Mad Cow Facts

Center for Global Food Issues
November 26, 2007

New Beef Eco-Report: Pound-for-pound, beef produced with grains and growth hormones produces 40% less greenhouse gas emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to organic grass-fed beef.

To reach these startling conclusions, analysts at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues used beef production models from Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions estimates from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC).

More than 95% of beef produced in the United States is raised on grain-based diets in feedlots, using supplemental growth hormones, both natural and synthetic. The report details the extensive human and environmental safety requirements for the use of supplemental hormones on feedlots, as well as the growing body of environmental monitoring studies showing no significant negative impacts from their use. Instead, the data show major environmental benefits of this production system: Saving 2/3rds more land for nature and producing 40% fewer greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef produced.

The use of supplemental hormones in beef production has been deemed safe for humans by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, the World Health Organization, the Codex Alimentarius Committee of the World Trade Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and a conference of expert toxicologists established by the European Agriculture Commission.

The first-of-its-kind analysis compared the land costs and greenhouse gas emissions of organic grass-based beef with conventional grain-finished beef. The findings are particularly relevant in light of a UN Food and Agriculture Organization report published last summer estimating that beef and dairy production are responsible for 18% of all human greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more…

Report Offers “Bad Advice” about Red Meat and Cancer Another Scientific Review Finds No Link

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Mary K. Young, M.S., R.D., Vice President, Nutrition
October 31, 2007

“The WCRF/AICR recommendations about red meat and cancer are unsubstantiated and offer bad advice for consumers. There are volumes of research about the benefits of red meat in a healthy diet that far outweigh anything we’ve seen today.

“There is no evidence red meat causes cancer, according to a recent “Assessment of Red Meat and Cancer” by independent scientists. The comprehensive review evaluated every available epidemiological study on red meat and six types of cancer and concluded there was no causal link. How the WCRF review could come to a different conclusion is perplexing.

“At a time when Americans are overfed and undernourished, the report’s recommendations are especially disturbing as they are based on weak and inconsistent data.

“Lean beef can be an important part of the solution to the nation’s weight problem because the protein in lean beef helps control appetite and build muscle mass, which is essential to maintaining a healthy weight.

“Beef is the number one source of protein in the diet, which is a fundamental building block to muscle development. In addition, the other nutrients in lean beef – such as iron, zinc and B-vitamins – play a critical role in health by preventing anemia, promoting cognitive function, and building a healthy immune system.

“The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as well as long-standing recommendations from leading health organizations, continue to recommend lean, nutrient-rich meat as part of a healthy lifestyle. Dietary Guidelines and MyPyramid recommend adults eat 5.5 ounces of lean protein each day, and, on average, Americans are consuming 2.3 ounces of red meat each day which is well within these guidelines.

“When considering cancer risk, it’s important to look at what the science actually says: don’t smoke, use alcohol responsibly, be physically active, maintain a healthy weight and follow a diet consistent with the Dietary Guidelines which includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lowfat dairy products and lean meats.

“As a mother and a dietitian, I can tell you there is simply nothing in this report that should change how people enjoy nutrient-rich beef as part of a healthy, balanced diet.”

To speak with NCBA representatives and/or other scientific experts who can offer a perspective on this report, please contact: Meghan Pusey at 720-840-8744.

Provided by the Beef Checkoff.

ACSH
Corrie Driebusch
October 31, 2007

This morning at 7am, ACSH staffers learned that trick or treating isn’t just for little kids. Even when we’re grown up, sometimes “tricks” are attempted. Today the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) issued a report concluding that consumption of red meat is causally linked with both breast and colon cancer, recommending we eat fewer burgers, chops, and steaks.

Well, ACSH’s Dr. Kava explains, there is a line in the report that acknowledges that they’re unsure whether the link between red meat consumption and cancer is caused by the red meat or something else red meat eaters are not consuming. We couldn’t agree more. There were other conclusions drawn in the report we can’t argue with — for instance, the link between obesity and cancer is one that all here at ACSH believe to be true. But the problem is that these true statements, the ones that aren’t hyperbole, did not get into all the news stories this morning — the news networks presented the report as black and white: Red meat causes colon and rectal cancer.

The Today show this morning was particularly problematic. The message it promoted: Don’t eat meat, vegetarianism is better, and every alcoholic drink is a potential poison. We can only imagine a mother waking up and hearing this message at 7:30 in the morning, thinking how this advice is contrary to her lifestyle and how the food she’s planning for her family for lunch and dinner is now being called the “root” of cancer. And the comments about alcohol (a “link” we’ve been hearing about all month), ACSH staffers couldn’t help but think of the many couples who go out to dinner every night and share a bottle of wine — resulting in two and a half glasses per person. If we are telling people you are going to die if you go out to dinner and split a bottle of wine, the President should hold a press conference. That is just not true.

Also, ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan pointed out, Dr. Snyderman on the Today show repeated a line in the report that said cancer is a “mostly preventable disease.” What a way to blame the victim. While there are some risk factors we can control (such as smoking — the commonest cause of preventable disease and death — and weight gain to the point of obesity), most are outside of our control (such as age and genetics). Statements like this only serve to make people feel guilty when diagnosed with cancer, as though they “brought this upon themselves.”

All in all, ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross said, the report just seems to use some fuzzy math. If you have something that’s statistically significant, that still doesn’t mean that it’s significant for an individual, he explained. If the numbers don’t even rise to the level of confirming there’s a real association, then the whole study is really junk.

