Grass-Fed vs. Grain-Fed Beef

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 16:49:42 PM PST

   * Grass-fed cows produce more greenhouse gas than grain-fed.
   * Critics point out that the pasture used to raise grass-fed beef offers a carbon sink.
   * Experts point out that eating vegetarian is far better from a carbon point of view.

The Quest for Safe Beef and Morality Continues

by: Eddie C

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 19:44:09 PM PST

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a recall on 864,000 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The meat was packaged by Montebello, Calif.-based Huntington Meat Packing and sold to consumers under the Huntington, Imperial Meat, and El Rancho brands. Some of the meat in question was sold almost two years ago. This is the second beef recall of 2010-the first came on January 11 and was initiated by the Massachusetts Department of Health over 2,500 pounds of beef from Adams Farm Slaughterhouse, LLC.

Each year there are more and more recalls so it may seem that the government is getting a handle on dangerous tainted beef but much of the 864,000 pound recall was already sold and the reason for the Adams Farm recall was that someone got sick.

Has the situation improved?

Buckle Up for a Pro-Beef Media Blitz

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:33:59 AM PST

So now, for your amusement... here's the beef:

Food Recalls and Our Environment: Who is Responsible?

by: Eddie C

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:15:49 PM PST

According to a USA Today story Eating can be energy-efficient, too "The production of 1 pound of beef creates 14.8 pounds of C02, the same amount produced by 20.59 miles of driving." Also "It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef."

By that calculation when an E. coli contamination caused 545,699 pounds of ground beef to be recalled last week over 8 million pounds of C02 was generated. The carbon emissions equivalent of driving from New York to San Francisco 3,867 times were produced for far worse than nothing, produced for poison. Since it would have taken 8,185,485 pounds of feed to get this tainted beef to market, at 43,655 tons the combined total of grain that was mostly left behind as manure and garbage beef placed in landfill are comparable in weight (but far larger in mass) to the ill fated ocean liner Titanic.

This recent recall that also killed two people sounds extremely wasteful but it is only a drop in the bucket when you look at the bigger picture.

Chicken Poop Alert!

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 13:24:05 PM PDT

Chickens are notoriously messy eaters. Debeak them and then they are even messier eaters. They can be fed rendered cow remains. Then the cows can be fed chicken litter - which includes chicken poop, feathers, and dropped chicken food. Thus, cows can still eat cows.

That much is not news. Here's the news. Consumers Union and FACT (Food Animal Concerns Trust) have filed a petition with 37,000 signatures opposing the practice of feeding chicken litter to cows and asking for it to be banned. The FDA has until November 11 to respond to their petition. I am very eager to hear what the FDA will say about this.

Class 1 Beef Recall Due to Antibiotic Resistant Salmonella

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 17:20:40 PM PDT

The USDA is supposed to tell us which stores are selling (or have sold) the tainted beef, to make it easy for us to figure out if we've accidentally bought tainted beef so we don't eat it. So far, according to Bill Marler, the USDA has not given us that information. Ummm.... that's kinda important.

UPDATE: Apparently FSIS did let us know where the tainted beef went. That's good news at least.

E. Coli Beef Recall Expands; Illnesses Now Linked to Recalled Beef

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:45:15 PM PDT

The last time I reported on this, no known illnesses were associated with this recall. Now the CDC believes there are at least 18 cases linked to this outbreak. And note that while the FDA stands to get a badly-needed food safety upgrade in the near future, this recall falls under the USDA, not the FDA. There seems to be no movement within Congress right now to make any changes at the USDA to address food safety.

A Food Safety Update: 41,000 Lbs of Beef Recalled [UPDATED]

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 13:52:39 PM PDT

JBS Swift is recalling 41,280 lbs of beef "due to possible E. coli contamination." Just another reminder that food safety reform is badly needed in this country. Meanwhile the Nestle Tollhouse Cookie Dough recall is still in the news. 70 people are sick; 30 hospitalized. The confirmed cases of E. coli occurred in 28 states. And - just a reminder - there are always many more cases of foodborne illness than the number the CDC is able to confirm.

