Agriculture - Curse or Cure?

Jared Diamond has described agriculture as "the worst mistake in the history of the human race." (Diamond, 1987) "Recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence." 


Inequality and despotism have been, and still are, undeniably present in this world. But we should always remember that association does not prove causation. Might there be other forces leading to these conditions?  Could there be forms of "agriculture" that would not produce them?


The term agriculture includes the production of animal products from managed grasslands, not just the production of "cash crops." As I discussed in a previous post, human manipulation of the environment to favor food production (in other words, agriculture) was a long-standing practice in pre-Columbian America. 

“When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans.” (Lott, 2002) 

Converting cellulose into fat and protein

Today we face an epidemic of chronic diseases in the United States, and throughout the world. Kelly Brownell would have us believe that obesity and other metabolic diseses are the result of a “toxic food environment.” (Brownell, 2002) Too much cheap food (including fast food) causes us to eat too much. It’s easy to entertain such flawed theories when people are well-fed on less than 10% of their disposable income (USDA ERS, 2002). But as Gary Taubes has documented in Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat, there are numerous examples of obesity and malnutrition existing in the same impoverished populations at the same time. Their condition was NOT the result of too much food, or a life that didn’t include sufficient exercise. 

The conversation about diet, health and human nutrition has been dominated by those who believe that obesity is the result of over-eating and sedentary behavior, that eating animal products causes various chronic diseases, and that animal agriculture is bad for the environment. Various “experts” who hold these world views have allowed their innately human “belief engine” to form incorrect conclusions from the associations they’ve perceived in dubious observational studies (Park, 2002). These fallacies have so thoroughly contaminated the “conventional wisdom” that they’ve influenced the “new conventional wisdom” held by members of the paleo / primal / low carb communities. Our message ought to be that replacing carbohydrates with fat from animal products, regardless of how they’re produced, will improve the health of most people. Instead it can be heard to mean that unless you buy more expensive organic or grass-fed vegetables and animal products, you shouldn’t bother. Our message becomes one for the relatively well-off, instead of a message for everyone.

Spring grazing in western Oregon

The evidence strongly suggests that the epidemic of obesity and related metabolic diseases should be laid at the feet of the high-carbohydrate-low-fat experts and not at agriculture's. Many desire to “return to a simpler time.” Something in the paleo message may tap into that desire. But how “paleo” can one be when one isn’t actually doing the hunting and/or gathering? How are we going to deal with today's problems, not the least of which is a massive and growing world population? The solution to today’s problem cannot be found in going back, we must go forward. The good old days weren't necessarily all that good. In order to go forward we need to consider the language we’re using.

What do the phrases “eat real food” or “all things in moderation” actually mean? Just how does one convert such feel-good messages into actual practice? “Sustainability” is in danger of becoming such a meaningless term, if it hasn’t already. Too often the bounds on the system are defined to the advantage of the one promoting their own approach. As I researched the material for my post on hormones, nitrites, and antibiotics, I ran across statements to the effect that the use of improved genetics, high concentrate finishing, subtherapeutic antibiotics, and hormone implants in beef cattle resulted in greater meat production from fewer animals and that, since this represented an environmental benefit, it was more “sustainable.” On the other hand there are the piously environmental, those for whom “being green means eating organic veggies and recycling the wine bottles.” (Rosen, 2010) They are green “so long as it doesn’t affect their home heating, TV viewing, or car driving.” (Rosen, 2010) 

Thanks to folks like Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, Gary Taubes, Tom Naughton, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Jay Wortman, Jimmy Moore, and organizations like the Metabolism Society I now understand the fallacy of the thinking exemplified by Brownell and others. I’ve come to understand how our misinformed environmental understanding has influenced policy, debate and awareness in our society. And I’m developing a greater awareness of just how greatly the vegetarian ethic has influenced the thinking of the experts and the consumers. The irony is the likelihood that our easy access to so many high quality animal products at such low cost is, in fact, agriculture’s great blessing and offers the likely solution to today’s epidemic of chronic diseases.

“A liberal meat supply has always been associated with a happy and virile people and invariably has been the main food available to settlers of new and undeveloped territories. Statistics show that per capita meat consumption decreases with density of population.” (Romans and Ziegler, 1974)

References:

Brownell, K. D., 2002. The Environment and Obesity. In Eating Disorders and Obesity, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Handbook. C. G. Fairburn and K. D. Brownell. The Guilford Press. New York, NY.

Diamond, J. 1987. The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. In Discover Magazine. Accessed at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race, July 1, 2011 

Lott, D.F. 2002. American Bison: A Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Park, Robert. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, inc. New York, NY.

