibiotics” and/or “grass-fed” label just to make sure.

Shortening the food chain CAN be a viable alternative to some of the very complicated, but necessary regulations that safeguard our food supply.  I think accountability is a vital part of a viable local food economy.

We’ve blogged about home food safety here more times than I can count.  It hit home (literally) last night.

My boys go to a Montessori school where they have access to a kitchen.  Lunch is truly part of their curriculum, a place where they discuss nutrition, recycling and also honor healthy food and communal dining.   They are encouraged to bring “oven food”, in glass containers or wrapped in foil to heat up in the oven (no microwaves allowed) so they can have a hot lunch.  As a sidebar, it is very gratifying to have your children choose a bowl of homemade beef stew for lunch over PB&J!

Yesterday’s lunch was “stuffed hamburgers”.   My son forgot to put his dish on the oven tray at lunch time for heating, so was not able to heat it up.  He chose not to eat it cold (can you blame him?), but apparently go hungry about 3 pm between the end of school and start of his afternoon Performing Arts class, so ate his now 8-hour old, non-refrigerated hamburger. I’ll spare you the details of what happened when he got home about 6 pm.

This was our home-grown beef, ground and frozen straight from a USDA-inspected carcass at a plant whose cleanliness I see with my own eyes each month.  The meat was cooked properly and placed in the refrigerator immediately after we finished our supper.  My son has a very sensitive palate–often declaring the milk to be ‘off’ days before the rest of us suspect anything.  He said the burger was delicious.  The failure here was that he has an uninsulated lunch box, so foods like leftovers and sandwhiches should NEVER be eaten if not consumed at lunch.

Fortunately, the onset of what I can only attribute to food poisoning was so rapid that Eric does not seem to be suffering any after effects this morning.

I think when he gets home from school today we’ll  be making an online visit to the FSIS’s mobile food safety game.

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).

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.

Organic production standards are based on principles such as sustainability, reducing off-farm inputs and environmental impact and minimizing the use of synthetic materials.

Buying food labelled organic would seem to be an easy way to feed your family more healthy food, right?

Many of health benefits of buying organic are not necessarily due to the product being organic itself.  The diet of those for whom organic is a priority is generally healthier than the average American’s.  I speculate that the typical organoisseur’s daily fare contains much less processed food, less sugars (HCFS, cane or otherwise) and more fresh produce and meat.

Misconceptions about organic abound, such as the quote “organic food has no additives or preservatives“.  Organic food is made with organic ingredients, but there are exceptions for ingredients that cannot be sourced organically.  Organic cheese puffs can quite easily contain additives and/or preservatives.

Organic food is not necessarily more nutritious because it is organic.  Organic junk food is still nutrient-poor.  Organic candy is still sugar-laden.  A person can shop at exclusively Whole Foods and still end up with a really poor diet.

I believe fresh traditionally grown food is usually better than processed food of any kind, organic or otherwise.

Organic has its value and its place, but “organic” is not a substitute for healthy food choices.

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.

I recently came across a survey of 500 ‘typical’ households in the Midwest done by the University of Nebraska.  They interviewed the primary grocery shopper about her/his attitudes and opinions about locally grown and processed food,  including meat, as well as organic and all-natural .

99% of respondants had purchased locally grown or produced food at one time or another.  The top three reasons for purchasing local were freshness, better taste and supporting local farmers.

The top reasons for purchasing organic or all-natural were no chemicals/pesticides/herbicides/antibiotics, more healthy/nutritious and because they taste better.

The top criteria for purchasing meat locally were:  Food safety, quality of the meat, USDA inspection, tenderness and juiciness.  The terms “grass-fed”, “organic” and “free-range” were ranked last.

Although the survey was performed in 2001, the results are still enlightening today.  Consumers find a taste difference with locally grown food [ever compared a homegrown tomato to one from the store?].  Safety is a concern for meat, but USDA inspection is trusted.  Residue are of concern to those purchasing organic.

Any speculations about how things might have changed in the 7 years since the survey?  Sadly, I’m not sure the average consumer is any more factually informed about those things that concern them than they were 7 years ago  [many of our readers excepted].  In fact, given the amount of propaganda in media as these issues become marketing tools, I’m afraid many are more misinformed than they were 7 years ago.

The New York Times did an editorial on food irradiation that prompted me to do my own research. It was interesting that they mentioned that “NASA has long fed astronauts irradiated beef”.  Anyway, this is an example of a scary word (radiation) attracting far more attention than some other processes without a scary name.

Several hours of research later, here’s what I’ve got:  Critics say it should not be used because of loss of nutrients, quality and potentially harmful chemical byproducts.  The Organic Consumers Association makes the claim:

Eating irradiated food may make “the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown and other serious problems

There is definitely a yuck factor (”mutations, radiation, etc.”), but is there a danger?

• We lose nutrients when we freeze and can food to preserve it, but nobody is screaming that those processes be disallowed.  Loss of nutrients is no more than, and often less than other methods we use to extend shelf life or make food safer to eat.
• Chemical byproducts seemed to be the most likely real concern to me.  The citations I found that referenced harmful effects of feeding irradiated food were mostly from Japan and Eastern Europe.  The doses of radiation used on the animal feed were one to several orders of magnitude higher than what is used in our food (think Chernobyl and the atomic bomb).  The Institute for Food Technology reviews several research reports on the unique chemical byproducts that may be produced by irradiation.  Even in those that show potential carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects, the lowest exposure amount at which effects are seen is 8000-10,000 times higher than would be consumed in a normal diet.  Levels of benzene and toluene are lower in irradiated beef than in juch non-irradiated fish.  We produce carcinogens every time we grill or burn food.
• Labelling.  Irradiated food must be labelled in the grocery store, when it is a major component.  Spices, flavorings etc. may be irradiated and included without labelling.  Restaurants are not required to disclose use of irradiated food items.

Irradiation is primarily a process used to increase food safety (lowering risk of bacterial contamination) and secondarily to increase shelf life (fresh strawberries last 2-3 times longer if irradiated).  Although I agree that we need to address food safety on the production level, too, there will always be bacterial contamination and if a process reduces risk of food-borne illness without increasing other risks, why not use it?

My bottom line?  I think irradiation is no more likely to decrease food’s value or increase it’s carcinogenicity than most other cooking and sanitation practices.  The food safety aspects are incontrovertible.
Here’s some links and resources  to help you do your own research.

FSIS document explaining irradiation

Iowa State University fact sheet

Some discussions:  Food Production Daily, Health Castle, Ethicurean, Fresh Talk.   Blogher summarizes many blog posts–lots of gut-level distrust, but no solid scientific reasons to reject it.  A great two-sided discussion follows.

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?]