The new year brings new guesses as to what will be the next big food thing, when really it’s just an exercise in food porn.
And sometimes dangerous.
The Epoch Times predicts that grass fed meat will be hot because blah… blah … blah … oh, “grass-fed is virtually free from the threat of E. coli outbreaks – another major plus for meat-eaters.”
No it’s not: handle and cook carefully, and use a damn thermometer (Last night I was having dinner with mom-in-law and Sorenne at a steakhouse while Amy was doing French club stuff at this conference in Vancouver. When the server asked how I wanted Sorenne’s sliders, I said, 165F. When she asked how I wanted my steak I said, 140F. She insisted they had a thermometer out back but …).
And from the New Zealand Herald, in advice every pregnant woman should ignore, the author says it’s false that “pregnant women should avoid eating unpasteurized cheeses, shellfish and other “edgy” foods.”
They’re not edgy, they’re microbiolgically dangerous because the immune system of expectant moms is ratcheted down by a factor of 10 to avoid harming the fetus. To say that rates of listeriosis are lower in France where pregnant woman eat unpasteurized cheese (and this applies to any refrigerated, ready-to-eat foods) is to ignore deficiencies in surveillance and that one of the largest cheese producers said it was switching to all pasteurized in 2008 because it didn’t want any more bodies – born or unborn.
On Dec. 17, the California-based chain will roll out the All-Natural Burger at all of its 1,150 stores, most of them on the West Coast. It contains no hormones, no antibiotics, no steroids—and it’s sourced from free-range, grass-fed cows for the affordable price of $4.69 for a single patty and $6.99 for a double. Carl’s Jr. will be the first major fast-food chain to feature a “natural” burger on its menu, according to USA Today.
CKE Restaurants, the chain’s parent company, made the decision after the burgers proved popular at a trial run in Los Angeles last summer. Hardee’s, Carl’s Jr.’s sister brand, plans to test the menu item in the Midwest market soon.
As much as foodies or animal rights advocates might like to take credit, the company says the move wasn’t at all political.
“Our objective has never been to tell people what to eat, but to serve them what they want to eat,” CKE Restaurants CEO Andy Puzder told USA Today.
A Morrilton farmer who runs Petit Jean Farm was sentenced Friday to three years’ probation and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine for admittedly selling mislabeled meat in 2010 and 2011.
Ed Martsolf, 67, also must pay restitution of $3,257.07, to be divided among about 50 people who were considered “end users” of the meat that was falsely labeled as coming from “grass-fed” animals but was actually obtained commercially and fraudulently relabeled.
In January, Martsolf pleaded guilty to two felonies, admitting that he mislabeled meat that his family farm sold in 2010 and 2011 to grocery stores and restaurants in Arkansas, to claim falsely that it had been inspected by agents from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
No illnesses were ever reported as a result of anyone eating the misbranded meat, but in late February 2011, the USDA recalled several of the company’s meat products — beef, pork, lamb and chicken.
There are any number of agricultural production systems out there, each with their own way of making a buck and each with a certain level of hucksterism involved. I focus on whether the system and the end product are microbiologically safe. The best producers use techniques – regardless of political ideology – that fit best in their production system in their geographic location.
A new study in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease compared bacterial contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from 50 grass-fed and 50 conventionally produced beef products. The researchers from Purdue University and China concluded there was no safety advantage for either group.
The abstract is below:
Contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from “grass-fed” labeled beef products
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease
Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2010.0562
Abstract
Grass-fed and organic beef products make up a growing share of the beef market in the United States. While processing, animal handling, and farm management play large roles in determining the safety of final beef products, grass-fed beef products are often marketed as safer alternatives to grain-finished beef products based on the potential effects of all-forage diets on host microbiota. We conducted a series of experiments examining bacterial contamination rates in 50 beef products labeled as “grass-fed” versus 50 conventionally raised retail beef products. Coliform concentrations did not differ between conventional and grass-fed beef (conventional: 2.6 log10 CFU/mL rinsate; grass-fed: 2.7 log10 CFU/mL rinsate). The percentages of Escherichia coli positive samples did not differ between the two groups (44% vs. 44%). Enterococcus spp. were frequently isolated from both grass-fed beef products (44%) and conventional beef products (62%; p=0.07). No Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 isolates were recovered from any of the meat samples. Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid (p<0.05). Resistance to some antimicrobials (e.g., chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline) was high in Enterococcus spp. isolated from both conventional and grass-fed beef. There were no differences in the percentages of antimicrobial resistant E. coli isolates between the two groups. Taken together, these data indicate that there are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products.
