Colo. Legislature Sends Enlightened Farm Animal Welfare Measure to Governor

Mohandas Ghandi (the Mahatma) once said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated." Colorado just took a giant karmic step in the right direction with some enlightened legislation.

On April 7, the House gave final approval to a bill that will phase out the use of veal crates and gestation crates in Colorado. The measure came at the recommendation of a coalition of Colorado-based animal agriculture organizations and The Humane Society of the United States.

SB 201 was introduced by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Jim Isgar (D-Hesperus) and House Agriculture Committee Chair Kathleen Curry (D-Gunnison). Governor Bill Ritter and Agriculture Commissioner John Stulp played a crucial and leading role in the negotiations. When Governor Bill Ritter signs the bill -- which rumor tells us he'll do -- Colorado will be the fourth state to prohibit gestation crates and the second to prohibit veal crates.

We've talked about the dangers of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and other "factory farm" measures in relation to raising cattle for beef. (See previous post "The Great Grass vs. Corn Debate.") The same thing goes for chickens, veal and pigs.

Chickens are typically raised in warehouses where thousands of birds are crowded together with barely enough room to turn around (more on this later). Veal and pork come from animals raised in crates as well. In industrial hog production, Michael Pollan tells us that it's not uncommon to find "tens of thousands of hogs spending their entire lives ignorant of earth or straw or sunshine, crowded together beneath a metal roof standing on metal slats suspended over a septic tank." And according to the American Humane Society, in the U.S., nearly six million breeding sows suffer a similar fate: "throughout nearly their entire four-month pregnancies, they're are confined inside individual metal gestation crates barely bigger than their own bodies, unable to perform many of their natural behaviors."

Currently, there is no veal industry in Colorado; however, according to The Humane Society, nearly 150,000 breeding pigs are confined in gestation crates across the state. This is what that looks like:

You've got to wonder what Ghandi would say to that! For both calves and pigs, intensive confinement in crates causes painful and severe welfare problems -- not to mention an issue with concentrated waste. The entire European Union has already banned gestation crates, effective in 2007 and 2013, respectively; however, in the United States, the use of these abusive crates remains customary practice.

Thank goodness, we live in an enlightened state.

SB 201 phases out veal crates within four years, and it phases out gestation crates within 10 years. It also jumpstarts a process, to be administered by the Agriculture Commissioner, to allow for ongoing deliberation about animal welfare issues in animal agriculture.

Here are some related items of interest, compliments of The Humane Society:

• Florida, Arizona and Oregon have prohibited gestation crates. Arizona has prohibited veal crates. And nearly 800,000 Californians have signed petitions to initiate a measure to prohibit veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages (for chickens).
• Smithfield Foods, the largest U.S. pig producer, is phasing out gestation crates, and the American Veal Association voted to urge the entire veal industry to phase out veal crates.
• Colorado-based chain Chipotle already refuses to buy any pork from producers that use gestation crates.
• Chains such as Safeway, Burger King, Carl's Junior and Hardees have also implemented policies to reduce their reliance on gestation crate pork.

I don't know about you, but I'm tickled pink to live in a state that's in the vanguard on these issues. Congratulations to our legislators, coalitions and citizens on a job well done!

Beef Labeling 101

So you’re looking for grass-fed beef. You find some fresh ground beef at the local grocer labeled as “grass fed” and you think you’re home free. In reality, that cow could have spent the last three to four months of its life in a Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), been implanted with growth hormones and shot up with sub-therapeutic and therapeutic antibiotics, and, until recently -- fed any unimaginable combination of “legally approved foods.”

“Ew....”

Is that what you thought you were getting?

If not, it’s time to take a minute to understand what all the various meat labels really mean.

Here’s a quick summary:

• Grass Fed —Last October, the USDA issued a voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims. The grass fed standard states that “grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage and animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season.” Notice that the term “access to pasture” is open to interpretation, and that the definition doesn’t include any requirements about hormone use, antibiotic use, how it’s raised, whether or not it was fed an organic diet, or whether or not it has ever been confined to a feedlot.

• Organic -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has established a set of national standards that food labeled "organic" must meet, whether it is grown in the United States or imported from other countries. After October 21, 2002, when you buy food labeled "organic," you can be sure that it was produced using organic production and handling standards. The organic label means that the animal (1) has undergone no genetic modification; (2) was fed grass or grain that was 100 percent organic, and (3) was not treated with antibiotics, growth hormones, or chemical pesticides. In addition, all organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants. They may be temporarily confined only for reasons of health, safety, the animal's stage of production, or to protect soil or water quality. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier completes an inspection to make sure the farmer/producer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. The USDA Organic seal also tells you that a product is at least 95 percent organic.

