|
| |
Featured articles:
You Are What Your Animals Eat
By Jo Robinson
In my investigation into the health benefits of grassfed products, I've
stumbled onto an alarming void: few scientists seem to care about the vital
link between the diet of the animal and the diet of the consumer. "Feed
animals anything you want," the research seems to suggest, "and it makes no
difference to the people who eat them."
Look at human nutrition
studies, for example, and you will find that all animal products
are treated the same.
Beef is beef,
eggs are eggs, and milk is milk. No attention is paid to what the
animals were fed or how they were raised. Thus, when the USDA says
“eat less red meat,” the warning applies to all red meat, whether it’s a
400-calorie grain fed steak streaked with saturated fat or a 300-calorie
grass-lean steak with its invisible bounty of omega-3s and CLA.
Look at the animal science literature,
meanwhile, and you will find a parallel disregard for human nutrition.
The goal of the researchers who concoct feed rations is to increase production
and minimize costs. Period. They don't bother to investigate
how a change in an animal's diet changes the nutritional value of its meat,
eggs, or milk. As long as the feed is cheap and the animal gets fat,
anything goes.
Here’s a glaring example. A study published in 1999 in the well-known
publication, The Journal of Animal Science, investigated the
practicality of feeding stale chewing gum and its wrappers to cattle.
Wonder of wonders, the scientists concluded that the bubble gum diet was a net
benefit—at least to the producer. I quote: ”Results of both experiments
suggest that [gum 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.” Needless to say, the researchers
didn’t bother to find out how the bubblegum diet influenced the CLA or omega-3
content of the meat.
I have spent the past
three years trying to bridge this gap between animal and human nutrition.
My main focus has been looking for studies that compare the nutritional value
of products from grass and grain fed ruminants. It's been slim pickings,
primarily because few researchers have any interest in studying grassfed
animals. Virtually all the research looks at animals raised in confinement and
fed large amounts of grain, silage, and by-product feedstuff because this is
the status quo. To find information about grassfed animals, I've had to
search through moldy journals published before the advent of factory farming,
or extrapolate from small studies financed by enterprising grass farmers, or
turn to studies based in Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand —parts of the
world where animals still know the taste of green grass.
Finding the amount of vitamin
E in the meat of pastured versus feedlot animals has been particularly
difficult. I began to seek out this information when I learned
that fresh pasture has 20 times more vitamin E than corn or soy.
Given the magnitude of this difference, I reasoned that there must be
more vitamin E in the products of pastured animals. If true, this would
be a bonus for the consumers of grassfed meat, eggs and dairy products
because vitamin E is linked with a lower risk of cancer and heart disease.
Diligently, I searched the scientific record for supporting evidence, but with
little success. Most of the vitamin E studies I found dealt with
administering synthetic vitamins to feedlot animals. What’s more, the
aim of the studies was to extend the shelf-life of the meat, not to make the
meat more nutritious for consumers. The researchers were aware that
vitamin E slows down oxidation, which can help preserve the bright red color
of meat. “If the majority of feedlot cattle are fed higher levels of
vitamin E,” concluded a typical article, “shelf life is increased by one to
two days, resulting in a savings conservatively estimated to be worth $1
billion annually to the beef industry.” The fact that vitamin E-enriched meat
might also enhance the health of consumers was never the subject of
investigation. That would involve crossing over into the taboo world of
human
nutrition, something that animal scientists are loathe to do.
Finally, I located a
group of researchers that had deigned to determine the vitamin E content of a
few samples of grassfed meat. The impetus for this rare study came from
Japanese meat buyers who reported that meat from Australian free-range cattle
lasted longer in their display cases than meat from American feedlot cattle.
To find out why, investigators studied the antioxidant levels in the two types
of meat. Not surprisingly, they found that the meat from the grassfed
cattle had as much as four times more vitamin E than the meat from the feedlot
cattle. The American beef industry responded to this finding in predictable
fashion by funding yet more studies about the cost benefit ratio of adding
synthetic vitamin E to feedlot rations. I doubt if it occurred to any of
the researchers to make a right angle turn and explore the nutritional
benefits of raising animals on pasture.