The season premier of South Park took a shot at those dead celebrities that just won’t go away – Hi! Billy Mays here … — , and a lovely sub-plot aimed at the sanctimonious Chipotle, and how their food makes your ass bleed.
Maybe Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been reading up on E. coli O157:H7 symptoms.
You love to eat Chipotle, but you hate those blood stains in your underwear?
Now you can eat all the Chipotle you want, and still have clean underwear with ChipotliAway.
Stan: Why would you keep eating something that made you crap blood?
Cartman: Dude have you ever eaten Chipotle, it’s really good.
I love that the adopted Canadian kid, Ike, and all the other Canadians, have flapping heads (who can forget, Blame Canada, from the movie?). And bring on more Terrance and Phillip. Video which may offend, below.
"I’ve been involved in getting moose for over 30 years from wildlife, and I have never heard of anyone ever getting sick from eating a moose burger."
So says Dave Barker, who works for the Knights of Columbus in Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland.
I hear similar sentiments all the time. It’s completely meaningless.
If someone got sick from a past practice, they would probably not accurately link it to a specific food; if they died, they wouldn’t be around to complain.
But perhaps the bureaucrats in the Canadian province of Newfoundland have gone a bit too … bureaucratic.
The provincial government recently discontinued the donation of roadkill moose meat, and charity groups say the decision strips them of a vital source of fundraising.
For decades, wildlife officers have offered charities moose killed in road collisions. The charities had butchers mince the meat into burgers, a very popular treat in the province, and held community barbecues and other events to raise money for their various causes.
"It depends on how much moose is actually destroyed in the accident, but normally you get at least two moose burger sales out of one moose, so you’re looking at anywhere from $2,500 to $3,000," said Shane Budgell, president of the Lions Club in Grand Falls-Windsor.
The government’s decision comes after the province’s auditor general flagged problems earlier this year about the department’s donations of wild game meat.
"The department did not always track where all of the meat from a particular animal was sent," John Noseworthy wrote in his annual report.
After a review, the government decided to stop donating roadkill moose meat, saying the practice would expose them to liability if any health or safety risks arose.
Moose are ruminants, and there have been outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 associated with moose meat (it’s not just corn-fed feedlot cattle; I’m talking to you, Michael Pollan and Food Inc.).
But rather than ban the use of roadkill, why not have better training for butchers and food service types and teach them how to not cross-contaminate and use tip-sensitive thermometers to ensure the meat is prepared safely?
Is E. coli O157:H7 associated with things other than feedlot cattle?
I had a few people call me recently, saying, I saw that movie, Food, Inc., which says that E. coli O157:H7 is predominately in feedlot cattle because of the grain they are fed, and that’s how the bug came to exist. So how did it get into Nestle cookie dough?
It’s sort of a mantra of raw milk enthusiasts and wannabe food safety types that E. coli O157:H7 is a product of feedlot cattle, and that grass-fed creatures are benign entities for the dinner plate.
A blogger yesterday wrote, “… hamburger tainted by e-coli, a virus that breeds in a cow’s stomach when it is feed grain instead of grass (which, of course, most cows are nowadays in order to fatten them quickly and cheaply).”
It’s a bacterium, not a virus.
Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the N.Y. Times, wrote yesterday, on Sunday, June 21/09, that, “There is some evidence that pathogens, including E. coli, become much more common in factory farming operations. Move feedlot cattle out to a pasture for five days, and they will lose 80 percent of the E. coli in their gut, the film says.”
That evidence is about as strong as the whisps of evidence compiled by Danny Sugarman that The Doors’ frontman Jim Morrisson is still alive and didn’t die from excess in a Paris bathtub in 1971. But, every teenager goes through their Doors phase (I can only find the clip below in Spanish, but Canada’s The Guess Who stands up much better with the hindsight of time; they know they are drunken buffoons, and not a drunken buffoon trying to be a poet).