• Natural – As the USDA puts it: "All fresh meat qualifies as natural." The natural label refers to a product that contains no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product.) The label must explain the use of the term natural (such as - no added colorings or artificial ingredients; minimally processed.) Notice that there are no requirements pertaining to how an animal is raised, what it’s fed, whether or not it’s given hormones or antibiotics, or how it’s treated. Because there is no government certification program for natural food products, many companies use the term “natural” in their product branding or labeling -- and research tells us that consumers are often confused about what “natural” really means. A national poll conducted by Consumer Reports in 2007 found that nine out of ten consumers expect “natural” meat to come from animals that were raised on a diet without drugs, chemicals or other artificial ingredients.”[1]

• Certified -- The term "certified" implies that the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Agriculture Marketing Service have officially evaluated a meat product for class, grade, or other quality characteristics (e.g., "Certified Angus Beef"). When used under other circumstances, the term must be closely associated with the name of the organization responsible for the "certification" process, e.g., "XYZ Company's Certified Beef".

• No Hormones -- The term "no hormones administered" may be approved for use on the label of beef products if sufficient documentation is provided to the USDA by the producer showing no hormones have been used in raising the animals.

• No Antibiotics -- The terms "no antibiotics added" may be used on labels for meat or poultry products if sufficient documentation is provided by the producer to the USDA demonstrating that the animals were raised without antibiotics.

• No Animal Byproducts, Never Confined to a Feedlot — Not defined or recognized by the USDA, these marketing claims attest that no animal byproducts were used in the feed of the cow(s) and that the animals were never confined to a feedlot.

• Irradiation — Meat that has been irradiated to reduce bacteria levels must be labeled "Treated by Irradiation" or "Treated with Radiation."

• Halal and Zabiah Halal -- Products prepared by federally inspected meat packing plants identified with labels bearing references to "Halal" or "Zabiah Halal" must be handled according to Islamic law and under Islamic authority.

• Kosher -- "Kosher" may be used only on the labels of meat and poultry products prepared under Rabbinical supervision.

• Prime, Choice, and Select — These USDA grades are a subjective measure of quality and imply nothing about how the cow was raised. Grading is based on several factors but is primarily determined by the amount of marbling – or how much fat is distributed throughout. Prime cuts have the most marbling, Choice cuts are next and Select cuts have the least amount of marbling.

• Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is still under debate. COOL labeling became mandatory Oct. 1, 2004. However, in 2005 beef producers were granted additional time to ready their systems, and implementation was delayed until Sept. 30, 2008. On July 27, 2007, the House of Representatives passed its version of the 2007 Farm Bill, which kept intact provisions for mandatory country-of-origin labeling, and on Dec. 14, 2007, the Senate passed its version, which also included mandatory labeling. COOL labeling will help you determine if your grass-fed beef was imported from Argentina or Brazil, or raised in the USA.

That’s a quick overview of the labeling quagmire. If you care about the quality and healthfulness of your food (and the sustainability of your food system), your best bet is to get to know the retailers and ranchers who raise and sell it.

Stay tuned: we’ll be directing you to local retail outlets and local producers of grass-fed beef in upcoming posts.

[1] Consumer Reports food-labelling pollshows consumers want to know where their food comes from and expect higher label standards. http://grennerchoices.org/printProduct.cfm?product=crfood, as accessed 02/04/08

Where's the Beef? -- The Great Corn vs. Grass Debate

I grew up in the very heart of the Midwest. Back then, all you heard about was corn-fed beef – its marbling, its tenderness, its superior taste...

Now, it’s hard to find a marketing claim about corn-fed beef.

That’s because the preponderance of evidence is telling us that grass-fed (and grass-finished) beef is superior to conventionally raised, corn-fed beef in nearly every way. Let’s take a look at the research.

(Note: In this post, we’re focusing on beef, but the same thing goes for grass-fed poultry, eggs and dairy.)

Grass-fed beef is better for you.

