When Tyson Foods, the nation's largest meat processor which buys roughly a quarter of all beef cattle, announced it plans to suspend buying cattle next month that have been fed the short-term feed additive Zilmax, it raised the potential for yet another round of questions from your beef shoppers about this "growth hormone." Here a few points to help you answer their questions:
Because the Internet and social media have become such important sources of information for grocery shoppers, Farmer Goes to Market regularly tracks food-news and food-safety warnings found in those sources. We will bring you regular updates on food-news reports that, by nature of their contamination with factual inaccuracies, insunuation and incomplete reporting, present a real risk to harm the average citizen's understanding of the food chain and food production.
This month's alert centers around another Facebook food scare, this time about the hazard of poisoning by chlorine related to eating baby carrots. What's the truth behind this latest social-media driven food panic about how baby carrots are grown, how they're processed, and the real risks involved?
DANGER TO YOUR FAMILY!!
From the Department of Life Education:
Baby Carrots: The following is information from a farmer who grows and packages carrots for IGA, METRO, LOBLAWS, etc.
The small cocktail (baby) carrots you buy in small plastic bags are made using the larger crooked or deformed carrots which are put through a machine which cuts and shapes them into cocktail carrots - most people probably know this already. What you may not know and should know is the following: Once the carrots are cut and shaped into cocktail carrots they are dipped in a solution of water and chlorine in order to preserve them (this is the same chlorine used in your pool). Since they do not have their skin or natural protective covering, they give them a higher dose of chlorine. You will notice that once you keep these carrots in your refrigerator for a few days, a white covering will form on the carrots. This is the chlorine which resurfaces. At what cost do we put our health at risk to have esthetically pleasing vegetables?
Chlorine is a very well-known carcinogen, which causes Cancer. I thought this was worth passing on. Pass it on to as many people as possible in hopes of informing them where these carrots come from and how they are processed. I used to buy those baby carrots for vegetable dips. I know that I will never buy them again!!!!
Last year was the driest year on record, beating even the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s, said rancher Mike Kelly, from Sutherland, speaking at this year's Water for Food Global Conference, May 5 through 8 in Lincoln. Yet not only did his farming operation not suffer devastation, neither did the wildlife and habitat that shelter on his family's operation. How did he and thousands of other Nebraska farmers and ranchers accomplish that seemingly impossible task? By intelligent land management using today's technology to stretch the use of water. Click on the video below to watch an excerpt of Mike's comments. Go here to watch more videos about managing agriculture to use water wisely.
As retailers continue to buy into the "sustainable food" message, farm organizations are responding by arguing that using technology permits more food to be raised using fewer resources, which improves sustainability. Advances in productivity driven by technology in beef production over the past 30 years, for instance, have reduced the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of its production, argues Washington State assistant professor of animal science Jude Capper. Comparing the environmental impact of the US beef industry in 1977 to 2007, she says, shows that improvements in nutrition, management, growth rate and slaughter weights have significantly reduced the environmental impact of modern beef production. That technological boost improves beef's sustainability, she argues.
“These findings challenge the common misconception that historical methods of livestock production are more environmentally sustainable than modern beef production,” said Capper.
A recently released study by Greenpeace International, however, challenges the notion that efficiency improvements can make modern meat production sustainable. It should give grocers a stark reminder of how far apart the two ends of the spectrum are when it comes to compromising on an acceptable “sustainability,” and how unacceptable their most profitable category remains to a segment of society.
Greenpeace’s 36-page report, Ecological Livestock, identifies what the 2.8-million member environmental-activist association believes are the practical options for reducing livestock production and consumption to fit within ecological limits the world will face by 2050. Although it targets Europe as the best example of the Developed World’s contribution to livestock-based environmental damage, the writing on the wall should be clear to American beef retailers, as well.
Greenpeace’s definition of “ecological farming” could have come right of the Beef Checkoff program’s sustainability project: It “…ensures healthy farming and healthy food for today and tomorrow, by protecting soil, water and climate, promotes biodiversity, and does not contaminate the environment…” And in case you’re tempted to dismiss Greenpeace's recommendations as simply vegetarian-driven, take note that the report actually concedes a necessary role for livestock and meat production in a sustainable system: “Ecological livestock integrates farm animals as essential elements in the agriculture system; they help optimise the use and cycling of nutrients and, in many regions, provide necessary farm working force,” it says. “Ecological livestock relies on grasslands, pasture and residues for feed, minimising use of arable land and competition with land for direct human food production, and protecting natural ecosystems within a globally equitable food system.”
