There are plenty of reasons to choose grass fed beef, pork & poultry; when its produced locally, the benefits are multiplied!
|
You Are What Your Animals Eat
by Jo Robinson
In my investigation into pasture-based farming, I've stumbled upon an alarming state of affairs: few animal scientists see any link between animal feed and human food. "Feed animals anything you want," say the experts, "and it makes no difference to their meat, milk, or eggs." Because of this mindset, our animals are being fed just about anything that enhances the bottom line, including chicken feathers, sawdust, chicken manure, stale pizza dough, potato chips, and candy bars.
Here's a glaring example. A 1996 study explored the desirability of feeding stale chewing gum to cattle.(1) Amazingly, the gum was still in its aluminum foil wrappers. Wonder of wonders, the experts concluded that bubblegum diet was a net benefit---at least for the producers. I quote: "Results of both experiments suggest that [gum and packaging material] may be fed to safely replace up to 30% of corn-alfalfa hay diets for growing steers with advantages in improving dry matter intake and digestibility." In other words, feed a steer a diet that is 30 percent bubblegum and aluminum foil wrappers, and it will be a more efficient eater. With a nod to public safety, the researchers did check to see how much aluminum was deposited in the various organs of the cattle. Not to worry. The aluminum content was "within normal expected ranges." As always, there was no mention of the nutritional content of the resulting meat.
When I first read the bubblegum studies, I assumed that no one would actually feed bubblegum to their animals, despite the "positive outcome" of the research.. Then a professor of animal science drove me by a Beechnut gum factory in upstate New York where dairy farmers bought truckloads of bubble gum to feed to their cows.
The view from the other side of the fence is just as sobering. Most experts in human nutrition are equally blind to the feed/food connection. To them, beef is beef, eggs are eggs, and milk is milk. Thus, when the USDA says "eat less red meat," the edict applies to all red meat, whether it's a fatty steak from a grainfed cow, or a lean steak from a grassfed cow with its invisible bounty of omega-3s, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and CLA.
I've spent the past four years trying to forge the missing link between animal and human nutrition. It's been tough going, especially when it comes pasture-raised animals because virtually all the studies focus on feedlot animals. To fill in the gap, I've searched through yellowing journals published before the advent of factory farming, pieced together small studies financed by farmers, and combed through the research from Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand—parts of the world where animals are still kept home on the range.
Finding the amount of vitamin E in grassfed meat has been one of my biggest challenges. I began tthe search when I learned that grass has 20 times more vitamin E than corn or soy. Given the magnitude of this difference, I reasoned that meat from grassfed animals must have an extra helping of vitamin E.
At long last, I located one American study that broached the subject. The impetus for the study came from disgruntled Japanese buyers who complained that American beef spoiled more quickly than Australian free-range beef. Knowing that vitamin E helped prolong shelf life, the American researchers investigated the amount of vitamin E in the two types of meat. Lo and behold, they discovered that the meat from grassfed cattle had three to four times more vitamin E than feedlot beef, thanks to all that vitamin E-rich grass.
Now, what did the researchers do with this finding? True to form, they began studying how much synthetic vitamin E to add to synthetic feedlot diets. I doubt that it even occurred to them to investigate pasture-based ranching.
Why this lack of interest in the natural model? Much of our animal research is funded by commercial interests—specifically the grain, chemical, pharmaceutical, farm equipment, and meat-packing companies. Together, these vertically integrated behemoths have a multi-billion dollar stake in perpetuating factory farming. The USDA, meanwhile, aids and abets the feedlot industry by focusing virtually all of its efforts—and our tax dollars!—on tweaking the system. For example, the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, is more willing to spend $100,000 researching how quickly feedlot manure seeps into the water table than to spend a similar amount of money investigating pasture-based ranching, the holistic model that keeps the contamination from happening in the first place.
What will it take to draw more scientific attention to pasture-based ranching? Pressure from an enlightened public. And what will it take to enlighten the public? The national media.
I have a fantasy how this might happen. First, a prominent media source such as "60 minutes" or The New York Times will decide to spotlight pasture-based farming. Building on this ground-breaking work, an award-winning TV producer will create a documentary that deepens the discussion. The program will conclude—as it must—-that raising animals on pasture is better for consumers, the animals, the environment, and small farmers. Before long, dozens of news shows, newspapers, and magazines will follow suit.