Pearson, A.M., and T.A. Gillett. 1996. Processed Meats. Chapman & Hall. New York, NY

Romans, J.R., and P.T. Ziegler. 1974. The Meat We Eat. Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc. Danville, IL

Rosen, N. 2010. “Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America.” Penguin Books. New York, NY.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2008. Briefing Rooms: Food CPI and Expenditures: Table 7. Washington, DC. Accessed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm, June 18, 2011.

Hormones and Nitrites and Antibiotics, Oh My!!

When the National Academy of Sciences released its report, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, it demonstrated how true scientists ought to behave. Unfortunately, such behavior has been rare in the realm of human nutrition. This report was the results of an exhaustive three-year review of the possible health effects of exposure to residential electromagnetic fields (EMF). “Our committee evaluated over five hundred studies,” the committee chair Charles Stevens said, “and in the end all we can say is that the evidence doesn’t point to these fields as being a health risk.” What’s remarkable is that the review panel had been “generally viewed as packed with scientists who might have reason to prefer that the controversy not be quite resolved” (Park, 2000).

The vice chair of the panel was an epidemiologist who had staked his reputation on a link between EMF and cancer. Perhaps half of the sixteen panel members were involved in research related to the health effects of EMF. A report refuting the purported health effects of EMF would likely lead to the elimination of funding for their research. They might be inclined to decide it was better to err of the side of caution and simply call for more research, as some previous groups had done.

Despite this potential conflict of interest, the panel unanimously concluded that “the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard.” And if this had just been a matter of science, that should have settled it. But there were others involved in the issue who had their own interests. For years reporters had been writing stories about EMF-hazards from power-lines and residential wiring. Newsletters were devoted entirely to the EMF-health issue. For them, the controversy was their livelihood. For these folks to now write that it had all been a false alarm would have been miraculous. And, as history shows, that did not happen.

Whatever the scientific failings of various researchers in the diet-nutrition-human health scandal of the last half century, there is an equally culpable group of individuals who’ve made their livelihood from perpetuating various myths about what a “healthy” diet ought to be. Largely this has been a call to reduce our consumption of animal products, and to reinforce their arguments they perpetuate myths about our food supply. Let’s consider the subjects of antibiotics, nitrites, and antibiotics in meat produced by “conventional” practices in the United States.

Image from zmescience.com

Hormone-Free?

Many have cited the presence of hormones in animal products as a reason for buying organic products or avoiding them altogether. First of all, there is no such thing as hormone-free food. All multi-cellular organisms contain hormones, whether they are cattle, cabbages, chickens — or people. Livestock and poultry can be grown without added hormones, but they cannot be hormone-free. Federal law prohibits the use of hormones in poultry and swine production, so the next time you see “No added hormones” on a package of chicken or pork, realized that you’re looking at another example of a “guaranteed not to turn pink in the can” claim. It’s factually true, but misleading. It implies that some pork or chicken is produced with added hormones.

Hormones like estrogen are used in modern beef production to increase the amount of lean beef that can be harvested from cattle. These hormones are the same as, or synthetic versions of, those naturally produced by cattle. But the amount of estrogen in beef, from either implanted or non-implanted steers, is a fraction of what is found in soybean oil, wheat germ, eggs, and what is produced by the human body (Rains, 2009).

Table 1. Estrogenic activity of common foods (ng/500g)

(Hoff man and Eversol, 1986, Hartman et al, 1998, Shore and Shemesh, 2003, USDA-ARS, 2002) Units are nanograms (ng) of estrone plus estradiol for animal products and isoflavones for plant products per 500 grams of food

Note: Beef from non-implanted heifers and cows, either open or pregnant, would have higher estrogen content.

Table 2. Estrogenic production in humans, and potential estrogen intake from implanted beef

(Hoffman and Eversol, 1986)

Okay, so both plant and animal products contain hormones, but plant hormones don’t affect mammals, right? Wrong! The fact that phytoestrogens (estrogenic substances from plants) can produce effects in mammals has long been known. Bennetts et al. (1946) described severe clinical abnormalities in sheep grazed on highly estrogenic subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) pastures. This syndrome, called “clover disease,” included very low lambing rates, prolapsed of the uterus and dystocia in ewes and enlargement of the bulbo-urethral glands and death in the wethers. (It should be noted that this herbage was extraordinarily high in phytoestrogen, as much as 5 percent of dry matter.)

While there is a wide-spread belief that residues of growth-promoting hormones in milk or meat might cause early puberty or increased height in children, the data strongly suggests that this cannot be the case. Tom Naughton says that math is one way we can tell if we’re being lied to. So let’s do some math!

We can calculate how much beef from hormone-implanted cattle a pre-puberal boy or girl would need to consume to have sex hormone levels equal to those of adult men or women.

(1) Given that pre-puberal and adult males produce 65,000 and 6,400,000 ng of testosterone per day, respectively, and that steak from a steer given testosterone contains 0.9 ng of testosterone per 3 ounces of meat, a boy would need to consume 1.3 million pounds of implanted beef per day to consume sufficient testosterone to achieve an adult’s level (Smith, 2011).