Yet the similarity in definition of the end masks a vast divide in the means to get there. The very marvel of increased efficiency farm groups hold up as evidence of its sustainability condemns it in the eyes of the organization’s report:
“It is often suggested that gains in livestock production efficiency, for example by technological advances, will compensate for growth in livestock numbers, and thus ameliorate its impacts. However, given projected livestock expansion by 2050 and current impacts on safe operating space of the planetary boundaries for biomass and biodiversity, nitrogen and greenhouse gases, the magnitude of efficiency gains would have to be disproportionate to be sufficient. For example, [one study] calculated that efficiency gains would have to be between 136 percent and 433 percent to maintain livestock impacts within acceptable impacts level.... The magnitude of these efficiency gains makes them very unrealistic within the next 50 years. … the livestock sector will effectively double in number in the next decades, and its impacts will also multiply. Technological advances and gains in efficiency will not be sufficient to limit unacceptable damage to our planet’s resources.”
What's the bottom line, according to Greenpeace?
Only a “drastic reduction in livestock numbers,” coupled with a system in which livestock only remove the amount of resources they put back into the system, and in which the higher productivity of the entire food system (not just individual parts, like beef production) with minimal inputs, will suffice as "sustainable." In order to meet the realistic goal of simply holding livestock production at year 2000 levels by year 2050, Western Europe would have to cut its consumption of meat by more than three times current levels. Although Greenpeace doesn’t do the math for us in the report, that target would require U.S. consumers to cut their meat consumption to fully one-fourth of current levels.
Recent news reports about Russian and Chinese buyers closing their borders to U.S. pork over concerns about the feed additive ractopamine suddenly thrust this decade-old product into the news, threatening to make it the next "pink slime" you must explain to nervous shoppers. What is ractopamine, and should your shoppers be concerned about its use?
Q: What is ractopamine?
A: Ractopamine is a synthetic compound that belongs to a class of organic chemicals called "phenethanolamines" which function as what are known as "beta-agonists." In humans, beta-agonists, like albuterol, are used to treat asthma because they stimulate the muscles of the airways to relax and improve airflow. In animals, beta-agonists function as what are known as "repartitioning agents." Repartitioning agents signal the muscle tissue to change how it devotes the energy the animal extracts from the feed it eats into muscle vs. fat. Fed for a short term, they can cause animals that have the right genetics to devote more of that nutritional energy to making muscle, which becomes meat, and less to putting down fat. That repartitioning ultimately not only improves the consumer acceptability of the meat cuts, it also improves farmers' profitability by using less feed per pound of animal grown. Ractopamine has been approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for use in pigs in the United States since 1999, for cattle since 2003 and for turkeys since 2009. It is similarly approved in about two dozen countries around the world.
Q: How much ractopamine is used?
A: Because ractopamine functions in a particularly unusual way, having its highest impact on the animal's growth at the top of its growth curve--that is to say, just as it is peaking in growth and preparing to go to processing--it can be used for relatively short periods of time, rather than throughout the animal's entire life. In swine, for instance, it is used only for about the last 45 days before animals leave the farm, and only at a rate equal to about one to 2.5 packets of Kool-Aid mixed into a ton of feed.
Q: Is it safe?
A: Like every animal drug that farmers are allowed to use, ractopamine has been through a carefully monitored series of experiments overseen by the FDA to guarantee it is safe for both the animals that receive it and the people who eat the meat from those animals. Because the animal clears ractopamine from its body quickly compared to some other animal drugs--pigs, for instance, eliminate 85 percent of the drug between the time they leave the farm and the time they enter the packing plant--little of it remains in the slaughtered animal's system. Any trace residue that does is far below the level FDA considers safe for longterm consumption, based on animal tests that build in a wide margin of safety. In addition to the FDA and the United Nations (Codex) food safety body, 28 other regulatory authorities globally have accepted the research that says human food produced using the compound is safe for humans. In more than a decade of use, no adverse human health reports have been associated with people eating meat from animals fed ractopamine.
Q: If it's safe, why are other countries banning it?
A. The controversy over ractopamine illustrates the problem with agreeing on scientific standards in world trade today. Unlike the United States, in which FDA relies on specific scientific standards of measurement in approving products, other countries, particularly the European Union member countries, open the drug approval process up to consumer input, as well. That effectively means that when drugs are approved, they must clear not only scientific hurdles, but social ones, as well. That difference in philosophy may ultimately seal the fate for ractopamine and the efficiency improvement it means for American farmers. Some packers are already moving toward producing a ractopamine-free supply to protect export markets. Should that dual-chain become too expensive to maintain, the packing industry could conceivably move toward forcing farmers to give up the proven safe product in order to protect their export markets.