So how about that food safety reform?? Well, the Food Safety Enhancement Act has passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which means it is ready to be voted on. Now the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) needs to bring it to the floor for a vote. Congress is on recess next week, which means it's a GREAT time to call or visit your representative's district office to tell them you want them to urge the Speaker to bring the food safety bill up for a vote ASAP as soon as Congress is back in session after the 4th of July. (The bill could still use some improving to make it less burdensome to small producers... I'd like to see them drop the part of the bill that instructs the FDA to tell farmers how to safely grow and harvest food, and to exempt the smallest food facilities from the $500 annual fee... you might want to mention that to your Congresscritter too.)

So - assuming that happens - the FDA is going to get a badly needed makeover. But what about the USDA? So far... nothing. The beef E. coli recall falls under the USDA, but in a recent hearing, the meat industry unequivocally told the House Ag Committee that no new regulations were needed because their products were already safe and current oversight was enough. Let's hope those aren't famous last words. The fact of the matter is that as long as we produce animal products in filthy, crowded conditions and slaughter and process animals at mind-boggling speeds, making it difficult for workers to keep themselves and the meat they are working with safe, we are leaving ourselves open to more outbreaks like this one and like the more deadly outbreaks of years past.

Where's the Beef?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

A report today from Greenpeace details a three-year investigation into these cattle farms and the global trade in their products, many of which end up on sale in Britain and Europe. Meat from the cattle is canned, packaged and processed into convenience foods. Hides become leather for shoes and trainers. Fat stripped from the carcasses is rendered and used to make toothpaste, face creams and soap. Gelatin squeezed from bones, intestines and ligaments thickens yoghurt and makes chewy sweets.

Many of the cattle ranches are violating laws that require them to retain 80% of the rainforest on their land. The area where this is occurring is quite unstable, like an Amazon wild wild West. Worse, check this out:

Cheap pasture from clearing and seeding rainforest is very attractive to farmers without easy access to the expensive agrichemicals and intensive land management techniques used in more developed countries. Within a few years, the planted pasture becomes overrun with native grass, unsuitable for cattle. Many farmers then take the cheap option and knock down adjoining forest to start again, leaving swaths of unproductive deforested land in their wake.

Most of the beef exports go to the Middle East, Russia, and Europe, so the odds are that we aren't eating this stuff here. Still, we have global markets so prices and production here in the U.S. often affect what happens abroad.

The article also mentions Amazon deforestation occurring to produce soy and biofuels. In the U.S. we've seen a recent debate about whether or not our EPA should factor in Amazon deforestation when assessing the carbon footprint of biofuels compared to oil. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said on the May 7 edition of Agritalk that he doesn't believe a farmer in Brazil based his decisions on what farmers in Iowa do. But if we truly have a global market, then that is not the case. An Iowa farmer's actions (and U.S. demand or lack thereof for biofuels) will impact the price of crops and thus affect the Brazilian farmer's decisions.

NYT Tells It As It Is About Red Meat

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 18:30:20 PM PDT

Talk about cutting straight to the point! That is from the New York Times article "Personal Health: Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat." It focuses on a topic I've written about before, a recent study that found increased risk of mortality from daily beef and pork consumption. So what's the health advice the NYT dishes out?

To prevent premature deaths related to red and processed meats, Dr. Popkin suggested in an interview that people should eat a hamburger only once or twice a week instead of every day, a small steak once a week instead of every other day, and a hot dog every month and a half instead of once a week.

I think this really misses the point because there's no mention of HOW we produce our red meat, or any other kind of meat. I don't think it's accurate to paint all red meat with one broad brush. There's factory farmed red meat (and chicken and fish) and then there's pasture raised meat and wild fish. The nutritional profile of the meat differs based on what the animal ate and how it was raised. And I think it's very telling that everyone touts fish as the healthy option, and fish are the last meat left in our diets that we catch from the wild and allow to eat the diets they evolved to eat. Furthermore, I'd be interested in more information on differences in nutrition between wild and farmed fish.

Last, if we know we are producing a product that kills us, maybe its time the government got involved to get us off our corn, oil, and factory farmed meat addictions? I'm not saying the government should dictate our diets, but its naive to think that the government isn't largely behind our current food system that promotes cheap, bad-for-you meat, and that means it requires government intervention to move us away from cheap, bad-for-you meat too. Perhaps its time to write another LTE (letter to the editor) to the NYT.

