It’s hard to draw any other conclusion from Michael Moss’s New York Times blockbuster investigative piece on E. coli in industrial beef, which is centered on the plight of Stephanie Smith, a young dance instructor left comatose, near death and now paralyzed from eating a single Cargill hamburger. Of course, a “single hamburger” can include meat from hundreds, some would say thousands, of animals. As Moss puts it:
Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen.
This is why a food safety expert who helped develop tracking systems for E. coli in meat can declare that, “Ground beef is not a completely safe product.” No kidding. The problem, however, is not with E. coli in general. The problem is that the particular strain of E. coli which infected Smith—known as E. coli O157:H7—is virulent, deadly, persistent and endemic in industrial beef. How virulent, deadly and persistent? This much:
Food scientists have registered increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make someone sick, and they warn that federal guidance to cook meat thoroughly and to wash up afterward is not sufficient. A test by The Times found that the safe handling instructions are not enough to prevent the bacteria from spreading in the kitchen.
In other words, if a piece of infected meat ends up in your kitchen, you are almost guaranteed exposure to it no matter how carefully you handle it. And how endemic? This year alone almost half a million pounds of E. coli infected ground beef have been recalled nationwide (and that doesn’t include the 800,000 pounds of Cargill beef recalled for contamination with antibiotic-resistant salmonella). Indeed, if Moss’s work proves anything, it’s that the safety systems in industrial beef processing are both barely functioning and almost fully opaque. And while the government is able to peek behind the curtain at these massive slaughterhouses and processing facilities, it seems far more concerned with protecting companies’ intellectual property than with the public health:
The meat industry treats much of its practices and the ingredients in ground beef as trade secrets. While the Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and has access to production records, it also guards those secrets. Federal records released by the department through the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of Cargill’s grinding operation that could be learned only through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.
In one of the most chilling, and I thought devastating, quotes in the entire piece, a top official at the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service observed that his options were somewhat limited since he had to “look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health.” Note the fact that his phrasing sets the meat industry’s needs at odds with ours—the two can’t be reconciled in his eyes. What does that say about the government’s ability to ensure a safe food supply? No matter how you structure it, the industry now appears too big and too powerful to be regulated. What other explanation is there for the fact that the top food safety job at the USDA remains unfilled if not regulatory paralysis—the meat industry seems to have veto power over its regulators and hasn’t found a federal overseer to its liking.
One area that Moss does not cover is how E. coli O157 got into industrial beef in the first place. In fact it’s there because of the meat industry’s insistence on feeding cows corn—something they cannot easily digest—instead of grass. Among other things, corn feeding requires cows to be fed a steady dose of antibiotics, which has led to the rise of antibiotic resistance among various pathogens. But more importantly, it has caused very real changes in the cow’s gut which has allowed this toxic strain of E. coli to take hold, a strain that research suggests cannot survive in the gut of cows that eat only grass.
In short, E. coli didn’t just “happen” to the meat industry—it’s a consequence of industrial practices. But nowhere in the article (or in the halls of the USDA or the largescale beef producers for that matter) is the possibility of moving away from this corn-based system raised as a solution for the industrial system. Surprisingly, the article includes virtually no proposed solutions for this crisis—just vague assurances that the USDA isn’t “standing still” on the issue. In reality, the industry focuses exclusively on “managing” the ongoing presence of E. coli O157 though the development of an E. coli vaccine for cows, and irradiation or chemical washes for the meat. All of which are attempts to mask the risks of a failed system and represent an institutionalizing of the underlying failures. And none of which make me ever want to touch industrial meat again.
Indeed, if there ever was a powerful argument for eating only grass-fed beef from small producers, this article is it. The only conclusion worth drawing from this expose is that industrial ground beef simply isn’t worth the risk. And without wholesale industry and regulatory reform—neither of which appears likely or even possible, it may never be.
Did Michelle Obama get the president to create a national Food Policy Council?
USDA makes the right call on school meat safety, animal tracking
Ask Umbra’s video advice on making your own club soda
Comments
View as Flat
Javaman Posted 7:06 am
06 Oct 2009
People don't want to know where their food comes from, how it is slaughtered and how it is processed into the items they buy. They just want the food without the fuss or guilt.
I get my meat from a local farmer. I have seen him slaughter the steer which gave it's life so I could eat. I know that each bite of meat that I eat, I can say without a doubt, the animal was slaughtered humanly, lead a good life that included fresh clean water, ate hay that the same farmer grew, did not have anything injected into it in order to increase it's production of meat or milk and was not lead to slaughter in complete terror.
