The highlight of the night was the panel discussion of animal welfare moderated by Stephanie March (though some may argue it was the ice cream whipped up by Corner Table chef Scott Pampuch). On the panel were Todd Churchill of Thousand Hills Cattle Company, Emily Zweber of Zweber Farms and Arion Thiboumery from  Lorentz Meats. A scheduled fourth panel member from the animal right’s group Mercy for Animals could not attend. While it’s safe to say everyone on the panel was in agreement about what animal welfare should look like, and the fight wasn’t exactly fair, the discussion was still thought-provoking and interesting.

A Wendell Berry quote, on which Lorentz Meats bases its business, quickly became the theme of the night. The quote

We cannot live harmlessly at our own expense; we depend on other creatures and survive by their deaths. To live, we must daily break the body and shed the blood of Creation. The point is, when we do this knowingly, lovingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a sacrament; when we do it ignorantly, greedily, clumsily, destructively, it is a desecration.

is somber, and chilling The crowd quieted as it was read and the meaning of the words sank in. Everyone on the panel, and others in the room, nodded approvingly.

Churchill began by saying the vision of a healthy animal differs from farmer to farmer. “Ask any farmer,” he said, “if his animals are healthy and he’ll say yes, fully believing that they are. But the fact is they don’t really know what a healthy cow looks like.” Those animals may very well be healthy when viewed in terms of public health or other metrics, but Churchill made it clear that his version of a healthy cow is not the same as many others in the beef business. A cow that never steps foot on grass and is fed so much corn that it has to be given antibiotics to keep doing so or die, is not a healthy cow, according to both Churchill and Zweber.

From there the discussion turned to the recent Mercy for Animals story involving abuse at the Conklin Dairy Farm. In undercover footage a animal rights worker filmed a fellow employee abusing several calfs. Both men had lied on their resumes to get the jobs in the first place. Many believe that the animal rights worker encouraged the abuse in order to obtain sensationalized footage. Thiboumery, who opposes factory farming, wanted to make clear that the abuse seen in the video is in no way indicative of all conventional farms. Churchill added that what happened at Conklin Dairy was largely a result of absentee management. “If a single calf on my farm dies,” he said, “that’s a major event. On larger farms that doesn’t even make a blip on the radar.

Zweber said that they have a daily discussion of “What would PETA think right now.” Their farm is clean and safe, she clarified, but if someone wanted to get “gotcha” footage they could find things to shoot and edit into damning video. She gave the example of seeing muddy cows after a heavy storm. They immediately began brainstorming ways to have cleaner cows, even though a muddy cow is in no way harmful.  

The official discussion ended there, but afterwards each panelist was surrounded by people who continued to ask questions and, yes, compliment them on their meat.

The event was a wild success and proves that interest in how our food is grown and produced is rising.

This post originally appeared at Fair Food Fight.

The study examined three operations: a beef producer, a sheepmeat (weird term isn’t it?) producer, and an organic beef producer. Results showed that the carbon footprint of feedlot production was 9.9kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilo of “hot standard carcass weight”(HSCW), while that of grass-finished beef was 12kg CO2e per kg/HSCW.

That term grass-finished beef is key here. Feedlot beef is finished on grain-usually corn. Finishing is the practice of fattening cattle for a few months before slaughter. Study co-author Matthias Schulz said grain-finishing “produces meat more efficiently, effectively offsetting the greenhouse impact of the additional transport and feed production needed.” However the real problem with grain-finishing isn’t the carbon footprint, but rather the health issues created by feeding cows grain in the first place, and how those problems become our problems.

A quick biology lesson: Cows are ruminants. This means they have a separate compartment in their stomach to hold the grasses they eat while bacteria converts the cellulose in the grass into protein and fats. Cows are meant to forage for grass, but since fattening them on corn is cheaper and quicker that is the route feedlots take. Switching a cow from grass to grain can have devastating effects. Michael Pollan wrote in the New York Times about what happens when we move cows from pastures to feedlots.

Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal’s lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal’s esophagus), the cow suffocates.

A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio.

Cows rarely live on feedlot diets for more than six months, which might be about as much as their digestive systems can tolerate.

These feedlot conditions means that cows are constantly given antibiotics, which leads to “superbugs.” Another side effect of grass-finishing is the acidity of a cow’s stomach now more closely resembles our own. This means that E.coli that once couldn’t survive a cow’s stomach can, which of course means our own stomach can’t kill it either.

The fact that beef companies are examining their carbon-footprint is a great thing, but the carbon footprint of a feedlot is only one of myriad concerns. I fear that by relying on one measure and promoting it’s virtues they hope to blind us to the other problems feedlots continue to cause.

