One of the most common questions our ranch gets from new customers is “Is your beef grass-fed?”  We are proud to raise our cattle entirely on pasture with a diet that is always primarily grass and hay.  But, we do not fit the USDA definition of “grass-fed”.  This is a conscious decision on our part.

 The guiding principle behind our management practices at the ranch is a dedication to the welfare of our animals and the quality of our product.  It is a fact of life in our region of Texas that we do not grow lush, green grass year round, year-in and year-out.  We are working hard at the ranch to build our soil and balance our cattle numbers so that we become relatively immune to our increasingly frequent droughts. 

In the meanwhile, we don’t feel it is in the best interest of our cattle, or our beef quality, to allow our cattle to lose weight or suffer due to poor quality or insufficient home-raised forage.  Consequently, we sometimes supplement our cattle with alfalfa hay or a minimal amount of feed that contains grain.  Ironically, the “grass-fed” rules allow supplementation with feeds such as cotton seed hulls and beet pulp but not oats and corn, which cattle would seek out and eat naturally if given the chance.  The problem with feeding grain comes when cattle are fed a diet that is primarily high-energy grain (such as corn) which changes the pH and natural flora of the cow’s digestive system.  This is not the way our pasture-raised cattle are fed.  We give our cattle the best quality of life possible and produce a healthy, high-quality product.

Yes, we have lost an occasional customer because of our philosophy.  It is a small price to pay for the quality of our beef and the welfare of the animals in our care.

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).

Allergic reaction to the products of introduced gene products (the ‘foreign’ genes)  is one of the primary concerns about GMO’s.  It is a concern that is legitimate, but, like “unknown consequences” needs to be put into perspective of the non-GMO food we eat every day.

Fanatic Cook (among many others) has been writing about it.  Bix links to a very helpful monograph on the subject of allergenicity in GMO foods. Predicting allergic potential is difficult and an inaccurate process, at best.  All genes used in GMOs at least go through screening for potential allergenicity.  Compare this to the vast majority of other foods that are effectively only screened on people through trial and error through a long history of eating.

The main reason the use of GMO grains is not required to be listed on labels is that the grains are not any more likely to cause allergies (or any other adverse affect) than their  non-GMO counterparts.  Voluntary labelling such as “no-GMO” is allowed, which is something I applaud and support in the interest of freedom of choice and information.

I’ve been asked if eating meat from animals fed GMO grain means that we are eating the GMO proteins themselves?  Only to the extent that the particular modified protein passes through the digestive system wall.  In a healthy animal, most proteins are broken down before they are passed into the blood.  If this were a concern, we should be far more concerned that my pasture-raised cattle graze ragweed and other highly allergenic plants.

Since last month’s post on the role of technology in feeding the world, I’ve been thinking a lot about the fundamental issue of GMO’s.

A primary GMO-related fear is the unknown consequences of the genetic manipulation.  I won’t discount this concern, but I would like to put it into perspective.

Every bit of variation in all the food crops (plant or animal) we consume arises by genetic mutation.  As humans domesticated plants and animals, we selected mutants (sounds a lot scarier than ‘variants’, doesn’t it?) that suited our needs better.  These mutations had some visible difference (color, faster growth, better taste), but beyond what we could see, we had NO idea what other changes were caused by the mutation.

Since early in this century, plant breeders have produced new varieties of all sorts of plants by something called “mutation breeding“.  Seeds are subjected to some form of mutagenizing agent, such as a chemical, UV light or x-rays.  Thousands are planted to screen for and select desirable mutations.  This is a primary way in which disease-resistant varieties of vegetables, fruits and other crops are developed.  The FAO maintains a database with thousands of catalogued varieties.

Even heirloom varieties are mutants.  Are you familiar with those cool zebra-striped heirloom tomatoes?  Those stripes are caused by a “jumping gene” that randomly inserts itself in the genome, sometimes disrupting a color gene.

At least the GMO varieties had to go through some sort of characterization of their biochemical properties.

Happy Cow-loween:  Visit Cattle4Kids.com for some fun pictures, games and information about cattle, 4-H and related topics.  (picture courtesy of Beef Daily’s “Halloween Cowboy Style“)

Halloween Junk Food at Whole Foods: My friend, Dr. Rita-Marie, is fired up (read that po’d) that Whole Foods is pimping white flour, white sugar, food coloring-frosted cookies as Halloween Treats.  So much for “nutrients intact, as nature created” (the supposed Whole Foods motto).

Food Safety Gone Astray: A November ‘teach-in’ about how recent changes in agri-business practices implemented in the name of “food safety” have had harmful environmental effects.  In particular, changes in production after the e-coli-in-spinach outbreak may have negative effect on wildlife with dubious value to food safety.

Field Guide to Organic Labels:  An op-ed piece from Kansas puts organic labels and the decision to buy in perspective.

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!

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.