Scientific uncertainty can easily be exploited by the certainty of filmmakers, who cherry pick facts and flourish on rhetoric. And I guess if it’s repeated ad nauseum for 11 years by writers from the N.Y. Times to your-favorite-bullshit blogger it becomes fact.
That line, “Move feedlot cattle out to a pasture for five days, and they will lose 80 percent of the E. coli in their gut,” comes from a 1998 paper published in the journal Science by Diez-Gonzalez of Cornell University, and colleagues.
Since September 1998, there has been conflicting information on the effect of diet on E. coli shedding from cattle. The conflict arises in part from the effect of diet on the ability of E. coli to develop acid resistance. … Diez-Gonzalez et. al demonstrated that feeding a high-grain diet to cattle results in an acidic environment in the colon. Because the animals incompletely digested the starch in grains, some starch was able to reach the colon where it fermented, producing fermentation acids. The researchers believe an acidic environment selects for or induces acid resistance among the Escherichia coli population. … Diez-Gonzalez et al. concluded that if cattle were given hay for a brief period (five days) immediately before slaughter, the risk of foodborne E. coli infection would be significantly reduced because the acidity in the colon is greatly reduced. "Our studies indicate that cattle could be given hay for a brief period immediately before slaughter to significantly reduce the risk of food-borne E. coli infection."
The Science article received mainstream media attention, and was covered by the Associated Press and The New York Times, as well as scientific releases and reports. In the Irish Times, it was cited as the basis for concluding that because Irish cattle are fed a grass-based diet rather than grain, Ireland has a low incidence of E. coli O157:H7. Hancock et al. contend that this conclusion is unsupported or contradicted by several lines of evidence. The E. coli that contaminate beef typically originate from the hide, the hooves, or the equipment used in slaughter and processing rather than directly from the colon, and likely replicate in environments unlike the colon. Therefore, the induced acid resistance of E. coli contaminating beef is likely to be unrelated to the pH of its ancestral colonic environment. The E. coli O157:H7 bacterium uses several mechanisms to survive acid environments, some of which are innate and are not influenced by environment . Although acid resistance is likely a factor in an infective dose, induced acid resistance has not been shown to be a factor in E. coli O157:H7 infectivity by experimental (dose-inoculation) or observational (epidemiological) data . Therefore, acid resistance induced by exposure to weak acid may not influence the virulence of this pathogen.
Published data on E. coli O157:H7 tends to contradict or does not support the effects of the dietary change proposed by Diez-Gonzalez et al. In a recent study on three different grain diets (85% cracked corn, 15% whole cottonseed and 70% barley, or 85% barley), the fecal pH of the animals fed the corn diet was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the fecal pH of the animals fed the cottonseed and barley and barley diets, likely resulting in a less suitable environment for E. coli O157:H7 in the hindgut of the corn fed animals (2000, Buchko et al). In the Journal of Food Protection, researchers concluded that changing from grain to a high roughage diet did not produce a change in the E. coli concentration that was large enough to deliver a drastic improvement in beef carcass hygiene. Sheep experiencing an abrupt diet change have higher concentrations and increased shedding of fecal E. coli O157:H7 for longer periods than sheep fed a consistent high-grain diet. Another study compared the duration of shedding E. coli O157:H7 isolates by hay-fed and grain-fed steers experimentally inoculated with E. coli O157:H7 as well as the acid resistance of the bacteria. The hay-fed animals shed E. coli O157:H7 longer than the grain-fed animals, and irrespective of diet, these bacteria were equally acid resistant.
These results suggest that the proposed dietary change would actually increase contamination with E. coli O157:H7. Also, the 1,000-fold reductions in total fecal E. coli demonstrated by Diez-Gonzales et al. are far greater than those recorded in cattle experiencing similar ration changes . Finally, extensive surveys show that grain-fed feedlot cattle have no higher E. coli O157:H7 infection prevalence than similarly aged dairy cattle fed forage (hay) diets. Abrupt feed change immediately before slaughter could have unexpected deleterious effects. The proposed diet change has the potential to increase the risk of bovine salmonella infections, a potential source of food poisoning. The dietary change results in sharply reduced volatile fatty acid concentrations in the large intestine as well as changes in the bacteria, allowing for colonization of Salmonella.