As the momentum builds, grassfarming will become the talk of the town. Serving organic meat won't win points in Los Angeles anymore unless it's grassfed as well. Meanwhile, Ted Turner will stop sending all of his bison to feedlots to be fattened like cattle, and by 2005, his "Turner Reserve Grassfed Bison" will be the thing to serve at celebrity gatherings. Propelled by this groundswell of interest, private and government institutions will finally devote more time, money and energy to exploring pasture-based farming.
Will grassfarming ever become the darling of the media? Only time will tell. But even if the media misses the boat, the good news about grassfarming will keep spreading on the grassroots level, one satisfied customer at a time!
Jo Robinson is a New York Times bestselling writer. She is the author or coauthor of 11 nationally published books including Pasture Perfect, which is a comprehensive overview of the benefits of choosing products from pasture-raised animals, and The Omega Diet (with Dr. Artemis Simopoulos) that describes an omega-3 enriched Mediterranean diet that may be the healthiest eating program of all. To order her books or learn more about grassfed products, visit http://eatwild.com.
1) Wolf, B. W., L. L. Berger, et al. (1996). "Effects of feeding a return chewing gum/packaging material mixture on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle." J Anim Sci 74(11): 2559-65.
Note: I wrote this article in 2000. Since then, pasture-based farming has been featured in:
- The Smithsonian
- The New York Times
- The Washington Post
- The Wall Street Journal
- The Dallas Morning News
- Mother Earth News
- Wine Spectator
- The Oregonian
- The LA Times
- The San Francisco Chronicle
- CBC News Marketplace
- Delicious Living
- House and Garden
- The Atlantic Monthly
- The National Review
- National Public Radio
|
Confused About Fat?
Choose Grassfed!
by Jo Robinson
In my Grandma's day, there was no such thing as a bad fat. All fat was "good" simply because it tasted good. My Grandma fried her eggs in bacon grease, added bacon grease to her cakes and pancakes, made her pie crusts from lard, and served butter with her homemade bread. My grandmother was able to thrive on all that saturated fat—but not my grandfather. He suffered from angina and died from heart failure at a relatively young age.
My grandfather wasn't alone. Population studies from the first half of the 20th century showed that Americans in general had a much higher risk of cardiovascular disease than people from other countries, especially Japan, Italy and Greece. Was all that saturated fat to blame? The Japanese were eating very little fat of any kind, while the people of the Mediterranean were swimming in olive oil, an oil that is very low in saturated fat but high in monounsaturated oils.
So, in the 1960s, word came from on high that we should cut back on the butter, cream, eggs and red meat. But, interestingly, the experts did not advise us to switch to an ultra-low fat diet like the Japanese, nor to use monounsaturated oils like the Greeks or Italians. Instead, we were advised to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated oils—primarily corn oil and safflower. Never mind the fact that no people in the history of this planet had ever eaten large amounts of this type of oil. It was deemed "the right thing to do." Why? First of all, the United States had far more corn fields than olive groves, so it seemed reasonable to use the type of oil that we had in abundance. But just as important, according to the best medical data at the time, corn oil and safflower oil seemed to lower cholesterol levels better than monounsaturated oils.
Today, we know that's not true. In the 1960s, researchers did not differentiate between "good" HDL cholesterol and "bad" LDL cholesterol. Instead, they lumped both types together and focused on lowering the sum of the two. Polyunsaturated oils seemed to do this better than monounsaturated oils. We now know they achieve this feat by lowering both our bad and our good cholesterol, in effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Monounsaturated oils leave our HDL intact.
In hindsight, it's not surprising, then, that our death rate from cardiovascular disease remained high in the 1970s and 80s even though we were eating far less butter, eggs, bacon grease, and red meat: We had been told to replace saturated fat with the wrong kind of oil.