• Research shows it’s lower in fat and calories. Meat from grass-fed animals can have as much as one-third less fat when compared to a similar cut from a grain-fed animal.[1] According to Jo Robinson -- one of the industry’s strongest advocates -- if you eat a typical amount of beef, switching to grass-fed beef can save you nearly 18,000 calories a year![2]


• It provides more omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids are good for you. They’ve been shown to significantly reduce triglyceride levels in the blood[3] and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.[4] Research suggest that people who consume a sufficient amount of omega-3s are less likely to have high blood pressure and are 50 percent less likely to have a serious heart attack.[5] They are also less likely to be depressed, or be afflicted with schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder, or Alzheimer’s disease.[6] Meat from grass-fed animals typically contains 50 to 85 percent more omega-3s than meat from grain-fed livestock.[7]


• It provides more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is another healthy fat found in the meat and dairy products of ruminants. Studies done in animals and in vitro demonstrate that CLA can inhibit cancers (especially breast cancer), reduce risk factors for cardiovascular disease, improve insulin sensitivity and produce an anti-inflammatory effect.[8] CLA may also protect against cancer. Robinson cites a Finnish study that showed women with the highest levels of CLA in their diet had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels.[9] Another study measured CLA levels in the breast tissue of 360 French women and found that the women with the most CLA had a 74 percent lower risk of breast cancer than the women with the least CLA.[10] Research shows that meat from grass-fed ruminants can contain 3 to 5 times more CLA than meat from grain-fed animals.[11]


• It’s higher in vitamins. Products from grass-fed animals have also been shown to be a superior source of Vitamins A, C, D, E and beta-carotene. According to a study completed at CSU, meat from pastured cattle is four-times higher in vitamin E than the meat from feedlot cattle.[12]
  

It’s better for the animals.

• Raising animals on pasture used to be a predominant model of food production in the U.S. However, during the 50s, new techniques were introduced to improve the efficiency of beef production, a trend which continues even as we speak. As a result, most of the meat, eggs and dairy products sold in grocery stores today come from Confined Animal Feeding Operations, (CAFOs). These operations apply the same principles of mass production we see in factories. Thousands of animals are housed together in cramped quarters, with little or no exercise. While CAFOs provide maximum production at minimum cost, they also raise serious questions about ethics, food safety, and environmental impacts. Here’s what a cattle feed-lot looks like:
  

For an expose of CAFOs, check out The Meatrix. Clearly, animals allowed to forage for grass in pastures have a better life.

• The diets of factory-raised animals are hard on the animals. Ruminants (i.e., cud-chewing animals such as cattle) are built to eat and digest cellulose-based products such as grasses, plants and shrubs. When you feed them corn, it can cause serious intestinal disorders, such as “feedlot bloat” (a condition that causes trapped gas to accumulate in the rumen, causing the rumen to press against the lungs; if left untreated, the animal can actually suffocate)[13] and “subacute acidosis” (a condition similar to heartburn, which causes animals to pant and salivate, kick at their bellies and eat dirt; if left untreated it can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, liver abscesses and even death.[14]
  

It’s safer.

• Do you know what factory-fed animals are eating? As the industry continually seeks less to lower feed costs, truly astonishing materials are finding their way into our food chain. According to Sapkota, et al, (2007) “In 2003, the U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million metric tons of rendered animal products, including meat and bone meal, poultry by-product meal, blood meal and feather meal. Most of these products were incorporated into animal feed.” [15] Since the advent of "mad cow" disease, the U.S. has banned the feeding of protein sources from ruminants to other ruminants.[16] However, under current law, pigs, chickens, and turkeys that have been fed rendered cattle can be rendered and fed back to cattle—a loophole that may allow mad cow agents to infect healthy cattle. Other legally permitted ingredients include rendered road kill, dead horse, euthanized dogs and cats, [17] animal waste, antibiotics, byproducts of drug manufacture, arsenicals, copper compounds, urea, ammonium chloride and ammonium sulfate, enzymes, preservatives, nutraceuticals, and plastics.[18]

• Factory-raised animals are given antibiotics and growth hormones. In an effort to manage the effects of grain-based feeds in ruminants and to protect against the potential spread of disease, CAFO operators tend to administer antibiotics – including penicillin, erythromycin, and streptomycin[19] -- routinely. Robinson reports that “an estimated 70 percent of all the antibiotics used in the U.S. are now being given to healthy animals to improve their growth and performance.”[20] Moreover, cattle CAFO operators use growth hormones or steroids to help the animals gain the maximum amount of weight on the least amount of time; in fact, nine out of 10 U.S. calves are given growth hormones, including estrogens, progesterone, testosterone and others.[21]