(2) Given that pre-puberal and adult females produce 41,000 and 513,000 ng of estrogen per day, respectively, and that steak from a steer given estrogen contains 1.9 ng estrogen per 3 ounces of meat, a girl would need to consume more than 46,000 pounds of implanted beef per day to consume sufficient estrogen to achieve an adult’s level (Smith, 2011).

And it should be noted that oral estrogens generally have poor bio-availability (0.1-12%) due to extensive metabolism after absorption from the gut (Oral testosterone and progesterone are also reported to have low bioavailability) (Doyle, 2000). Since both of the proceeding calculations assume 100% absorption of the hormone from the digestive system, the amount either child would need to eat would be almost 10 times greater!

While Europe has banned the importation of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and other countries, this is a political/economic issue NOT a scientific one. The World Organization for Animal Health and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the FAO/WHO Food Standards Commission) have affirmed that hormone use in cattle production is safe for consumers (McEwen and McNab, 1997, FAO/WHO 1999, 2009). Unfortunately, European political bodies have rejected the science and refused to lift the ban, in large part to protect their producers from U.S. competition. That’s fair as a political issue, but not if it’s clothed in unfounded health concerns.

"Uncured"?

Another theme in the “animal products are bad for you” narrative is that nitrite in cured meat is linked to diseases like cancer. Rather than spend time explaining the true meaning of the word “linked” in this connection, I highly recommend that you view Tom Naughton’s video Science for Smart People. In response to this reputed health-risk, many consumers avoid cured meat products. Numerous products are now available which are labeled “uncured.” What does this product claim mean? Are nitrites actually harmful?

Image from unbreaded.com

Nitrite plays a very important role in cured meats by preventing the growth of Clostridium botulinum, which can cause the deadly disease botulism, and preventing spoilage. In addition, it gives cured meats their characteristic color and flavor. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) allows no more than 156 parts per million (ppm) nitrite in curing meat products, with 120 ppm the commonly used amount. But that’s the amount used in the process. The amount in the final products is typically 10 ppm (AMI, 2008, Sebranek and Bacus, 2007).

Less than five percent of our daily nitrite intake comes from cured meats like ham, bacon and hot dogs. Ninety-three percent comes from leafy vegetables and tubers. Vegetables contain nitrate which is reduced to nitrite when it comes into contact with saliva in our mouths. Table 3 lists the amount of nitrate found in some vegetables (AMI, 2008):

Table 3. Nitrate content of selected vegetables

Some uncured products are available today that use ingredients like beet or celery juice or natural sea salt instead of sodium nitrate. These “natural” products all contain nitrate. When this nitrate is exposed to certain types of bacteria in the product, it is converted to nitrite, producing a product with similar color and taste to traditionally cured meat products. The amount of nitrite consumed from uncured meat products versus traditionally cured meat products is virtually the same( AMI, 2008, Sebranek and Bacus, 2007).

While some people question whether nitrite from vegetable sources or saliva is different from the nitrite that is added to cured meats, experts like Jeff Sindelar, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, say emphatically: “Where you receive it (nitrite) actually makes no difference because nitrite is nitrite. In other words, the nitrite derived from celery or other vegetables is exactly same as the nitrite found in cured meats.” (AMI, 2011)

Okay, so there’s nitrate in lots of our food-stuffs and our bodies convert it to nitrite, but is nitrite harmful? The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is considered the “gold standard” in determining whether substances cause cancer. Its multi-year study in which rats and mice were fed high levels of sodium nitrite found that nitrite was not associated with cancer. NTP maintains a list of chemicals found to be carcinogenic. Sodium nitrite is not on that list (USHHS, 2005).

Not only does nitrite not cause cancer, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston have discovered that nitrite actually has health benefits (Gladwin, MT, et al., 2005). When nitrite’s safety was questioned in the 1970s, scientists had not yet discovered that the human body makes nitrite as part of its normal, healthy nitrogen cycle. Study after study has shown that nitrite can: Regulate blood pressure (Webb, 2008, Larsen, et al., 2006); Prevent injury from heart attack (Bryan, et al., 2007); Prevent brain damage following a stroke (Jung, et al., 2006); Prevent preeclampsia in pregnant women (Rosselli, 1997); Promote wound healing (Garcia-Saura, et al., 2010); Promote successful organ transplantation (Duranski, et al., 2005); Treat sickle cell anemia (Mack, et al., 2008); Prevent gastric ulcers (Lundberg, et al., 2008).

“The idea it’s bad for you has not played out,” according to Marc Gladwin (AMI, 2011). This is code for “the hypothesis was wrong.” Indeed, Gladwin’s group found that infusing nitrite into patients with a variety of health conditions was an inexpensive and extremely effective treatment.