Speaking of junk (not junk food), this “study” on dioxin made us wonder if we got the holiday wrong and it’s April Fool’s Day. The study found that the pollutant dioxin causes an increase in female births and decrease in male births. A side note: eradication of boys from the population? Is this really a negative consequence? (I kid, I kid.) This so-called study is replete with scientific errors of the most basic type and should be discarded.

Last night — Mischief Night — a major news network played a little trick on ACSH’s Jeff Stier. The network mistakenly thought that scaremonger Dr. Samuel Epstein is a “client” of ours. Jeff explained that we do not have clients, and if we did, Epstein would never be one of them. An MSNBC producer had seen Jeff’s New York Post op-ed that was critical of Dr. Epstein and made the wrong association. Then, after realizing that Jeff, and ACSH, will take an opposing position to Dr. Epstein on cancer scares, the network booker quickly got off the phone, even after Jeff offered to go on and offer a contrasting point of view. If you happen to be watching MSNBC this afternoon and see the segment on cancer, watch carefully whether it’s balanced or not (based upon Jeff’s conversation, we guess it will not be).

Finally, ACSH staffers found one piece of news to be our “treat” for the day — that more young people are taking cholesterol-lowering medicine and medicine for high blood pressure. There are about 50 million people in this country with high blood pressure, Dr. Ross explained, and only about a quarter have been diagnosed and have it under control. Since high blood pressure is the greatest cause of cardiac disease in the country, it is essential to pay more attention. Dr. Ross (and the rest of ACSH) thinks it’s good news that there’s a bigger movement to get younger people to get their lipid levels under control. The NIH has noted that cholesterol-lowering drugs are vastly under-utilized, and increasing treatment of lipid abnormalities would further reduce the already-declining rate of heart disease.

ACSH
Ruth Kava
October 29, 2007

Widespread misinterpretation of health-related research, especially reports that conflate association with causation, leads to confusion and mistrust of health advice, according to physicians and scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

New York, NY (PRWEB) October 29, 2007 — Widespread misinterpretation of health-related research, especially reports that conflate association with causation, leads to confusion and mistrust of health advice, according to physicians and scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

A new ACSH publication, “Distinguishing Association from Causation: A Backgrounder for Journalists,” explains some of the basic issues and pitfalls involved in interpreting scientific studies. The paper offers tips to assist journalists and consumers in making sense of scientific reports.

“The news media are awash with headlines about the supposed risks or benefits of various foods, drugs, environmental chemicals or dietary supplements,” said ACSH president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. “But the supposed causal connections between exposures and health effects are often conflicting or change over time,” she continued.

The ACSH report describes the different types of studies scientists use to explore links between exposures and health. In addition, it presents important criteria for distinguishing if a link between an exposure and a health effect is truly causal (e.g., smoking and lung cancer) or if the connection is merely an association (e.g., carrying matches and lung cancer). The most useful criteria include:

“Imprudent optimism about the significance of results or the importance of a discovery can lead consumers to mistrust scientific evidence or to ignore it entirely. Unfortunately, over-interpretation or emphasis can lead consumers to believe that a harmless exposure is dangerous, or conversely that some useless or dangerous product might be beneficial,” stated Dr. John W. Morgan, cancer epidemiologist at Loma Linda University.

Download the full ACSH report, “Distinguishing Association from Causation: A Backgrounder for Journalists,” at ACSH.org.

The American Council on Science and Health is an independent, non-profit consumer education organization concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health.

SixWise.com
October 10, 2007

You take great care in choosing the right foods for your family to eat, but did you know that the way they’re prepared can have a large impact on their nutritional value?

Whereas some cooking methods will preserve the food’s nutrients and flavor, others can actually diminish nutrient content and create harmful substances within your food.

What about the microwave? While some believe microwaving is a fast way to cook food without a lot of extra oils, others believe it can change the chemical structure of the food in unknown, potentially negative, ways, while reducing fragile nutrients.

It is always preferable to cook foods at lower temperatures than higher temperatures, not only because the nutrients are better preserved but also because the oils that you cook your food with — particularly vegetable oils like soybean, corn and canola — are easily damaged (oxidized) by the heat, posing health risks.

Fortunately, there are many cooking methods out there that are good for your food and good-tasting. Here we’ve outlined some of the most popular cooking methods, starting with the healthiest methods and ending up with the worst.

1. Eat Your Foods Raw

Well, it’s not exactly a cooking method, but it is a very healthy way to consume many of your favorite foods. Raw foods, advocates say, are higher in vitamins and nutrients, which are destroyed by cooking. Eating raw may seem extreme, but you can actually prepare some pretty tasty dishes if you know what foods to combine.

If you would like to try out some delicious raw food recipes for yourself, Alive in 5: Raw Gourmet Meals in Five Minutes is packed with them (raw lasagna, spaghetti marinara, stuffed mushrooms, broccoli in cheese sauce, apple pie and more). They’re healthy and delicious, even if you’re new to raw foods!

2. Steaming

Simply put a little water in a pot, put in a steamer basket or colander, and add your food. As the water boils, the steam will gently cook your food. Be sure not to cook your food for too long (veggies should still be brightly colored and slightly crunchy when they’re done), and you can also add some spices to the water to flavor the foods as they steam.

This method works especially well for fragile vegetables like leafy greens and fish.

(more…)