What can be done about this lack of scientific
curiosity in grass-based farming? The underlying problem is that the
vast majority of our animal research is funded by commercial interests---
primarily the grain, chemical, farm equipment, meat packing, and feedlot
industries. Together, these vertically integrated behemoths have a
multi-billion dollar investment in perpetuating factory farming. Before
a significant amount of money is made available for grass farming research,
the grass farming industry will have to grow. This, of course, is a
Catch 22: How can this fledgling industry grow and prosper if there is
so little research to back it?
In my
opinion, the solution will be found in a wide scale consumer revolt akin to
the Green movement in Europe. Tens of thousands of Americans will have
to say "no" to the nutritionally deficient meat that comes from stressed,
medicated animals fattened in feedlots and then seek out healthier, grassfed
alternatives— even if it costs them more time and money to do so. Only
when there is a marked increase in the sale of pastured products will grass
farming appear on the radar screen of commercial interests. And then, and
only then, will our university's animal science departments have the
wherewithal to conduct a long overdue investigation of grass-based
farming.
Whether or not this will happen is
an open question. But I have a fantasy of how it might. It involves the
media. First, a major TV show like “60 Minutes,” “20/20,” or “Dateline”
will muster the courage to penetrate the veil of secrecy shrouding our animal
factories. The producers will dare to show chickens being allotted less
than ¾ of a square foot per bird and suffocating in their own fecal dust and
ammonia fumes. They will film unsuspecting calves being taken off green
pasture, loaded into boxcars, and deposited at manure-heaped feedlots to be
fattened on Twinkies and bubble gum wrappers.
Then the producers will have
the inspiration to go beyond these more obvious animal welfare issues and
begin to focus on human welfare: what has been the impact of
factory farming on human health? Is our epidemic of obesity linked with
the artificial fattiness of grain fed meat? Would we have lower rates of
cancer, depression, diabetes, heart disease, allergies, and dementia if we ate
grassfed products with their more balanced ratio of essential fats?
In my
fantasy, Bill Moyers or another respected TV journalist will decide to deepen
the investigation by producing a one-hour documentary on the overall benefits
of pasture-based farming. The show will conclude that raising animals on
pasture is not only good for the animals and the health of consumers, it is
also good for the environment and the economic viability of family farms.
Joel Salatin’s justly celebrated Polyface Farm will be the centerpiece of the
program, of course, but other farms will be featured as well, letting the
public know that grass farming is a thriving grassroots movement, not just a
one-man show.
Suddenly, grass
farming will be the talk of the town—at least among the well-educated,
well-connected, and well-to-do. Serving organic meat won’t win points in
Los Angeles anymore unless it’s grassfed as well. Eventually, Ted Turner
will come to his senses and stop sending all of his bull calves to the
feedlots. Given his interest in the environment, he will realize that
keeping bison on pasture is better for Mother Earth as well as his highly
prized animals. By 2002, his “Turner Reserve Grassfed Bison” will become “The
Thing” to serve at celebrity gatherings.
Finally, the
demand for grassfed products will percolate down to the masses. In
response, grass farmers will ramp up production. Surprisingly, they will
have the integrity to maintain and improve their quality standards despite the
growing demand. They will resist the temptation to market cull cows as
“grass-finished beef” and will refrain from implanting their herd with
hormones or supplementing them with “by-product feedstuff” -- even though it
would bring their animals to market bigger and faster.
Will any of this
happen? Only time will tell. But there is evidence that the grass
farming movement is gathering momentum the old fashioned way—word of mouth.
Friends are telling friends about the health benefits of pastured animal
products, and they’re turning the curious into converts by inviting them over
to share in a feast. I’ve gotten calls from quite a few grass farmers
who say they’re having trouble keeping up with demand. The good news
about grass farming seems to be spreading, one satisfied, enlightened customer
at a time!
+ + +
Jo Robinson is a New York
Times bestselling writer. To purchase her 128-page book, Why Grassfed Is
Best! ( $7.50 plus shipping) go to
http://eatwild.com or call 206-463-4156 during West Coast business hours.
Also, visit her website to find suppliers of grassfed products and new
research about grass farming.
+ + +
Top
Why Grassfed is Better than Organic
By Jo Robinson
Organic meat, poultry, and dairy products are now available at most
supermarkets, which I think 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 the farms
that produced that food are eco-friendly.