See, that’s a really long explanation. It’s not as soothing as, change cattle diet, disease prevented. And that was written nine years ago.
Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota wrote a cleaner critique in 2007 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:
"Russo cited conclusions from a 1998 study from Cornell University that cattle fed a diet of grass, not grain, had very few E. coli, and that those bacteria that survived in the cattle feces would not survive in the human when eaten in undercooked meat, particularly hamburger. This statement is based on a study of only three cows rotated on different diets and for which the researchers did not even test for E. coli O157:H7. Unfortunately, the authors extrapolated these incredibly sparse results to the entire cattle industry. The Cornell study is uncorroborated in numerous published scientific papers from renowned research groups around the world. Finally, work conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health as part of a national study on foodborne disease recently showed that eating red meat from local farms was a significant risk factor for E. coli infection. …
And as my colleague David Renter wrote in Sept. 2006,
"Cattle raised on diets of ‘grass, hay and other fibrous forage’ do contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in their feces as do other animals including deer, sheep, goats, bison, opossum, raccoons, birds, and many others.
"Cattle diet can affect levels of E. coli O157:H7, but this is a complex issue that has been and continues to be studied by many scientists. To suggest switching cattle from grain to forage based on a small piece of the scientific evidence is inappropriate and irresponsible. Several pieces of evidence suggest that such a change would not eliminate and may even increase E. coli O157:H7 in cattle.
"The current spinach outbreak may be traced back to cattle manure, but there are many other potential sources. Simplistically attacking one facet of livestock production may be politically expedient, but instead provides a false sense of security and ignores the biological realities of E. coli O157:H7. In 1999, for example, 90 children were felled by E. coli O157:H7 at a fair in London, Ont. The source? A goat at a petting zoo, hardly an intensively farmed animal."
Last time I looked, E. coli O157:H7 and about 60 other shiga-producing E. coli that are known to cause illness in humans are present in about 10 per cent of all ruminants – cattle, sheep, goats, deer, elk -– and I can point to outbreaks associated with all of those species. Pigs, chickens, humans, birds and rodents have all been shown to be carriers of shiga-producing E. coli but the resevoir appears to be ruminants. The final report of the fall 2006 spinach outbreak identifies nearby grass-fed beef cattle as the likely source of the E. coli O157:H7 that sickened 200 and killed 4.
How the E. coli O157:H7 got into the cookie dough remains to be seen. Biology is complex and constantly changing – even at farmer’s markets, which was the big solution of Food, Inc. But it’s only a movie.
That Cornell paper can be found here:
Diez-Gonzalez, Francisco, Todd R. Callaway, Menas G. Kizoulis, James B. Russell. Grain Feeding and the Dissemination of Acid-Resistance Escherichia coli from Cattle. Science: Sept 11, 1998. Volume 281, Number 5383, pages 1666-1668.
So says Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
She adds.
"Without the green grass, you’re missing a lot of vitamins. Also, it’s much safer. When cows are eating green grass, you don’t find pathogens in their milk."
With such statements, public advocacy becomes public health risk.
The natural reservoirs for E. coli O157:H7 and other verotoxigenic E. coli is the intestines of all ruminants, including cattle — grass or grain-fed — sheep, goats, deer and the like. The final report of the fall 2006 spinach outbreak identifies nearby grass-fed beef cattle as the likely source of the E. coli O157:H7 that sickened 200 and killed 4.
Chef and restaurateur Lenny Russo joins other food pornographers such as Mark Bittman and Nina Planck in promoting fashion over facts by recycling the claim that grass-fed cattle have significantly lower levels of dangerous E. coli than grain-fed cattle.
Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota and Russo’s target, does a nice job of, um, crushing Russo’s assertions in today’s Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:
"Russo cited conclusions from a 1998 study from Cornell University that cattle fed a diet of grass, not grain, had very few E. coli, and that those bacteria that survived in the cattle feces would not survive in the human when eaten in undercooked meat, particularly hamburger. This statement is based on a study of only three cows rotated on different diets and for which the researchers did not even test for E. coli O157:H7. Unfortunately, the authors extrapolated these incredibly sparse results to the entire cattle industry. The Cornell study is uncorroborated in numerous published scientific papers from renowned research groups around the world. Finally, work conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health as part of a national study on foodborne disease recently showed that eating red meat from local farms was a significant risk factor for E. coli infection. …
"Russo would understand this issue in an entirely different light if he had been with me when I had to explain to distraught parents that their young daughter’s death was due to eating an undercooked hamburger, prepared by them, and the E. coli that caused her illness came from meat from a cow raised only on pasture grass and processed by the local meat packer. The cow also came from Grandpa’s farm down the road."