I don't eat a huge amount of meat. Because I am aware of it's origin and never ever take it for granted.
Americans need to cut their consumption of meat. Why? To promote humane methods that were once used nation wide, for good heatlhy meat.
The meat that people eat now from your average supermarket is crap. It's complete garbage.
One day we as a nation will no longer be able to depend upon oil to run our nation, our food system and our our grossly over fed, under nurished lives. Then and only then, things will change.
As long as there are still lines at the drive up window at McDonalds, nothing will change.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:16 am
09 Oct 2009
The steer volunteered to pay the supreme sacrifice, for your eating pleasure? I think not. The steer didn't jump, it was pushed.
Just a thought.
Permalink
Javaman Posted 7:06 am
06 Oct 2009
People don't want to know where their food comes from, how it is slaughtered and how it is processed into the items they buy. They just want the food without the fuss or guilt.
I get my meat from a local farmer. I have seen him slaughter the steer which gave it's life so I could eat. I know that each bite of meat that I eat, I can say without a doubt, the animal was slaughtered humanly, lead a good life that included fresh clean water, ate hay that the same farmer grew, did not have anything injected into it in order to increase it's production of meat or milk and was not lead to slaughter in complete terror.
I don't eat a huge amount of meat. Because I am aware of it's origin and never ever take it for granted.
Americans need to cut their consumption of meat. Why? To promote humane methods that were once used nation wide, for good heatlhy meat.
The meat that people eat now from your average supermarket is crap. It's complete garbage.
One day we as a nation will no longer be able to depend upon oil to run our nation, our food system and our our grossly over fed, under nurished lives. Then and only then, things will change.
As long as there are still lines at the drive up window at McDonalds, nothing will change.
Permalink
Former Ag Teacher Posted 12:34 pm
06 Oct 2009
Permalink
Javaman Posted 5:50 pm
06 Oct 2009
Rather than understanding the point, you decide to deride. The same farmer I get my meat from also has cows, I buy his raw milk.
hope you enjoy your mcd's. it appears that's how deep you are.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 2:15 pm
06 Oct 2009
Sounds like you need to switch the grocery store you shop at. FYI, all licensed meat processors are inspected by the FDA. Most even have inspectors that are on premise throughout the day. I am glad that you trust the local grower that supplies your meat. Also, the majority of beef producers treat their animals with the highest standards of care. Some are care for better than some people are cared for. Take responsibility for your own eating habits. We all ahve to take resposiblity for what we do, (eat). We cannot blame anyone but ourselves. No one forced you to buy or eat the food that you do.
Permalink
Javaman Posted 6:04 pm
06 Oct 2009
You said...
"Sounds like you need to switch the grocery store you shop at. FYI, all licensed meat processors are inspected by the FDA."
I answered that.
Most even have inspectors that are on premise throughout the day.
-Buzzz wrong. the FDA is grossly understaffed and under funded. There are basically 20 inspectors to inspect over 4 million head of cows in just the southwest alone. I don't need to do the math for you to understand that is basically impossible for them to inspect everything. Also, most factory cattle yards are tipped off long before the inspector gets there. The farm I get my meat from has roughly 50 head of cattle depending on the season. They are slaughtered via a an FDA approved mobile slaughter truck. Everything needs to be signed off and the Butcher signs his name to a legal document stating that his truck is clean. Any meat that potentially gets contaminated can get traced right back to him. So, it's to his benefit to have a clean truck.
I am glad that you trust the local grower that supplies your meat. Also, the majority of beef producers treat their animals with the highest standards of care.
-Which meat producers are you talking about? Obviously you aren't talking about factory farms. The violations for many many of them stretch a mile long and like most corporations are in constant legal battles over health and cleanliness issues. And it has nothing to do with trust, I did my research. I trust no one.
Some are care for better than some people are cared for.
-Are you talking about local producers? because factory cattle mills certainly don't.
Take responsibility for your own eating habits. We all ahve to take resposiblity for what we do, (eat). We cannot blame anyone but ourselves.
-Total BS. It's nothing to demand that the FDA be properly funded and staffed. That is not us to blame, that is the Federal Government cutting funds. What are we to say when someone gets sick? oh well, they are only to blame because they trusted the meat producers to give them a clean product? that's completely absurd. We as a nation have to demand that the FDA be funded and that the government do its job.
No one forced you to buy or eat the food that you do.