Anti-antibiotics

Another issue purportedly supporting the “animal products are bad for you and the environment” narrative is the belief that antibiotic use in livestock production is increasing and that this is a threat to human health. One purported threat comes from the consumption of foodstuffs that contain antibiotic residues. Another is that the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture leads to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

First some background. Two terms frequently used to describe antibiotic use in livestock and poultry production are “therapeutic” and “sub-therapeutic.” When an animal exhibits clinical signs of an illness, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic drug to treat that condition - just as a doctor would with a human. This approach is called a “therapeutic” use of prescriptions, and this represents the majority of antibiotics used by animal agriculture (AMI, 2010).

“Subtherapeutic” refers to the use of antibiotics in a preventative, or prophylactic, manner. Antibiotics are administered at vulnerable times, such as weaning, when animals are very susceptible to disease that can kill quickly, sometimes in less than 24 hours. It is often easier to control the total herd health through the early prevention of a contagious illness. Remember the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Some antibiotics offer an added benefit of enhancing livestock and poultry growth when administered, but, according to a 2007 survey, only an estimated 13 percent of antibiotics are used in growth promotion and heightened attention to the issue is discouraging such use even more (Graham, 2007, AMI, 2010).

Antibiotic use in livestock and poultry production is strictly regulated by officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Meat and poultry are inspected in plants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that they comply with all federal safety rules. Issues surrounding antibiotic use and resistance are extremely complex and involve both human and veterinary use. While recent news has focused on veterinary antibiotic use, many experts have cautioned against overuse of antibiotics in humans for decades.

In the 1940s, antibiotics became available in general human medicine. Within a decade, medical journals contained cautions about the overuse of antibiotics to treat illnesses for which they were not warranted. Scientists warned that the overuse of antibiotics in humans could potentially create resistant strains of bacteria. Concerns about the overuse of antibiotics in humans continued throughout the following decades. A 1999 study of pediatricians in the journal Pediatrics found that more than half of doctors reported writing 10 or more antibiotic prescriptions in the past month that they believed to be unwarranted and did so in response to parental pressure (Bauchner, et al., 1999). Interviews with patients revealed that patients often exaggerated symptoms and pressured doctors to secure a prescription for antibiotics even when it is not needed. By and large, those interviewees believed that antibiotics were needed to treat everything but the common cold (Pechère, 2001). For more than 40 years, antibiotics regulated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been used to treat sick animals, prevent illness and maintain the health of animals. The use of antibiotics in livestock production has been relatively steady over time, but in responding to concerns about the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, public attention seems to have shifted away from human use toward agriculture (AMI, 2010).

Some argue that the use of antibiotics in food animals could create strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and ultimately infect humans, but years of research have failed to prove that this evolution is occurring or that it is risking human life (AMI, 2010). One often-cited statistic comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which claims that 70 percent of antibiotics produced in the U.S. are fed to livestock. It’s hard to understand how the UCS came up with this statistic since antibiotic use in humans is not tracked. Still, one would reasonably expect that 302 million head of American livestock and 6.27 billion American chickens and turkeys would require more antibiotics than 309 million people who weigh a fraction of a full grown steer and far less than a typical market hog.

Denmark banned non-therapeutic antibiotic use in 2000. “There seems to be little evidence after 10 years that public health has improved since the Danish ban on growth promoting and preventive antibiotics.” (Hurd, 2010) “Salmonella and Campylobacter illness rates have not decreased and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been steadily increasing for the last 10 years. Additionally, the resistance levels in some key human infections has not declined, but increased.” (Hurd, 2010) While many had predicted that a ban on growth promotion and preventative antibiotic uses would reduce total antibiotic consumption in livestock, the Danish government reported that “for production animals consumption [of therapeutic antibiotics] has increased gradually by 110 percent from 1998 through 2008.” (Hurd, 2010) And the therapeutic antibiotics that are now being used are considered more important in human medicine. Overall the data suggest that the antibiotics previously used for growth promotion were preventing a great deal of illness, especially in pigs (Hurd, 2010).

The road from foolishness to fraud

This post opened with the example of the scientific debunking of EMF as a cause of childhood leukemia from Robert Park’s book Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Tom Naugton mentioned this book in his videotaped presentation Science for Smart People.

In closing this post, I’d like to offer an extended quote from the book and issue a plea and a challenge to all my brothers and sisters in the low carb / paleo / primal community:

“Ideology, fraud, and foolishness were all present in the examples of voodoo science discussed in these pages. For those who intentionally set out to commit fraud, such as the makers of “Vitamin O,” we can have little sympathy. But most of the scientists and inventors we met started out like Joe Newman, believing that they had made a great discovery overlooked by everyone else. While it never pays to underestimate the human capacity for self deception, they must at some point begin to realize that things are not behaving as they had supposed.