Lawyer Bill Marler offered his own take on the exchange, so I’ll jump in to reiterate that the natural reservoirs for E. coli O157:H7 and other verotoxigenic E. coli is the intestines of all ruminants, including cattle — grass or grain-fed — sheep, goats, deer and the like. The final report of the fall 2006 spinach outbreak identifies nearby grass-fed beef cattle as the likely source of the E. coli O157:H7 that sickened 200 and killed 4.
"Cattle raised on diets of ‘grass, hay and other fibrous forage’ do contain E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in their feces as do other animals including deer, sheep, goats, bison, opossum, raccoons, birds, and many others.
"Cattle diet can affect levels of E. coli O157:H7, but this is a complex issue that has been and continues to be studied by many scientists. To suggest switching cattle from grain to forage based on a small piece of the scientific evidence is inappropriate and irresponsible. Several pieces of evidence suggest that such a change would not eliminate and may even increase E. coli O157:H7 in cattle.
"The current spinach outbreak may be traced back to cattle manure, but there are many other potential sources. Simplistically attacking one facet of livestock production may be politically expedient, but instead provides a false sense of security and ignores the biological realities of E. coli O157:H7. In 1999, for example, 90 children were felled by E. coli O157:H7 at a fair in London, Ont. The source? A goat at a petting zoo, hardly an intensively farmed animal."
The Epoch Times predicts that grass fed meat will be hot because blah… blah … blah … oh, “grass-fed is virtually free from the threat of E. coli outbreaks – another major plus for meat-eaters.”
They’re not edgy, they’re microbiolgically dangerous because the immune system of expectant moms is ratcheted down by a factor of 10 to avoid harming the fetus. To say that rates of listeriosis are lower in France where pregnant woman eat unpasteurized cheese (and this applies to any refrigerated, ready-to-eat foods) is to ignore deficiencies in surveillance and that one of the largest cheese producers said it was switching to all pasteurized in 2008 because it didn’t want any more bodies – born or unborn.
best producers use techniques – regardless of political ideology – that fit best in their production system in their geographic location.
Maybe Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been reading up on E. coli O157:H7 symptoms.
So says Dave Barker, who works for the Knights of Columbus in Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland.
"It depends on how much moose is actually destroyed in the accident, but normally you get at least two moose burger sales out of one moose, so you’re looking at anywhere from $2,500 to $3,000," said Shane Budgell, president of the Lions Club in Grand Falls-Windsor..jpg)
It’s sort of a mantra of raw milk enthusiasts and wannabe food safety types that E. coli O157:H7 is a product of feedlot cattle, and that grass-fed creatures are benign entities for the dinner plate.(1).jpg)
That line, “Move feedlot cattle out to a pasture for five days, and they will lose 80 percent of the E. coli in their gut,” comes from a 1998 paper published in the journal Science by Diez-Gonzalez of Cornell University, and colleagues..jpg)
"Russo cited conclusions from a 1998 study from Cornell University that cattle fed a diet of grass, not grain, had very few E. coli, and that those bacteria that survived in the cattle feces would not survive in the human when eaten in undercooked meat, particularly hamburger. This statement is based on a study of only three cows rotated on different diets and for which the researchers did not even test for E. coli O157:H7. Unfortunately, the authors extrapolated these incredibly sparse results to the entire cattle industry. The Cornell study is uncorroborated in numerous published scientific papers from renowned research groups around the world. Finally, work conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health as part of a national study on foodborne disease recently showed that eating red meat from local farms was a significant risk factor for E. coli infection. …
"Russo would understand this issue in an entirely different light if he had been with me when I had to explain to distraught parents that their young daughter’s death was due to eating an undercooked hamburger, prepared by them, and the E. coli that caused her illness came from meat from a cow raised only on pasture grass and processed by the local meat packer. The cow also came from Grandpa’s farm down the road."