Mad Cow Facts

The Daily News Journal (Tennessee)
By SARAH ADAMS
DNJ Columnist
October 10, 2007

You will not find me using this column to knock a good steak.

No, Sir. I also think a cheeseburger is one of the blessings of life. Beef stew, roast, ribs, filet — I love them all. Even better, I think I’m doing my body some good when I eat them. But only if they’re the healthy kind: grass-fed.

That’s a big “but.” A big “but” is sometimes necessary and good. No one could dispute the fact that a big “but” can make an impact, as in the hind end of the previous paragraph. This big “but” makes all the difference.

Red meat is either healthy or harmful, depending chiefly on how the cow or sheep was treated and fed.

That’s a very black-and-white statement, but is it really so hard to believe? Say you are considering buying meat from two different farmers. You frequently witness Farmer Rick’s healthy stock peacefully chewing cud on a sunny hillside, while Farmer Nick’s cows are packed into a muddy lot with grass visible only on the other side of the fence. From which farm would you prefer to buy meat for your family’s Sunday dinner?

Moo food: grass vs. grain

The cows in the feed lot are fed mostly grain, which is not the food nature prescribed for them. Because of the digestive challenges that a grain diet causes and because of the crowded, stressful conditions in a feed lot, these cows require more antibiotics. The grain that the cows eat, unless it is organic, is going to be treated with pesticides, which have a very good chance of making their way to your table in the meat you eat.

Grass-fed cows have spent most of their lives in pasture. The meat from these cows not only has less fat and fewer toxins, but it may even offer higher levels of goodies like omega-3 fats, CLA (a cancer-fighting fat), and vitamins.

So, if grass makes a healthier cow and healthier meat, why isn’t it every farmer’s choice for their livestock? Because grain gets those cows fat fast. A little grain is fine and mimics a grazer’s fall diet, which includes seeds, but too much grain moves away from the natural way of things.

Where’s the grass-fed beef?

Most larger health food stores sell grass-fed meat, but expect to pay a lot. I mean a whole lot. However, you might want to buy a little this way to see if you like the flavor — some say it’s a bit different than conventional meat.

The most economical way to buy grass-fed meat is to buy a quarter or half cow directly from the farmer, and then have it prepared by a meat processing company. I recently bought a half cow, which yielded about 75 lbs. of meat at $5 per lb. That’s a lot of money at one shot, but it will provide steaks, burgers, roasts, and summer sausage for many months.

Lamb is another option and, quite fortunately, is usually grass-fed, even in your regular, old grocery store (according to the informational cookbook “Nourishing Traditions”). That’s good news, but I’d still want to double-check the source.

Another consideration is deer meat, which may be the healthiest of all, since a deer’s food and environment is completely wild. If you are not a hunter, you may know one who could get a deer for you — you’d be paying only for the meat processing, which costs about $50-$100 for the whole deer. That’s a very good deal for high-quality food.

For the good of all livestock, let them eat grass.

Sarah Adams of Murfreesboro is a CPA and freelance food writer with a love for natural foods. E-mail her at write2sa@yahoo.com.

Don’t let your diet — or stomach — be held captive by these nutrition myths.

MSN
By Alan Aragon, M.S., Men’s Health
October 10, 2007

It goes like this: A client looking to lead a healthier life hires me, a nutritionist, to help him improve his diet. I analyze what he’s been eating, factor in his food preferences, and together we create an eating plan that fits his lifestyle and goals. Soon after, he’s noticeably leaner and more energetic—a happy customer.

That’s when the trouble starts. After a coworker asks him for the details of his diet, my client suddenly finds himself in a heated interrogation. Doesn’t your nutritionist know red meat causes cancer? And that potatoes cause diabetes? Shouldn’t he tell you to eat less salt, to prevent high blood pressure?

The upshot: Myths just made my job a lot harder. That’s because nutrition misinformation fools men into being confused and frustrated in their quest to eat healthily, even if they’re already achieving great results. Thankfully, you’re about to be enlightened by science. Here are five food fallacies you can forget about for good.

Myth #1: “High protein intake is harmful to your kidneys.”

