The first line of the article: “Milk and meat from the offspring of cloned livestock are entering the food supply”, but the headline reads “Animal Clones Are in Food Supply”

I know newspapers are in the business of selling news and must attract customers to do so, but shame on the Wall Street Journal for grabbing attention with something that is sensational and not actually true.

There may well be offspring of cloned animals in the food supply.  This is not a big deal.  First of all, the FDA’s review of cloning technology has ruled that even meat and milk from cloned animals themselves is OK.  Giving a nod to public concern, they have asked for a voluntary withholding of the clones themselves from the food supply.  Cloning company,  Bovance, (and business partners ViaGen and TransOva) have put a tracking system into place for the cloned animals themselves to facilitate this.

Cloning involves taking a cell from the donor animal and inserting the part of the cell that contains the DNA into an egg (from the same species of animal) from which the DNA has been removed.  This ‘reprograms’ the donor cell into acting like a fertilized egg, and it grows and develops into a regular embryo that is genetically identical to the donor animal.  Reprogramming does not affect the chromosomes or DNA of the animal, but does affect how the DNA (genes) are used to control the development of the embryo.

But as for the offspring of clones? Because the DNA is not changed, offspring of clones are in no way different than any other animals. Even though there is no scientific reason to expect them to be different, there have been studies done on offspring of clones (all the way through production of milk and meat, and sure enough–no differences!

There may well be an insignificant number of offspring of clones that have been harvested.  Based on the facts, I fail to see why we should care. As far as food safety goes, this is really a non-issue.

(tap tap) Is this thing on? Let’s kick the dust off the tires & get this thing rolling.

I’ve always been amazed/confused about how little we all really know about our food. IFIC (International Food Information Council) really knocks a home run with this one.

Check it out on YouTube (can’t seem to embed the video but you can scroll over and find out) … what’s for lunch?

Elanco announced recently that they have purchased worldwide operating rights and supporting operations for Posilac (rBST) from Monsanto.

From the time they announced they were divesting of Posilac, Monsanto has maintained that the decision was because they are concentrating on their plant business and less on livestock. Although I suspect that their poor track record in addressing consumer’s concerns with the product may have had something to do with it, analysis of their business activities lends creedence to it being more a business than a PR decision.

Although the green blogosphere was all over Monsanto’s decision to divest, touting it as a victory for consumer’s voices and preferences, there has been much less coverage of Elanco (whose parent company is Eli Lilly) purchasing the business. The few posts I’ve been able to locate are shamefully playing the fear card: “Maker of Prozac buys Milk Hormone“, with one discussion going so far as to imply that Lilly is going to repackage and give the product to unsuspecting women!

I consider myself green, and run my ranch using mainly non-traditional production methods,. One of my favorite blogs is Ethicurean. But, this whole process of research about rBST has me disgusted with much of what I read. I have seen so many outrageous claims about this product, and milk, meat and traditional agriculture in general, that sometimes I wonder if I can believe anything I read! Through the farmer’s markets, I get to hear many common misconceptions about traditional food. I’ve even been accused of callously contributing to global warming because I raise beef.

On the other hand, Monsanto has a really poor track record for honoring the concerns of the public and has been historically heavy handed in the way it has dealt with the public. The ag sector in general often adopts an adversarial stance relative to alternative production methods and the green movement. I’ve been accused of “damaging agriculture” by producing and selling pasture-raised beef.

Sometimes the debate seems like it’s between two toddlers. Emotion and defending a position become more important than making an informed decision about what’s best. I also get extremely frustrated that it often seems like the viewpoint is “all or none”: It takes a whole set of options to create the optimum, because there are a whole range of people, land and production scenarios. We need food and agriculture, regardless of how it’s produced. I don’t see what is inherently threatening about producing our food under a variety of methods. I do see what is threatening about fear tactics and misinformation. I also see how people feel threatened when they believe they are not getting the whole story.

It’s OK if we don’t all agree on how food should be produced. It’s great (and necessary) to debate pros, cons, risks and rewards. It doesn’t do any of us any good to have decisions influenced by fear, not facts. So, get real, all of you!

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!

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.

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.

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.