Showing posts with label mad cow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mad cow. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

We "Will Fight to Keep Meatpackers from Testing for Mad Cow Disease"

from MotherJones.com, May 31.

The argument for free market economics-though we here at Mother Jones may have, on occasion, doubted its virtuosity-goes like this: Competition encourages innovation, and customers decide which innovations are worth keeping and get what they want in the process. Here's a case in point: A small business called Creekstone Farms Premium Beef proposed testing all of its cows for mad cow disease. Customers have long been skittish about mad cow disease, and testing would likely cause Creekstone's business to spike.

Innovation? Check. Benefit to consumers? Check. Fostering small businesses? Check. But the USDA has intervened to block Creekstone from conducting the tests. The rationale? It's not fair to agribusinesses, which buy, sell, and butcher so many cows that they couldn't possibly conduct the expensive test on all of them. The USDA also alleged that "widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry."

read more (MotherJones.com)

Friday, December 1, 2006

The High Price of Cheap Food

Excerpted from an article by Emily Green, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 21, 2004

When we picture a farm, we picture scenes from Old MacDonald and "Charlotte's Web," not warehouses with 10,000 chickens, or dairy cows ankle deep in ordure, clustered under tin sheds in blazing Central Valley heat. When we picture the cows, they're grazing on grass, not eating carefully formulated mixes of poultry waste and orange peels. Our understanding of the way our food is produced is so out of date that it takes a mad cow for Christmas to force our gaze to the farming world beyond the refrigerator case.

When we look, it's shocking. Our rural idylls have been transformed into stinking factories.

It seems like a ghastly conspiracy. Yet factory farming isn't someone else's fault. It's not only of our making, but it also made us. More than any other factor, cheap food accounts for American prosperity. We spend less of our annual incomes on food than any other nation. Our first case of mad cow disease isn't the result of some evil plot. It's the price of our way of life and it may be telling us that it's time to change.

Read beyond the headlines and one finds that the practice that wrought the disease, recycling ruminant slaughter waste back into cattle feed, was the work of social idealists. Meat and bone meal, which in 1988 was revealed as the source of the disease, was put in the dairy feed in ever greater proportions after World War II to boost the protein content. Feeding cows protein, it was believed, would increase output and enrich milk.

Even more than the U.K., we in the U.S. have been transformed by cheap and plentiful food. To appreciate just how deeply ingrained the urge for agricultural innovation is in this country, it merits remembering that the United States was born at the peak of the 18th century agricultural revolution, called the era of "improvement." Our founding, farming presidents envisioned the nation as a place of better cows, better plants, better farming tools. The result: bigger cows, bigger plants, bigger yields, bigger farms.

The technology brought a social revolution. In the last 50 years, with the advent of postwar fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, intensive livestock methods, power feeding formulas, antibiotics and hormones, factory farms have replaced traditional methods. When the 20th century began, half the population lived on family-owned farms. Now, less than 1% of Americans do.

Behind the public health crisis brought on by how much food we eat, a larger ecological crisis is looming because of the way we produce it. Pesticide pollution is so high in the Midwestern waterways of corn country that amphibian populations are collapsing. Endocrinologists are warning of sweeping human infertility in Midwestern farming states caused by weed-killers. Most of these weed-killers go on corn for livestock feed.

The economics of livestock feed are a study in risk. We mix so much antibiotics into pork, beef and chicken feed, both to suppress disease and to kill gut bacteria that would compete for the calories from feed, that according to reports in the scientific journal Nature, 50% of the world's antibiotic supply goes into farm animals. The practice brings animals to market a few days faster than organic methods, but also has created a new generation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The drive for cheap food has gone beyond a brave experiment into a potentially catastrophic gamble. The stakes: the environment and public health. But none of the government officials charged with overseeing agriculture and environment is publicly suggesting the obvious fix: slowing down our intensive food production, treating the land and animals with more respect, producing less food, better food, more carefully.

Instead, they all too often leap to the defense of the industry and the safety of every bite of food provided by it. When news of the first U.S. case of mad cow disease came out just before Christmas, the instant response of Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman was to reassure us that the 200,000 "downer cows" consumed by Americans in 2003 hadn't necessarily been diseased. They just couldn't walk.

Except, of course, the one infected with mad cow disease.

It was enough to make a reporter nostalgic. How reminiscent Veneman was of her British counterparts. During the early years of the U.K. epidemic, the succession of Conservative agriculture ministers and the country's chief veterinary officer couldn't endorse British beef heartily enough.

The only regulators whose standards were actually safe were not government officials. They came from the organic movement. Two years before anyone had heard of mad cow disease, in 1984, the Soil Assn., one of the leading certifiers of organic food in the United Kingdom, banned inclusion of meat and bone meal from rations for dairy cows.

Last month, as Veneman and industry officials sought to allay American fears by insisting on the safety of downer meat (then, on Dec. 30, reacting to scandal, quickly banning it), again only the organic standard, and not government regulations, offered significant protection against BSE. Meat and bone meal had never been an acceptable constituent of certified organic cattle feed. Downers weren't an issue. Organic regulations require that sick animals be given veterinary treatment, not slaughtered for food.

The moral: Cheap food isn't cheap. In Britain, the milk that ended rickets stopped looking like a bargain when the taxpayers added the cleanup cost for mad cow alone. This included compensation to farmers for the hundreds of thousands of infected cattle, the preventive culling of 4 million additional healthy animals, the failure of almost 30,000 dairy farms during the BSE years, damages to the families of human victims, the near collapse of the British beef industry and a sweeping two-year public inquiry.