“Like all those who have gone down this road before them, they will have reached a fork. In one direction lies the admission that they may have been mistaken. The more publicly and forcefully they have pressed their claim, the more difficult it will be to take that road. In the other direction is denial. Experiments may be repeated over and over in an attempt to make it come out “right,” or elaborate explanations will be concocted as to why contrary evidence cannot be trusted. Endless reasons may be found to postpone critical experiments that might settle the issue. The further scientists travel down that road, the less likely it becomes that they will ever turn back. Every appearance on nationwide television, every new investor, every bit of celebrity and wealth that comes their way makes turning back less likely. This is the road to fraud.”

We rightly challenge the lack of scientific rigor in the nutrition /diet / human health realm. We must rigorously examine, however, all of the bits of the narrative we’ve inherited from the deluded and, perhaps, fraudulent “conventional wisdom.”

References:

American Meat Institute (AMI). 2011. Meat MythCrushers: Setting the Record Straight. Champaign, IL. Accessed June 3, 2011.

American Meat Institute. 2010. Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production: Ensuring Meat Safety. Champaign, IL. Accessed June 3, 2011.

American Meat Institute. 2008. Sodium Nitrite: The Facts. AMI Fact Sheet. American Meat Institute. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Bauchner, H, S.I. Pelton, J.O. Klein. 1999. Parents, physicians and antibiotic use, Pediatrics; 103 (2) 395-401. Abstract accessed May 18, 2011.

Bennetts, H.W., E.J. Underood, and F.L. Shier. 1946. A specific breeding problem of sheep on subterranean clover pastures in Western Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal. 22.2-12. Abstract accessed June 2, 2011.

Bryan, N.S., J.W. Calvert, J.W. Elrod, S. Gundewar, S.Y. Ji, and D.J. Lefer. 2007. Dietary nitrite supplementation protects against myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 19144–19149. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Doyle, E., 2000. Human Safety of Hormone Implants Used to Promote Growth in Cattle. Food Research Institute. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Duranski, M.R., J. J.M. Greer, A. Dejam, S. Jaganmohan, N. Hogg, W. Langston, R.P. Patel, S. Yet, X. Wang, C.G. Kevil, M.T. Gladwin, and D.J. Lefer. 2005. Cytoprotective effects of nitrite during in vivo ischemia-reperfusion of the heart and liver, Journal of Clinical Investigation 115; 1232-1240. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). 1999. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Fifty-second meeting, Rome. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. 2009. Joint FAO/WHO Foods Standards Programme. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Thirty-Second Session. FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 29 June - 4 July 2009. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2011. Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals. Center for Veterinary Medicine. Product Safety Information. Accessed May 26, 2011.

Garcia-Saura, M.F., B.O. Fernandez, B.P. McAllister, D.R. Whitlock, W.W. Cruikshank and M. Feelisch. 2010. Dermal Nitrite Application Enhances Global Nitric Oxide Availability: New Therapeutic Potential for Immunomodulation? Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 130, 608-611. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Gladwin, MT, A.N. Schechter, D.B. Kim-Shapiro, R.P. Patel, N. Hogg, S. Shiva, R.O. Cannon, III, M. Kelm, D.A. Wink, M.G. Espey, E.H. Oldfield, R.M. Pluta, B.A. Freeman, J.R. Lancaster, Jr, M..Feelisch and J.O. Lundberg. 2005 The emerging biology of the nitrite anion. Nature Chemical Biology 1, 308 – 314. Abstract accessed May 24, 2011.

Graham, J.P., J.J. Boland, E. Silbergeld. 2007. Growth Promoting Antibiotics in Food Animal Production: An Economic Analysis. Public Health Reports. 122: 79-122. Accessed June 3, 2011.

Hartmann, S., M. Lacorn and H. Steinhart. 1998. Natural occurrence of steroid hormones in food. Food Chemistry 62:7-20.

Hoffman, B. and Eversol. 1986. In Drug Residues in Animals, A. G. Rico (Ed.), pp. 111-146. Academic Press, New York.

Hurd, S. 2010. Danish Experience Offers Lessons for U.S. Antibiotic Use. Beef Issues Quarterly. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Jung, K., K. Chu, S. Ko, S. Lee, D. Sinn, D. Park, J. Kim, E. Song, M. Kim and J. Roh. 2006. Early intravenous infusion of sodium nitrite protects brain against in vivo ischemia-reperfusion injury. Stroke 37: 2744–2750. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Larsen F.J., B. Ekblom, K. Sahlin, J.O. Lundberg, E. Weitzberg. 2006. Effects of dietary nitrate on blood pressure in healthy volunteers. New England Journal of Medicine. 355: 2792–2793. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Lundberg, J.O, E. Weitzberg and M.T. Gladwin. 2008. The nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide pathway in physiology and therapeutics. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 7, 156-167. Abstract accessed May 26, 2011.