-I don't know what your point is here, you contradict you previous statement. Yes, no one forces me to eat what I eat, but I at least want to know where the food that I eat comes from and if it is clean and raised and slaughtered in a humane manner. I think any normal well adjusted person would want that. Or do you believe that people should just eat like it's a crap shoot and hope they don't die from food poisoning?
Sheesh.
Permalink
Javaman Posted 6:05 pm
06 Oct 2009
You said...
"Sounds like you need to switch the grocery store you shop at. FYI, all licensed meat processors are inspected by the FDA."
I answered that.
Most even have inspectors that are on premise throughout the day.
-Buzzz wrong. the FDA is grossly understaffed and under funded. There are basically 20 inspectors to inspect over 4 million head of cows in just the southwest alone. I don't need to do the math for you to understand that is basically impossible for them to inspect everything. Also, most factory cattle yards are tipped off long before the inspector gets there. The farm I get my meat from has roughly 50 head of cattle depending on the season. They are slaughtered via a an FDA approved mobile slaughter truck. Everything needs to be signed off and the Butcher signs his name to a legal document stating that his truck is clean. Any meat that potentially gets contaminated can get traced right back to him. So, it's to his benefit to have a clean truck.
I am glad that you trust the local grower that supplies your meat. Also, the majority of beef producers treat their animals with the highest standards of care.
-Which meat producers are you talking about? Obviously you aren't talking about factory farms. The violations for many many of them stretch a mile long and like most corporations are in constant legal battles over health and cleanliness issues. And it has nothing to do with trust, I did my research. I trust no one.
Some are care for better than some people are cared for.
-Are you talking about local producers? because factory cattle mills certainly don't.
Take responsibility for your own eating habits. We all ahve to take resposiblity for what we do, (eat). We cannot blame anyone but ourselves.
-Total BS. It's nothing to demand that the FDA be properly funded and staffed. That is not us to blame, that is the Federal Government cutting funds. What are we to say when someone gets sick? oh well, they are only to blame because they trusted the meat producers to give them a clean product? that's completely absurd. We as a nation have to demand that the FDA be funded and that the government do its job.
No one forced you to buy or eat the food that you do.
-I don't know what your point is here, you contradict you previous statement. Yes, no one forces me to eat what I eat, but I at least want to know where the food that I eat comes from and if it is clean and raised and slaughtered in a humane manner. I think any normal well adjusted person would want that. Or do you believe that people should just eat like it's a crap shoot and hope they don't die from food poisoning?
Sheesh.
Permalink
Javaman Posted 6:06 pm
06 Oct 2009
You said...
"Sounds like you need to switch the grocery store you shop at. FYI, all licensed meat processors are inspected by the FDA."
I answered that.
Most even have inspectors that are on premise throughout the day.
-Buzzz wrong. the FDA is grossly understaffed and under funded. There are basically 20 inspectors to inspect over 4 million head of cows in just the southwest alone. I don't need to do the math for you to understand that is basically impossible for them to inspect everything. Also, most factory cattle yards are tipped off long before the inspector gets there. The farm I get my meat from has roughly 50 head of cattle depending on the season. They are slaughtered via a an FDA approved mobile slaughter truck. Everything needs to be signed off and the Butcher signs his name to a legal document stating that his truck is clean. Any meat that potentially gets contaminated can get traced right back to him. So, it's to his benefit to have a clean truck.
I am glad that you trust the local grower that supplies your meat. Also, the majority of beef producers treat their animals with the highest standards of care.
-Which meat producers are you talking about? Obviously you aren't talking about factory farms. The violations for many many of them stretch a mile long and like most corporations are in constant legal battles over health and cleanliness issues. And it has nothing to do with trust, I did my research. I trust no one.
Some are care for better than some people are cared for.
-Are you talking about local producers? because factory cattle mills certainly don't.
Take responsibility for your own eating habits. We all ahve to take resposiblity for what we do, (eat). We cannot blame anyone but ourselves.
-Total BS. It's nothing to demand that the FDA be properly funded and staffed. That is not us to blame, that is the Federal Government cutting funds. What are we to say when someone gets sick? oh well, they are only to blame because they trusted the meat producers to give them a clean product? that's completely absurd. We as a nation have to demand that the FDA be funded and that the government do its job.
No one forced you to buy or eat the food that you do.
-I don't know what your point is here, you contradict you previous statement. Yes, no one forces me to eat what I eat, but I at least want to know where the food that I eat comes from and if it is clean and raised and slaughtered in a humane manner. I think any normal well adjusted person would want that. Or do you believe that people should just eat like it's a crap shoot and hope they don't die from food poisoning?