This piece originally appeared at Fair Food Fight.

Pay attention to food recall warnings for any amount of time and you’ll start to see just how unsafe our food supply really is. These problems can usually be traced to foods from very large-scale producers. Most of the food on American tables still comes from industrial sources, which is changing thankfully, but not fast enough that things can be allowed to continue as they are. Smaller producers argue that since the problem is an industrial food problem the new regulations in the bill should apply to industrial food production only. The worry is the broad approach government will likely take will place an undue burden on smaller operations. Carol Ann Sayle, co-founder and co-owner of Boggy Creek Farm in Austin, Texas, writes that the upside to the recent spinach scares is they illustrate perfectly that dangerous food is more likely to come from a national supplier than a local farmer. She writes

The contrast of our production of food for our community to that of produce grown in monocultures and shipped from one side of the nation to the other, and from other countries to ours, is drastic. Yet our government, responding to food safety concerns, wants to dump a little farm like ours—where our friends, the customers, walk our farm and look at the crops growing—into a big pot full of giant farms, huge processors, and transportation systems, and create laws that regulate us all as equals.

What you end up with is the need for a safer food supply running smack-dab into the need for small scale practices to become part and parcel of how we grow all of our food. There are a few Senators who recognize this problem who have proposed amendments that would exempt smaller operations from the FDA rules. There are precedents for such exemptions in federal and state laws already. The Federal Egg Products Inspection act has exemptions for farmers who sell eggs directly to consumers, as well as for those with flocks of 3000 or fewer regardless of who they sell to. The current language in the Tester amendment would exempt farms with incomes of $500,000 or less, but Alex Ferguson writes that isn’t enough since that would still include 95 percent of domestic producers. Supporters of exemptions argue that farm size should be measured in acreage, processing methods and reach of distribution as well as sales.

Addressing food safety in this country is a must-do, but we should also begin to examine the scale at which our food is produced.

This post originally appeared at Fair Food Fight.

First off lets talk about what food irradiation actually is. According to Wikipedia Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation to destroy microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, or insects that might be present in the food. The radiation damages the DNA in the microorganisms, etc until they can longer repair themselves and therefore die. Proponents, like Ron Eustice, Executive Director of the Minnesota Beef Council, argue that in addition to reducing harmful pathogens in red meat and poultry, food irradiation can “eliminate insects in fruits and vegetables, delay ripening of fruits and vegetables, extend freshness, and all the while [leave food] virtually unchanged with no loss in vitamins or minerals.” Opponents argue that the benefits are unproven and that long-term studies are needed before this practice is allowed to become commonplace.

A glaring omission from the series is why irradiation is needed at all. The truth of the matter is we have larger rates of food-borne illness because of the size of our food production system. On large scale operations like CAFOs keeping meat safe is a difficult endeavor. E.coli outbreaks in leafy greens like Spinach have also been tied to manure and runoff from these CAFOs. Irradiating the food along it’s production path in an operation of that size might have its place, but it could also lead to less attention to safety measures along other parts of the chain.

A move towards smaller, regional food production systems without the problems of overcrowding and high-speed slaughter would not eliminate food borne pathogens altogether, but it would certainly make irradiating our food seem less like a reasonable option.

This post originally appeared at Fair Food Fight.

According to the GAO, Nestle writes, the FDA needs to ask Congress for statutory authority to:

• Recall products identified as unsafe
• Require companies to demonstrate that food ingredients are safe before using them
• Require preventive controls (e.g. HACCP) by firms producing foods that have been associated with repeated instances of serious health problems or death.

Some of these powers are in the FDA Modernization bill.

The first GAO report, Food Safety: FDA Has Begun to Take Action to Address Weaknesses in Food Safety Research, but Gaps Remain (GAO-10-182R April 23, 2010), states

In 2007 the FDA Science Board, an advisory board to the agency, reported that science at FDA suffers from serious deficiencies. In addition, our prior reviews of FDA’s food safety programs have identified gaps in scientific information, limiting FDA’s ability to oversee food labeling, fresh produce, and dietary supplements. Further, as part of our recent review on the effectiveness of the strategic planning and management efforts of FDA, 67 percent of FDA managers reported, in response to a GAO survey, that updated scientific technologies or other tools would greatly help them to contribute to FDA’s goals and responsibilities; however, only 36 percent of managers reported that FDA was making great progress in keeping pace with scientific advances.

The second report, Food Safety: FDA Could Strengthen Oversight of Imported Food by Improving Enforcement and Seeking Additional Authorities, (GAO-10-699T May 6, 2010), states

Specifically, GAO previously reported that FDA currently lacks mandatory recall authority for companies that do not voluntarily recall food products identified as unsafe. Limitations in FDA’s food recall authorities heighten the risk that unsafe food will remain in the food supply. In addition, under current FDA regulations, companies may conclude a food ingredient is generally recognized as safe without FDA’s approval or knowledge.