Mack, A. K., V.R. McGowan II, C.K. Tremonti, D. Ackah, C. Barnett, R.F. Machado, M. T. Gladwin, and G. J. Kato. 2008. Sodium nitrite promotes regional blood flow in patients with sickle cell disease: a phase I/II study. British Journal of Haematology. 142(6):971–978. Accessed May 26, 2011. 

McEwen, S.A. and W.B . McNab. 1997. Contaminants of non-biological origin in foods from animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 16 (2), 684-693. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Park, Robert. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, inc. New York, NY.

Pechère, J.C., 2001. Patients’ Interviews and Misuse of Antibiotics, Clinical Infectious Diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases; 33(Suppl 3):S170–3. Accessed May 20, 2011.

Raines, Christopher. 2009. Hormones in my organic food? Yep. meatblogger.org. Accessed July 20, 2010.

Rosselli, M. 1997. Nitric Oxide and Reproduction. Molecular Human Reproduction, 3 (8) 639–641. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Sebranek, J.G, and J.N. Bacus. 2007. Natural and organic cured meat products: regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, quality and safety issues. AMSA White Paper Series, No. 1. American Meat Science Association, Savoy, IL . Accessed June 2, 2011.

Shore, L. S., and M. Shemesh. 2003. Naturally produced steroid hormones and their release into the environment. Pure Appl. Chem. 75:1859-71.

Smith, G. 2011. Hormones – Beef, Milk and Puberty. Where Food comes From Blog. Accessed May 26, 2011.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS). 2002. USDA-Iowa State University Database on the Isoflavone Content of Foods, Release 1.3. Nutrient Data Laboratory Web site: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/isoflav/isoflav.html. Accesed May 26, 2011.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS). 2009. 2008 FSIS National Residue Program Data. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Office of Public Health Science. Washington, DC. Accessed June 2, 2011.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nation Toxicology Program (USHHS NTP). 2005. 11th Report on Carcinogens, Accessed May 23, 2011.

Webb A.J., N. Patel, S. Loukogeorgakis, M. Okorie, Z. Aboud, S. Misra, R. Rashid, P. Miall, J. Deanfield, N. Benjamin, R. MacAllister, A.J. Hobbs, A. Ahluwalia. 2008. Acute Blood Pressure Lowering, Vasoprotective, and Antiplatelet Properties of Dietary Nitrate via Bioconversion to Nitrite. Hypertension 51 (3)784-790. Accessed May 23, 2011.

A Busy Month

My schedule has been very full lately, and it looks like I’ll miss this posting target by a week. My apologies. This will be an odds-and-ends post about some events that took place, and topics that came up, in April:
* Presentations
* A demonstration of the power of reducing cost of production in a pasture-based dairy
* Grain-feeding is not the cause, nor grass-feeding the cure, for E. coli O157:H7
* A Nutrition and Metabolism Society get together in the Pacific Northwest
* A hammered dulcimer gathering
All in one post!
**********************
On April 9th I spoke to the Douglas County Livestock Association's Spring Livestock Conference. The audience was an engaged one, and I enjoyed some wonderful interaction with several attendees. One of them was Craig Reed, a reporter for the Capital Press. He wrote an article about my presentation, which was posted on the 21st. If I could make a change, it would be in the title, “Expert sees protein as balm for obesity woes.” I’d replace “protein” with “meat” or “fat.” Despite that, I think it’s a pretty good article in a widely distributed agricultural publication. It was also a great exercise in “sharpening-up” the message.
***********************

The Power of Reducing Cost of Production

American agriculture has been thoroughly infected with the “more-and-bigger’s-better” virus that seems endemic to the rest of American culture. The focus of American agriculture has been on increasing production per head or per acre, rather than on the cost of that increase production. There’s an old joke about a rancher lamenting the fact that he was losing one dollar for every calf he sold. His solution was “I’d better sell more calves!” Humor only works when there’s truth in it, today’s high prices for cattle and sheep notwithstanding.

There are three economic levers a farmer or rancher can manipulate to influence the profitability of their farm or ranch: the amount of products they produce, the price they get for their products, and what it costs to produce those products. The cost of production may be the most powerful of these levers.

Swallow house - organic fly control

On April 12th I took part in a field trip as part of the Oregon State University Forage Production Class. We visited Jon and Julianne Bansen’s Double J Jerseys farm in Monmouth, Oregon. They are part of the Organic Valley Cooperative. It was a beautiful day, a one-day break in our otherwise cool, rainy “spring. ” The sparrows (the Bansen’s organic fly control) had finally returned the week before, a couple of weeks later than normal. The cows had only recently begun their grazing season. Jon believes that he’s proven what he was told by some New Zealand dairymen – it takes 20 years to become a good grazier. About twenty years ago, their average milk production per cow was pushing 19,000 pounds of milk. The cows were grazing pasture, but they were also receiving approximately 20 pounds of grain per head per day.