Hat tip to Asimbagirl for sending me this story.

Grass Fed Beef Causing Global Warming: Is it All a Bunch of (Pardon the Pun) Bull?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 14:26:37 PM PST

Maybe not so. Mark Bittman reported that grass-fed cows are WORSE for the climate crisis than their feedlot counterparts. 50 percent worse. What?! Say it ain't so. Then his words were echoed by Tom Laskawy and Civil Eats.

My first thoughts on this go something like: "is this just a bunch of corporate propaganda?" I'm sorry - maybe it's true but I've spent the last year listening to the rbGH advocates whine and howl about how their milk is better for the environment than organic.

This story initiates with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. They put out the journal Science and from what I can tell they have scientific integrity. As for the info they provided about grass-fed beef being worse:

"It's related to the much higher volumes of feed throughput and associated methane and nitrous-oxide [GHG] emissions." He added that most pastures were highly managed, and subject to "periodic renovations and also fertilization." Finally, with grass-fed cattle "there is also a high [grass] trampling rate. So the actual land area that you need to maintain magnifies that [GHG] difference," Pelletier said.

And you know what? I'm still skeptical. I need more evidence. If a cow is raised on pasture, there's a lot of land covered in grass that is sucking the carbon out of the air that the cow produces. The manure, which off-gasses nitrous oxide, could or should be integrated into the soil by dung beetles rather quickly, so it won't spend time in a manure lagoon polluting the air like a feedlot cow's manure. And I have no idea how the change in diet from the feedlot to pasture affects a cow's burps and farts. But in short, I want more data before I decide I believe this report.

Hamburger = Hummer?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 14:33:32 PM PST

I've been calling the S.A.D. (Standard American Diet) the "Hummer" diet for a while now. Turns out burgers and Hummers have more in common than you might think. According to Common Dreams:

Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.

Does this mean you have go to veg? Not necessarily, according to the article. Livestock overall accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And over 3/4 of those emissions come from beef - even though beef only makes up 30% of meat consumption in the developed world. Beef emits 4 times more greenhouse gasses than pork and 10 times more than chicken.

In America beef consumption fell between 1970 and 2006 as a percentage of total meat consumed - but it's still fairly high. Over half of all meat eaten in America is red meat.

Supply and demand in the land of COOL

by: Joanne Rigutto

Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 08:59:54 AM PST

Beef: It's What's For Dinner

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 13:33:16 PM PDT

Well... here's where some more of that money is going. The Nebraska Beef Council gave an award for "Best New Beef Product" and the recipient gets checkoff money to market its product. A brilliant idea of the winner were "mom 'n pop" ... only the winner is Tyson. Hardly a company in need of extra cash. I bet they HATE the "big government" program that gave it to them too.

The winning product was called Yankee Pot Roast. More below the flip.

Greenwashing Beef

by: OrangeClouds115

Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:55:20 AM PDT

From the site:

Grain-fed for Minimum 350 Days

Our one-of-a-kind feeding program is a key contributor to incomparable taste and tenderness. For a minimum of 350 days, our cattle receive a high-energy diet consisting of corn and whole grains. It's a wholesome, nutritious diet that our cattle thrive on.

They say that after going on about how good the cows are for the environment, hormone-free, yadda yadda. Going back to Michael Pollan's article Power Steer:

We have come to think of "cornfed" as some kind of old-fashioned virtue; we shouldn't. Granted, a cornfed cow develops well-marbled flesh, giving it a taste and texture American consumers have learned to like. Yet this meat is demonstrably less healthy to eat, since it contains more saturated fat. A recent study in The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that the meat of grass-fed livestock not only had substantially less fat than grain-fed meat but that the type of fats found in grass-fed meat were much healthier. (Grass-fed meat has more omega 3 fatty acids and fewer omega 6, which is believed to promote heart disease; it also contains betacarotine and CLA, another "good" fat.) A growing body of research suggests that many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with cornfed beef. In the same way ruminants have not evolved to eat grain, humans may not be well adapted to eating grain-fed animals. Yet the U.S.D.A.'s grading system continues to reward marbling-that is, intermuscular fat-and thus the feeding of corn to cows.

More below the flip, including why I think it's cruel that Vintage Natural Beef feeds cows a grain diet but no antibiotics.