• Grain-fed animals may be promoting food-borne diseases. Raising animals in such close quarters creates concern about the potential spread of disease (not to mention increased vulnerability to terrorist attack.) A study by Cornell University determined that grain-fed animals have approximately 300 times more E. coli than grass-fed animals.[22] This proliferation may be due to the fact that when cattle are grain fed, their digestive tracts become acidic, which promotes E. coli growth. E. coli 0157:H7, a strain first isolated in the 1980s, is now found in the intestines of most U. S. feedlot cattle. In the U.S., this bacteria is estimated to cause infection in more than 70,000 people a year.[23] Last October, it sparked the second largest food recall in the history of the U.S., when nearly 22 million pounds of frozen beef patties were recalled due to E. coli concerns. Other bacteria are also causing alarm. In a 2003 study of food-borne pathogens, Australian researchers found that campylobacter – a bacteria that can cause nausea, vomiting fever, headache, muscle pain and potenitally serious long-term effects -- is carried by 58 percent of cattle raised in feed lots versus only 2 percent of cattle raised and finished in pastures.[24]

It’s better for the environment.

• Waste from CAFOs poses a serious threat to the environment. The sheer population density of CAFOs creates a huge issue in terms of animal waste. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that CAFOs account for more than 250 million tons of manure every year.[25] In studies of CAFOs, CDC has shown that chemical and infectious compounds from animal waste are able to migrate into nearby soil and water,[26] and the EPA has acknowledged that hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.[27] According to the Center for Disease Control, pollutants possibly associated with manure-related discharges at CAFOs include antibiotics; pathogens; excess nutrients, such as ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus; pesticides and hormones; solids, such as feed and feathers; and trace elements, such as arsenic and copper, which can contaminate surface waters and possibly harm human health.
  

Heard enough? Are you ready to try some good old grass-fed beef? Then stay tuned. In the next post we’ll take a look at where to find it in Colorado….

Resources:
[1] Health Benefits of Grass-fed Products, http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm as accessed 1/23/08
[2] Robinson, J., Grass-fed Meats Research, http://sevensons.net/why-grass-fed/benefits of grass-fed-meats.htm
[3] Wikipedia, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid, as accessed 01/28/08
[4] Ibid.
[5] Robinson, J., Grass-fed Meats Research, http://sevensons.net/why-grass-fed/benefits of grass-fed-meats.htm
[6] Ibid.
[7] Robbins, J., What About Grass-fed Beef? http://foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm, as accessed 1/25/08.
[8] Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Dietary Beef, Beef Facts, Human Nutrition Research,© Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 06/15/2007
[9] Dhiman, T. A., Anand, G. R., et al (1999) “Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets.” Journal of Dairy Science 82 (10): 2146-56
[10] Bougnoux, P., Lavillonniere, F., Riboli, E., “Inverse relation between CLA in adipose breast tissue and risk of breast cancer,” Inform 10;5:S43, 1999
[11] T. R. Dhiman (2001). "Role of diet on conjugated linoleic acid content of milk and meat.". Journal of Animal Science 79. http://www.adsa.org/jointabs/iaafs108.pdf, as accessed 01/25/08.
[12] Smith, G.C., Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle improve shelf life and case of beef for domestic & international markets, Colorado State University,
[13] Power Steer, by Michael Pollan, N Y Times Magazine, March 31, 2002, http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg05843.htm, as accessed 1/25/08
[14] Grass Fed Basic, by Jo Robinson, http://eatwild.com/basics.html, as accessed 01/23/08.
[15] Sapkota, A. R., Lefferts, L. Y., McKenzie, S., and Walker, P., What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health. As published in Environmental Health Perspectives, 115:5 663 – 670, May 2007. [16] Cattle Feeding, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/corn-fed_beef, as accessed 01/25/08
[17] The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/they-eat-what.html, as accessed 1/25/08
[18] Sapkota, A. R., et al, 2007.
[19] Russel, S., Fight to curtail antibiotics in animal feed, as published in SF Gate.com, January 28, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file+/c/a/2008/01/28MNSTUGD8E.DTL &type, as accessed 01/28/08.
[20] Robinson, J., What you need to know about the beef you eat, as published in Mother Earth News, February/March 2008, pp 74 -84.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Cattle Feeding from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.orf/wiki/corn-fed_beef as accessed 1/25/08
[23] http://www.medicinenet.com/e_coli__0157h7/article.htm
[24] Ibid
[25] Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), http://www.cdc.gov/cafos/about.htm, as accessed 01/28/08
[26] Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/cafos/about.htm, as accessed 01/29/08
[27] Keep Animal Waste Out of Our Waters-- Stop Factory Farm Pollution http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/ as accessed 1/28/08