April grazing in the Willamette Valley

Jon has learned a great deal since then. His rotation management has improved and he’s made significant investments in his pasture “facilities.” He’s learned a great deal about conserving excess pasture as baleage – grass & clover silage in plastic-wrapped large round bales. Today he feeds approximately 2 pounds of grain per cow per day. His average milk production today is 12,000 pounds of milk per cow. Reduced production?!? Why, that’s un-American!! But here’s the power of the cost of production lever - His feed cost went from 50% of his milk check to 6%! He figures he’s doubled his profit! His cows have a productive life that’s 2.5 times the national average. And Jon feels he and his family (and his cows, too!) have a better quality of life.

Concrete pathways, sound fences,
water in each paddock,
pasture renovation. Essential expenses!

It is important to remember, however, that low cost of production does NOT equal low cost. Proper fences, water for his cows in every paddock, concrete walkways, and pasture renovation all cost. Cutting back on these expenses will NOT produce the results he has achieved.

*****************

On April 16th I gave my “Turning the Food Pyramid Upside Down” presentation at the Small Farm Trade Fair in Madras, Oregon. This event, its 35th year as I understand, was produced by the Small Farmer’s Journal. This journal (“A tool for self sufficiency Starting your farm and keeping it going All in unison with nature”) focuses on animal-powered agriculture. The weather wasn’t helpful, but it was still a wonderful weekend. I met a number of interesting folks and learned about a wonderful program, Tera Nova Community Farm, that incorporates organic vegetable production into the education program at a Big Picture school in Beaverton, Oregon. I was reminded that the “small farm” community is a tremendously broad one, with many different philosophies and guiding principles.

Central Oregon pasture in April

*****************

More New Conventional Wisdom

Early in April, a fellow member of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society told me about an upcoming webinar. Thanks to him, on April 19th I “attended” the Washington State University webinar “Pre-harvest E. coli O157:H7 in cattle” by Dr David Smith from the University of Nebraska.

Escherichia coli O157:H7 is an important food born pathogen. And, I’m afraid, it’s another example of the new conventional wisdom. I have frequently heard or read someone from the organic, grassfed, and/or low-carb/primal/paleo communities say that grain-feeding produces or promotes E. coli O157:H7 while grass feeding eliminates or reduces it. The science, I’m afraid does not support this claim. In fact, studies show that there is no difference in the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in live animals fed a variety of diets (Fegan, et al., 2004, Van Baale, et al., 2011)

A very small USDA study of a handful of cattle in 1998 did suggest that feeding cattle hay could reduce E. coli O157:H7 (Diego-Gonzales, et al., 1998), but that small study’s findings were never duplicated in larger research. More than a decade later, a large, accumulated body of research strongly suggests that E. coli O157:H7 appears to be a natural bacterium found in the gut of cattle regardless of production system.

“Organic” and “natural” methods don’t seem to impact bacteria in the gut either. In 2009, researchers examined the incidence of pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 in organic and naturally raised cattle and concluded, “Our study found similar prevalences of E. coli O157:H7 in the feces of organically and naturally raised beef cattle, and our prevalence estimates for cattle in these types of production systems are similar to those reported previously for conventionally raised feedlot cattle.” (Reinstein, et al., 2009)

Proper butchering, handling, and preparation practices are the best defense against E. coli O157:H7 and other food-borne illnesses. The good news is that, despite (or perhaps because of) increased vigilance and improved diagnostic technologies, the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 contamination and disease have declined dramatically.

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) show that the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef products declined by 63 percent between 2000 and 2009 to approximately one third of one percent of ground beef samples tested. That means that the pathogen will only be found in approximately 1 in 300 samples (USDA).

In 2010 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that food-borne illnesses are declining. In particular, the CDC said that the U.S. had achieved its Healthy People 2010 public health goal of less than one E. coli O157:H7 illness per 100,000 people (CDC, 2010). This decline has occurred as public health tracking has expanded significantly. In 1993 few states tracked E. coli O157:H7 infections in people. Today, every state in the U.S. routinely monitors the incidence of these infections and reports to federal officials. The observation of a decline, under these conditions of increased scrutiny, is encouraging.

While an E. coli infection is a serious illness, especially for the young, elderly, or those with a compromised immune system, it causes less than a tenth of the total deaths due to Salmonella or Listeria. Less than 3% of all deaths due to food-borne pathogens in the US each year are due to E. coli O157:H7, while Salmonella and Listeria are responsible for 31 and 28 percent, respectively (Mead, et al., 1999).