The FDA Modernization ACT, if passed could close some of the scientific knowledge gaps currently found in FDA practices and grant it the authority it needs to strengthen its recall capabilities.

This post originally appeared at Fair Food Fight.

Quick. What can you tell me about the FDA Modernizaion Act? I bet most of you know very little. I don’t know much about it myself, but I can tell you who knows tons about the bill: the food services industry. In fact the first piece of relevant information sent by a Google alert I have set up tracking news about the bill was an article in Quick Serve Restaurant.

That article is a mish-mash of praise and damnation of the bill. In one sentence it points out the obvious benefits of a safer food supply, but in another worries that the cost of that safer food supply will be an uneccessary burden on the restaurants. I bet you can guess which side of that argument industry lobbyist will take. 

Last week Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, released a video urging the Senate to pass Food Safety Bill S510 as soon as possible. Schlosser knows that the bill is in trouble. The House passed the bill over a year ago, and it has been awaiting a Senate vote ever since, derailed first by the financial crisis and then the health care vote. All along the way lobbying groups have been chipping away at the provisions.

Readers of this site will no doubt question the power of the government to regulate anything–and they should–but it is my opinion that at this stage in the fight we need the government as close to our corner of the ring as possible. Now is the time to attack our monolithic food system with the hammer and chisel, carving away huge chunks of dead stone, and the government can do that for us. Once that work is done we can move in with the smaller tools and refine the new system.

However the government won’t be our tool, but the lobbyists’ if we don’t start paying attention. Tom Phillpot was right when he wrote “voting with your fork is not enough.” The food industry giants have our government’s ear for the moment, and their billions speak loudly. We have to find a way to speak louder.

So what can you do? You can do as Schlosser says and call Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and tell them you want this bill put to a vote. Call your local Senator and ask them to do the same. Tell your friends and family why this is important. Remember that when you’re voting with your fork–and choosing local or organic foods–make sure someone knows why you make that choice, and why they should too.

Further Reading:

The site notinmyfood.org offers analysis of the bill. 

This post originally appeared on Fair Food Fight.

“Too Big to Fail” is certainly apt here, albeit in a different manner. Due to our dependence on a handful of monocultures that are used to make the processed foods that most Americans are eating, if something caused a shortage in supply of just one of those foods our food industry would crumble. Those of us who support local and sustainable food might cheer such a result, but the hunger crisis in this country and the most of the modern world would be catasrophic. We need a graceful weaning from the teat of Big Ag, not a sudden deprivation.

Just like the Minerals Management Service contains many ex-oil people and the US Treasury is packed with former Wall-Street players, the governing bodies overseeing food policy are often former Big Ag players. A recent Obama appointee hails from a group with close ties to Monsanto, for example. In it’s search for more oil and more profit BP–together with oil lobbying groups–paved the way for lightly-regulated drilling in the Gulf. Big Ag is another in a line of industries allowed to seek profits with very little regulation standing in their way. If there are corners concerning safety, health or quality to be cut, you can believe they will be. How else can you explain things like melamine being found in baby formula?

The truth is America is addicted to cheap food. In order to keep those costs down companies have to continually grow, and that pace often means things get ignored or selectively forgotten. Until we realize that our food should cost more companies will continue doing business as usual. We have to change how food is grown and produced in this country or one day our President will greet us from behind his desk to explain why there are millions of starving people in our country and what we must do to feed them again. Instead of waiting for the crisis we should begin anticipating it and encouraging lawmakers to act preemptively.

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, is a step in the right direction. The bill is currently stalled in congress but if passed would

amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to regulate food, including by authorizing the Secretary to suspend the registration of a food facility.

The act also requires the preparation of a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. Learn more about the bill at Bill Marler’s blog. Congress has a lot of change to enact, but this should be among its highest priorities.

This post originally appeared on Fair Food Fight

A few minutes south of Rochester, a privately owned airstrip serves as the site for thousands of aircraft takeoffs every year–everything from airplanes to jets to helicopters.

None of the aircraft, though, carry any passengers, and the planes all land back at the same field.

You can read the entire article here.

Tod Fyten, owner and brewer of the Mantorville Brewing Company, is a living history of beer brewing in Minnesota. His 25 years of experience in all corners of the beer industry have culminated in his ownership of MBC, a craft brewery located in Mantorville. “Extending the brewing history of Mantorville is a big reason I’m here,” Fyten says.

Read the full article here.