In the U.S., the overnight loss of the beef export market is only the beginning of our mini-BSE crisis.

While the mainstream domestic industry braces for hard times, it should be a good year to be an American organic meat producer of chicken, pork or beef. The California Certified Organic Farmers trade association reports that since 1996, sales of organic meat in the U.S. have risen 28% a year.

Great food has always been a matter of quality, not quantity. Organic meat is far more expensive than conventional, often twice and three times the cost of conventional. That gap will surely narrow as more farmers convert to organic, but organic will always cost more.

Cheap food made us wealthy. Now is the time to be wise. In the past, conventional producers dismissed organics as a niche market and credited themselves with feeding a hungry nation. That argument has become obsolete. The environment, public health and safe food are no longer niche concerns. If we heed the lesson of our first case of mad cow disease, it may just prove our salvation.

Decoding the label

The term "organic" is governed by strict USDA regulations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides or fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; also without bioengineering or ionizing radiation.

"Natural" is an increasingly popular term used to stake out a middle ground between "organic" and "conventional." It refers only to processing and means no artificial ingredients or added colors were used and that the product was "minimally processed." It has nothing, however, to do with how meat and poultry are raised, whether hormones or antibiotics were used or whether the beef was fed the byproducts of other animals, which is allowed under conventional growing regulations.

Claims such as "no antibiotic residues" or "antibiotic-free" does not mean the cattle or poultry wasn't treated with antibiotics, rather that the meat was tested during processing and was shown to be free of antibiotics. And any claims that poultry and hogs are hormone-free are just restating existing regulations governing conventional farming practices, not an extra step that should be rewarded with a premium price.

Mad Cow Quandary: Making Animal Feed

February 6, 2004. New York Times. By DENISE GRADY

In the month and a half since a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Washington State, Americans have been learning more than they wanted to know about what cattle in this country have been eating.

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk, and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.

Most people had never heard of those practices until last week, when the Food and Drug Administration barred them, saying they could spread mad cow disease. But the agency did not prohibit other practices that involve using animal remains to make cattle feed.

Though the United States banned the use of cow parts in cattle feed in the 1990's, it still permits rendered matter from cows to be fed to pigs and chickens, and rendered pigs and chickens to be fed back to cows. Critics say that in theory, that sequence could bring mad cow disease full circle, back to cows.

On Wednesday, an expert panel advising the government urged a ban on using any animal remains to make feed supplements for cattle. The European Union has such a rule, but America does not, and the cattle industry has accused the advisory group of exaggerating the risk in this country.

Europe barred animal parts from cattle feed because scientists suspect that tissue from infected animals, particularly the brain or spinal cord from sick cows, can transmit the disease. Contaminated feed is widely believed to have started the mad cow epidemic that infected more than 180,000 animals in Britain in the 1980's and has led to the death of more than 140 people.

Any decision by the United States to take the panel's advice, barring all animal protein from cattle feed, could have a large effect on another low-profile part of the livestock industry: rendering - that is, pressure cooking on an industrial scale. Protein supplements derived from rendered livestock are added to feed to help animals gain weight and produce more milk.

Decisions about what kinds of rendered animal parts can go into cattle feed are made by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said there was no evidence that pigs or chickens could transmit mad cow disease. He said the F.D.A. needed to study the expert panel's report further to determine whether the feed rules should be made stricter. He noted that the new report had come to conclusions very different from those in a 2001 report by Harvard researchers that the agency has relied on to make its rules.

When the new report was issued, "I asked the committee, `Help me here, as a regulator who has to base their decisions on science, and now I'm confronted with two very different scientific opinions,' " Dr. Sundlof said. "We need to find out what is at the root of that," he added, "before we can make any decisions different from what we made last week."

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the cattle industry was prepared to change feeding practices if the F.D.A. determined that doing so was necessary. Dr. Weber said he did not know what percentage of cattle in this country are fed animal protein supplements. "On the beef cattle side, the need for animal protein byproducts has never been high," he said. "But in the dairy industry, in order to sustain high levels of milk production, they have needed these proteins and felt it was important in high-producing dairy cows." Dairy producers can switch to soy protein, but it does not work as well, Dr. Weber said.

Tom Cook, president of the National Renderers Association, based in Alexandria, Va., said his industry was discussing the issue with government officials and trying to determine what changes would be needed and what their impact might be. Rendering is a $3 billion industry, with about 240 plants in the United States and Canada that process about 50 billions pounds of animal remains a year.

Rendering yields fats, including tallows and greases, as well as meat and bone meal. The fats can be made into soaps and lubricants, and also added to some animal feeds. Most of the meat and bone meal are used in feed supplements for animals; 43 percent goes to poultry, 23 percent to pet food, 13 percent to swine, 10 percent to cattle and 11 percent to other uses, among them the production of feed for farmed fish.

If it was barred from animal feed, rendered material might lose its value, Mr. Cook said. And yet, he said, the remains would still have to be rendered, because that is the best way to dispose of them. "The material still has to be processed," he said. "If it doesn't get rendered and find a home, you'll have to build a lot more landfills and means of disposal not as safe or environmentally acceptable as rendering. And the cost will have to be shifted to somebody, I don't know who."

NY Times article