But one E. coli O157:H7 illness in 100,000 people per year sounds pretty high, doesn’t it? Well let’s compare it to your one-year risk of dying* as a result of: a car accident (approximately one out of 6500); murder or falling (one in 16,500); walking across the street (one in 48,500); drowning or fire (one in 88,000) (Bailey, 2006).

* less than 1% of E. coli O157:H7 cases are fatal (Mead, et al., 1999)

References:

Bailey, R. 2006. "Don't Be Terrorized: You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder." Reason.com. Accessed at http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized, May 8, 2011.

CDC. 2010. CDC Press Release, "CDC Report Shows Success in Fighting E. coli O157:H7." April 23, 2010, Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100415b.htm, May 8, 2011.

Diego-Gonzales, F., T. R. Callaway, M. G. Kizoulis, and J. B. Russell. 1998. "Grain Feeding and the Dissemination of Acid-Resistant Escherichia coli from Cattle." Science 11 September 1998: 281(5383)1666-1668.

Fegan, N., P. Vanderlinde, G. Higgs, and P. Desmarchelier. 2004. "The prevalence and concentration of Escherichia coli O157 in faeces of cattle from different production systems at slaughter." Journal of Applied Microbiology. 97, 362-370. Accessed at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118807187/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 May 8, 2011.

Mead, P. S., L. S., V. Dietz, L. F. McCaig, J. S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P. M. Griffin, and R. V. Tauxe. 1999. "Synopses: Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States." Vol. 5 No. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm, May 8, 2011.

Reinstein, S., J. T. Fox, X. Shi, M. J. Alam, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2009. "Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Organically and Naturally Raised Beef Cattle." Applied and Environmental Microbiology.75(16):5421-5423.

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. "Microbiological Testing Program for Escherichia coli O157:H7." Accessed at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/ground_beef_e.Coli_Testing_results/index.asp, May 8, 2011.

Van Baale, M. J., J. M. Sargeant, D. P. Gnad, B. M. DeBey, K. F. Lechtenberg, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2004. "Effect of Forage or Grain Diets with or without Monensin on Ruminal Persistence and Fecal Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Cattle." Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 70(9):5336-5342. Accessed at http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/9/5336, May 8, 2011.
******************

A cell biologist, an author, a psychiatrist and a forage agronomist meet for dinner …

No, that isn’t the opening line of a joke. It really happened!

Judy Barnes Baker, Dr. Ann Childers, yours truly, and Dr. Richard Feinman

On April 21st I met with Judy Barnes Baker, Dr. Ann Childers, and Dr. Feinman, founder of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, for a get together and brainstorming session in Portland. We enjoyed a lovely dinner at Veritable Quandary.

Judy Barnes Baker, is the author of Carb Wars; Sugar is the New Fat. She has posted on our meeting at her blog Carb Wars.

Dr. Ann Childers, a fellow member of the Healthy Nation Coalition as well as the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, is a child and adult-trained psychiatric physician who focuses on nutrition in treating her patients. Anyone interested in mind-diet interactions should follow her blog.

I’d met Dr. Feinman in Seattle last year at the joint meeting of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians and Nutrition and Metabolism Society. His scientific background and his passion about confronting the conventional make him a fascinating dinner partner. He’s recently started blogging, and it’s well worth reading.

The mission statement of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society states:

"The Metabolism Society is dedicated to addressing the problems of obesity, diabetes & cardiovascular disease through public awareness and education. The Society believes specifically that the therapeutic potential of carbohydrate-restricted diets for the treatment of these diseases is under-investigated and under-utilized. The Society seeks to support research in this area....Our mission is to improve current nutritional guidelines and to see that sound scientific information is provided for the public."

You can be a part of this important work by joining the Metabolism Society for only $10.00 a year! More information about ways you can support truth in science is here: http://www.nmsociety.org/

******************

Because music is important to our health, too

Steve Schneider, Dee Dee Tibbits, Yours Truly, Lawrence Huntley,
Mick Doherty (my teacher), Rick Fogel (made my dulcimer)

April ended and May began with the Spring Fling Rendezvous Hammered Dulcimer Gathering in Sandy, Oregon. I’ve organized and produced this event for the past twelve years. For the last eight years it has been held at Oral Hull Park, which is run by the Oral Hull Foundation for the Blind (a truly worth cause if you’re looking for a cause to support). This year’s three featured instructors, Dee Dee Tibbits, Steve Schneider, and Kendra Ward (and her husband Bob Bence) joined the “local boys” (Mick Doherty, Rick Fogel, Lawrence Huntley, and Carl Thor). These instructors provided a wonderful weekend for 42 hammered dulcimer players from eight different states. I’ve posted several pictures, if you’re interested: vol 1 and vol 2.

*****************
Now to get back on track and post on the 15th! It will be on some more items of new conventional wisdom - hormone and antibiotic use in animal agriculture.
*****************