During this same era, our national health statistics were highlighting another problem, this one even more ominous: an increasing number of people were dying from cancer. Why were cancer deaths going up? Was it the fact that our environment was more polluted? That our food had more additives, herbicides and pesticides? That our lives were more stressful? That we were not eating enough fruits and vegetables? Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
But there was another reason we were losing the war against cancer: the supposedly "heart-healthy" corn oil and safflower oil that the doctors had advised us to pour on our salads and spread on our bread contained high amounts of a type of fat called "omega-6 fatty acids." There is now strong evidence that omega-6s can make cancer cells grow faster and more invasive. For example, if you were to inject a colony of rats with human cancer cells and then put some of the rats on a corn oil diet, some on a butterfat diet, and some on a beef fat diet, the ones given the omega-6 rich corn oil would be afflicted with larger and more aggressive tumors.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to us, we were getting a second helping of omega-6s from our animal products. Starting in the 1950s, the meat industry had begun taking our animals off pasture and fattening them on grains high in omega-6s, adding to our intake of these potentially cancer-promoting fats.
In the early 1990s, we learned that our modern diet was harboring yet another unhealthy fat: trans-fatty acids. Trans-fatty acids are formed during the hydrogenation process that converts vegetable oil into margarine and shortening. Carefully designed studies were showing that these manmade fats are worse for our cardiovascular system than the animal fats they replaced. Like some saturated fats, they raise our bad cholesterol. But unlike the fats found in nature, they also lower our good cholesterol—delivering a double whammy to our coronary arteries. "Maybe butter is better after all," conceded the health experts.
Given all this conflicting advice about fat, consumers were ready to lob their tubs of margarine at their doctors. For decades they had been skimping on butter, even though margarine tasted little better than salty Vaseline. Now they were being told that margarine might increase their risk of a heart attack!
Some people revolted by trying to abandon fat altogether. For breakfast, they made do with dry toast and fat-free cottage cheese. For lunch, they ate salad greens sprinkled with pepper and vinegar. Dinner was a skinless chicken breast poached in broth. Or better yet, a soy burger topped with lettuce. Dessert? Well, after all that self-denial, what else but a big bowl of fat-free ice cream and a box of Snackwell cookies. Thank goodness calories no longer counted! Only fat made you fat!
Or, so the diet gurus had told us. Paradoxically, while we were doing our best to ferret out all the fat grams, we were getting fatter and fatter. We were also becoming more prone to diabetes. Replacing fat with sugar and refined carbohydrates was proving to be no more beneficial than replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated oils.
At long last, in the mid-1990s, the first truly good news about fat began to emerge from the medical labs. The first fats to be given the green light were the monounsaturated oils, the ones that had helped protect the health of the Mediterraneans for so many generations. These oils are great for the heart, the scientists discovered, and they do not promote cancer. They are also a deterrent against diabetes. The news came fifty years too late, but it was welcome nonetheless. Please pass the olive oil!
Stearic acid, the most abundant fat in beef and chocolate, was also found to be beneficial. Unlike some other saturated fats, stearic acid does not raise your bad cholesterol and it may even give your good cholesterol a little boost. Hooray!
Then, at the tail end of the 20th century, two more "good" fats were added to the roster—omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA, the fat found in the meat and dairy products of ruminants. Both of these fats show signs of being potent weapons against cancer. However, the omega-3s may be the best of all the good fats because they are also linked with a lower risk of virtually all the so-called "diseases of civilization," including cardiovascular disease, depression, ADHD, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, obesity, asthma, and autoimmune diseases.
So, some of you may be wondering, what does this brief history of fat have to do with grassfarming? Few people realize that all omega-3s originate in the green leaves of plants and algae. Fish have large amounts of this good fat because they eat small fish that eat smaller fish that dine on omega-3 rich algae and phytoplankton. Grazing animals have more omega-3s because they get the omega-3s directly from the grass. In both cases, the omega-3s are ultimately passed on to humans, the top of the food chain.
Products from grassfed animals offer us more than omega-3s. They contain significant amounts of two "good" fats, monounsaturated oils and stearic acid, but no manmade trans-fatty acids. They are also the richest known natural source of CLA and contain extra amounts of vitamin E and beta-carotene. Finally, grassfed meat is lower than feedlot meat in total fat and calories, making it ideally suited for our sedentary lifestyles.
I don't believe it's a matter of luck or chance that grassfed products have so many of the good fats but so few of the bad. In fact, I'll wager that the more that is discovered about fat in the coming years, the more grassfed meat will shine. The reason for my confidence is simple: our bodies are superbly adapted to this type of food. In the distant past, grassfed meat was the only meat around. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors either brought home a grazing ruminant such as elk, deer, or bison, or a predator that preyed on those animals. Either way, the nutrients found in grass made their way into the animals' flesh, and ultimately, into our own.