But organic is not enough. In fact, if I had to choose between
organic and grassfed animal products, I’d choose grassfed every time. Why?
The main reason is that non-organic grassfed meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy
products are nutritionally superior to their organic but grain fed
counterparts. This may come as a surprise to those people who equate
“organic” with “more nutritious.” Alas, this is not always true. For the most
part, the term “organic” is simply a guarantee of what the food does not
contain. You can be reasonably assured it will not contain any of those six
syllable chemicals you can’t pronounce. But organic food can still be deficient
in nutrients or loaded with sugar and “bad” fat. For example, there are organic
cereals on the market that are overly sweet. You may be consuming fewer
pesticide residues when you choose Organic Honey Oatios over Honey Nut Cheerios,
but you’ll still be consuming too many refined carbohydrates. An organic label
does not guarantee good nutrition.
The limitations of the “organic” designation are even more evident
when it comes to animal products. Organic meat may be free of unwanted
chemicals, but it is nutritionally inferior to grassfed meat. When a ruminant is
taken off pasture and fattened on grain, it loses a number of valuable
nutrients. For example, compared with grassfed meat, grain fed meat has only
one quarter as much vitamin E, one-eighth as much beta-carotene, and one-third
as many omega-3 fatty acids. It doesn’t matter whether the animal is fed
ordinary grain, genetically modified grain, or organic grain. Feeding large
amounts of any type of grain to a grazing animal will have this effect
simply because grain has fewer of these nutrients than fresh pasture. (For
references, please refer to Why Grassfed Is Best! or visit
http://eatwild.com )
Compared with grassfed products, organic grain fed products are
also relatively deficient in a cancer-fighting fat called “CLA.” When you feed
a ruminant grain --- even as little as 2 pounds a day --- its production of CLA
plummets. CLA may be one of the most potent cancer-fighting substances in our
diet. In animal studies, as little as one half of one percent CLA in the diet
has reduced tumor burden by more than 50 percent.
There's yet another drawback with
feeding grain to a ruminant --- you increase the risk of E.coli
infection. The underlying problem is that grain makes the digestive tract of a
ruminant abnormally acid. This acidic environment causes the E. coli to
multiply and to become more acid-resistant. According to a recent study
published in the journal Science, these altered bacteria are much more
likely to survive the cleansing acidity of your digestive juices and make you
ill.
A final reason to choose grassfed meat
over organic grain fed meat is that most grass farmers avoid the use of
pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and antibiotics even though they are not
striving for full organic certification. What keeps most of the farmers from
attaining the official designation is that they use nitrogen fertilizers on
their fields or treat their animals with relatively benign medications to rid
them of parasites. Pastured poultry and pig producers face another barrier to
going organic: the high price of organic grain. They find that they cannot feed
their animals organically certified grain without raising their prices beyond
what the traffic will bear.
All this said,
I believe that the best choice of all is buying organically certified
grassfed products. When ruminants are raised on organic pasture and when
pastured pigs and poultry are supplemented with organic grain, you have the best
of both worlds— food that is free of unwanted chemicals that is also highly
nutritious, just the way Nature made it. If I have to pay more for the
privilege, I’m willing to do it. But until more consumers come around to this
point of view, there will be many grass farmers who cannot afford to go 100
percent organic and stay in business. Until that time, I urge consumers to
choose grassfed over organic every time!
+ + +
Jo
Robinson is a New York Times bestselling writer. To purchase her 128-page
book, Why Grassfed Is Best! ( $7.50 plus shipping) go to
http://eatwild.com or call 206-463-4156 during
West Coast business hours. Also, visit her website to find suppliers of
grassfed products and new research about the benefits of grass farming.
+ + +
Top
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 Mediterraneans 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 CL 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. The Omega Diet, the
book she coauthored with Dr. Artemis Simopoulos, explores the ideas in this
article in more depth. Why Grassfed Is Best! focuses on the benefits of pastured
animal products. To order her books or learn more about grassfed products, visit
http://eatwild.com or call 206-463-4156 during
West Coast business hours.
+ + +
Top
This page is intended to be a resource for
our consumers. It will feature articles and information about grass fed
and finished products. If you have an article you would like posted on
this page or if you have comments or suggestions please email me
ian@kamuelapride.com .
|
Grass-Fed
~ Pasture Raised