The origin: Back in 1983, researchers first discovered that eating more protein increases your “glomerular filtration rate,” or GFR. Think of GFR as the amount of blood your kidneys are filtering per minute. From this finding, many scientists made the leap that a higher GFR places your kidneys under greater stress.

What science really shows: Nearly 2 decades ago, Dutch researchers found that while a protein-rich meal did boost GFR, it didn’t have an adverse effect on overall kidney function. In fact, there’s zero published research showing that downing hefty amounts of protein damages the kidneys.

The bottom line: As a rule of thumb, shoot to eat your target body weight in grams of protein daily. For example, if you’re a chubby 200 pounds and want to be a lean 180, then have 180 grams of protein a day. Likewise if you’re a skinny 150 pounds but want to be a muscular 180.

Myth #2: “Sweet potatoes are better for you than white potatoes.”

The origin: Because most Americans eat the highly processed version of the white potato—for instance, french fries and potato chips—consumption of this root vegetable has been linked to obesity and an increased diabetes risk. Meanwhile, sweet potatoes, which are typically eaten whole, have been celebrated for being rich in nutrients and also having a lower glycemic index than their white brethren.

What science really shows: White potatoes and sweet potatoes have complementary nutritional differences; one isn’t necessarily better than the other. For instance, sweet potatoes have more fiber and vitamin A, but white potatoes are higher in essential minerals, such as iron, magnesium, and potassium. As for the glycemic index, sweet potatoes are lower on the scale, but baked white potatoes typically aren’t eaten without cheese, sour cream, or butter. These toppings all contain fat, which lowers the glycemic index of a meal.

The bottom line: The form in which you consume a potato—for instance, a whole baked potato versus a processed potato that’s used to make chips—is more important than the type of spud.

(more…)

Meghan Pusey
Sept. 28, 2007

The latest video in a series that tells the real story of today’s American cattle ranchers is now available on the new Beef - from Pasture to Plate Web site.

The video follows Dennis Thaler and his family, who work together to run Thaler Land & Livestock Company, a 20,000 acre ranch and farm that has been in their family for more than 100 years. The Thalers are dedicated to protecting and improving the environment. Their most important conservation goal is maintaining the health and vigor of plants on irrigated, dryland and native range for the future of cattle operations.

Watch the video now at http://www.BeefFromPastureToPlate.org/producerprofiles.aspx.

The Thaler family was recognized for their sustainable practices with the Environmental Stewardship Award Program (ESAP) in 2006. The Environmental Stewardship Award Program (ESAP), sponsored by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), Dow AgroSciences and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), annually recognizes the outstanding stewardship practices and conservation achievements of U.S. cattle producers across the nation.

Beef – From Pasture to Plate is a resource funded by The Beef Checkoff for readers to learn about these family-owned and operated businesses and their carefully developed practices for producing safe, wholesome and nutritious beef. The site profiles dedicated men and women from across the United States, who spend every day caring for their animals and working hard to provide great-tasting beef to America’s dinner tables. From Pasture to Plate provides information, photos, graphics, facts and figures, personal accounts and other resources that work together to make up the highly scientific, deeply personal and very real story of how beef gets from the pasture to your plate.

Contact: Meghan Pusey
(303) 850-3340
mpusey@beef.org

The Conservative Voice
by Alan Caruba
September 14, 2007

To put it quite simply, unless you and everyone else becomes a vegetarian or adopts the vegan (no animal products, period!) lifestyle, the Earth is going to come to an end or you will probably die from some horrid disease.

Sound extreme? Sound just a bit nutty? Not according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or a recent study, “Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health” by Professor Tony McMichael of the Australian National University and Dr. John Powles of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.

If either of these deep thinkers took a moment to contemplate the success of the human race in terms of survival and expansion, they would find that humans have twenty teeth in their mouth designed exclusively to eat meat, but only twelve for fruit and vegetables. Moreover, the human stomach is, in fact, a carnivorous organ designed primarily to digest lean meat. The small intestine, pancreas, and the liver are mainly herbivorous and designed to digest vegetables, fruits, fats and farinaceous (starch) foods. All this has been known for a very long time.