Over the eons, our bodies began to "expect" the kinds and amounts of fat found in grassfed meat. Our hearts counted on the omega-3s to stabilize their rhythm and keep blood clots from forming. Our brain cells relied on omega-3 to build flexible, receptor-rich membranes. Our immune systems used the omega-3s and CLA to help fend off cancer. And because wild game is relatively lean, our bodies weren't burdened with unnecessary amounts of fat or calories.
When we switch from grainfed to grassfed meat, then, we are simply returning to our original diet, the diet that is most in harmony with our physiology. Every cell and system of our bodies function better when we eat products from animals raised on grass.
Jo Robinson is a New York Times bestselling writer. She is the author or coauthor of 11 nationally published books including Pasture Perfect, which is a comprehensive overview of the benefits of choosing products from pasture-raised animals, and The Omega Diet (with Dr. Artemis Simopoulos) that describes an omega-3 enriched Mediterranean diet that may be the healthiest eating program of all. To order her books or learn more about grassfed products, visit http://eatwild.com.
|
Beyond Organic
By Jo Robinson
Organic meat, poultry, and dairy products are now available at your supermarket, which is a change for the better. When you see the organic label, you know the food is going to be free of pesticide residues, synthetic hormones, genetically modified organisms, and a long list of questionable additives. You also have the satisfaction of knowing that raising animals organically causes less harm to the environment. But when it comes to animal production, organic is not enough. We need to be raising animals on their species-appropriate diets.
Few consumers realize that many producers of "organic" or "naturally raised" animal products, raise their animals in confinement and feed them grain---just like the operators of conventional feedlots. Feeding large amounts of grain to a grazing animal decreases the nutritional value of its products whether the grain is organic or conventionally raised. The reason is simple. Compared with grass, grain has far fewer omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E.(1) Therefore, grainfed animals have fewer of these important nutrients in their meat and dairy products. Grainfeeding also interferes with the creation of a cancer-fighting fight called conjugated linoleic acid or CLA.(2) I A test by an independent lab determined that milk from one of the largest organic grain-fed dairies had no more omega-3 fatty acids or CLA than milk from ordinary dairies. Similarly, meat from organic grain-fed beef has the same nutritional profile as meat from the largest Kansas feedlot.
The same story holds true for organic but confinement-raised poultry. Their meat and eggs have no more omega-3s or vitamin E than the products you find in the supermarket.(3) (Unless the birds are given special supplements along with the grain.)
For many consumers, food safety is an even bigger concern than nutrition. Once again, grass feeding offers an important advantage. It has been known for decades that grain feeding makes a cow's digestive tract more acid. Now we know that this acidic environment speeds the growth of potentially dangerous E. coli bacteria and, even worse, makes the bugs more acid-resistant. Alarmingly, these acid-resistant bacteria are much more likely to survive the cleansing acidity of our own digestive juices and make us ill. (4)
Depriving our livestock of fresh greens and vastly increasing their consumption of grain has jeopardized our health in ways people never imagined. Although feeding organically raised grain reduces our reliance on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, it does not provide the food that nature intended us to eat.
Jo Robinson is a New York Times bestselling writer. She is the author or coauthor of 11 nationally published books including Pasture Perfect, which is a comprehensive overview of the benefits of choosing products from pasture-raised animals, and The Omega Diet (with Dr. Artemis Simopoulos) that describes an omega-3 enriched Mediterranean diet that may be the healthiest eating program of all. To order her books or learn more about grassfed products, visit http://eatwild.com.
1. Garton, G. A.. "Fatty Acid Composition of the Lipids of Pasture Grasses." Nature 187(4736): 511-12.
2. Dhiman, T. R., G. R. Anand, et al. (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets." J Dairy Sci 82(10): 2146-56.
3. Lopez-Bote, C. J., R.Sanz Arias, A.I. Rey, A. Castano, B. Isabel, J. Thos (1998). "Effect of free-range feeding on n-3 fatty acid and alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) content and oxidative stability of eggs." Animal Feed Science and Technology 72: 33-40.
4. Diez-Gonzalez, F., T. R. Callaway, et al. (1998). "Grain feeding and the dissemination of acid-resistant Escherichia coli from cattle." Science 281(5383): 1666-8.
|
|