Why am I telling you this? Because for quite a while, there has been a vigorous campaign by the United Nations agency and by militant vegans to convince people that eating meat is a bad thing. The only way to respond to these “studies” and claims is to examine and debunk them.

First, however, one must ask why the FAO would foster a policy claiming that livestock is a major threat to the environment? Like the insidious Big Brother of George Orwell’s novel, “1984”, the purpose of the UN’s efforts is to exert control over every aspect of people’s lives.

Why else would an organization set up primarily to insure peace among nations create vast bureaucracies whose purpose is to advocate bogus notions such as “global warming” and then branch off with still other bureaucracies to impose restrictions based on idiotic notions such as the “precautionary principle”? Under the latter, any substance or process that might cause harm should be banned, no matter its benefit or known record of safety.

All this affords a nice living to legions of “scientists” and academics that issue reports to support ideas such as those put forth by professors McMichael and Powles. Their latest study, published in the The Lancet, a UK publication, is bound to receive the usual breathless media coverage that accompanies just about every witless environmental claim regarding the climate and every human activity.

Do you really believe that the “Worldwide average meat consumption could be realistically reduced by ten percent to reduce the already substantial impact of livestock production on greenhouse gas emissions”? Do you really believe there are “health risks posed by the rapid worldwide growth in meat consumption, both by exacerbating climate change and by directly contributing to certain diseases”?

At a time when there are more humans than ever before in recorded history, when life expectancy is being dramatically extended, when breakthroughs in genetic modification of crops to enhance both their production and the ability to increase their nutritional value, when diseases of every description are being conquered, would we ever want to return to a time when life was short, disease was rampant, and famine was the rule, not the exception?

This latest study is not about meat consumption. It is one of thousands of such specious claims that the Earth is warming dramatically due to human activity. It is one of thousands designed to alter the improving lifestyle of millions around the world who enjoy a hamburger or any other meat product, whether it be beef, lamb, chicken, or fish.

The Earth is not experiencing a rapid increase in heat. If it does increase or decrease, it will be entirely due to the actions of the Sun, the oceans, clouds, volcanoes, and the other natural factors that determine the Earth’s climate. Man is not causing the climate to change, but the climate most certainly impacts mankind.

The notion that livestock, like mankind, contribute to “global warming” is almost too ludicrous to consider, but that does not deter the FAO, the UN Environmental Programme, and countless “environmental” organizations from foisting these notions on everyone.
Like humans, each of whom exhales about two pounds of carbon dioxide daily, livestock also emit “greenhouse gases” and this is the basis for the latest study being trumpeted. However, the dominant greenhouse gas, estimated to be as much as ninety-five percent of the atmospheric layer that protects the Earth, is nothing more mysterious or threatening than water vapor.

With considerable irony, the latest “study” notes the abundance of food in the world today. If there is famine in parts of the world, it often reflects the mismanagement of agriculture by the corrupt and ignorant people who control nations that otherwise would produce sufficient food for their populations. Droughts and other natural factors contribute to famines, but food is often a weapon used against people as has been seen in Darfur, a section of Sudan where the Islamic fundamentalists in charge have been waging genocide.

Meat and the lies told about it is part of the arsenal of weapons being used to coerce and frighten people into believing that less production will “save” the Earth from the non-existent threat of “global warming” and is responsible for unidentified health threats attributed to it.

This accounts for the latest call that we all become vegetarians or vegans. It is idiotic on the face of its claims. It is a veiled attempt to further control the lives of everyone. Fight back! Have a steak tonight!

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, http://www.anxietycenter.com, a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns.” His latest book is “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, published by Merril Press.

© Alan Caruba, September 2007

Beef Cattle Production
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
August 2, 2007

Excerpt…

Each year, the NPD Group provides information called “Consumer Reported Eating Share Trends” (CREST). The report includes data that tracks beef servings in commercial restaurants. For the 12 months ending September, 2006, beef remained the most popular protein served in restaurants. Beef servings totaled 11.9 billion, compared to 10.1 billion servings of chicken. Beef servings over the 12-month time period increased by slightly more than 1 percent compared to the previous year, while chicken servings decreased slightly….

Full article at Beef Cattle Production, University of Nebraska – Lincoln.