Sheesh.
Permalink
swimgr11 Posted 10:51 am
07 Oct 2009
Permalink
wobblie pressman Posted 8:13 am
06 Oct 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 9:11 am
06 Oct 2009
Me thinks that some unknown tipping point is out there where when enough people are maimed or killed in a visible way the hole system will shut down and we won't have a plan B in place. The pressure from industry probably will over come that or irradiation will be mandatory as a go around.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 10:58 am
06 Oct 2009
Also, feeding corn to an animal does not require antibiotics to be administered. As a matter of fact, the only time i administer antibiotics is when they become sick, just like you would do when a person becomes ill. This notion that animals are constantly pumped full of antibiotics is false. A scare tactic. Antibiotics are regulated. Any animal administered an antibiotic has to be withheld from placing in the food change for a specific length of time to insure the antibiotic has been metabolized through it's body. This also holds true for milk production. And yes, they are tested before they are allowed into the food chain.
Grass fed beef also get antibiotics administered as needed to ward off sickness.
Permalink
Truly Scrumptious Posted 8:16 am
13 Oct 2009
Permalink
roncastle Posted 11:46 am
06 Oct 2009
Permalink
tmullins Posted 5:54 pm
06 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:43 pm
06 Oct 2009
You are correct, the FDA is grossly underfunded. The large meat plants in my area have a staff inspector, If i was wrong in saying that he/she is FDA i apoligise. Organizations such as HSUS has successfully ran campaigns to cut the budgets of the FDA to limit some inspections. We need to put a stop to this kind of abuse. As for your farmer friend, since he produces foods such as milk and meat, he is required to be inspected and certfied, and so would any other producer doing the same. The point I was attempting to make is that the majority of the contamination that takes place in our food chain is not at the farmer level, but at the processor level.
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 8:07 pm
06 Oct 2009
I think you are right, it is not at the farm level that most contamination of meat occurs. That is unless you consider as farms the feedlots where animals stand shoulder to shoulder,up to their ankles in poo while they are fed high grain rations. E. coli is present in all animals' intestines, but rarely do they makes us sick because they are destroyed by the acid in our stomachs. Some research has indicated that it is those high grain rations that have acidified the cattle's stomachs and allowed these acid-resistant forms of e.coli to develop.
I also think it is unfair to blame the cook. E. coli contamination results from getting poop on the food. That doesn't happen in most kitchens.
I don't mean to quibble, but isn't the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service responsible for inspection of meat processing, not the FDA? The inspectors in all meat plants are USDA employees but the processor pays for the inspection. It would be impossible for the number of inspectors at large plants to check every animal before it is unloaded, as it is slaughtered and skinned and eviscerated. That, however, is exactly what happens in the small scale, local processing plant where the animals I raise are turned into beef. My butcher has NEVER had a pound of hamburger recalled.
As an organic producer, I object to the image of "romanticized 1950's" agriculture. Organic farmers use science and a growing understanding of the life found in the soil, how plants and weeds grow and how to safely handle food. We are not looking backwards, but neither do we discard good husbandry if it works.
The USDA's Agricultural Research Service did a nine year study comparing organic, no-till and conventional agriculture. Their research showed that organic farmers used less fossil fuels than either no-till or conventional ag. You have to consider more, you see, than just the fuel used to run your tractor. Pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers use large amounts of fossil fuels in their production. Much to the ARS scientists' surprise, the fields with the highest soil carbon were not the no-till fields, but the organic ones. Good organic farmers spend almost as much time building soil as they do growing crops. We plant clovers, alfalfa, buckwheat, rye and then we work them back into the soil. Besides "green manure" crops we also apply manure and compost. The difference between how we apply manure and how our conventional neighbors do it is that organic standards are very specific about how, how much and when raw manure can be applied to a food crop. Rules for composting are detailed and stringent.
And, yes, many organic farmers do receive USDA payments. We have not, however, received the same per acre subsidies as our neighbors because of the crop rotation requirements of organic farming. We cannot both be certified as organic and "farm the program" for maximum payments. They are basically incompatible.
Thanks for a good discussion.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 7:36 am
07 Oct 2009
Thank you for clarifying the mess up of the Gov't alphabet soup of agencies. And I do apreaciate a comment from another farmer. If I may ask you a question...How do feel your productivity is compared to your farming neighbors who may not be practicing organic.
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 8:07 am
08 Oct 2009
How do you measure productivity? By quantity only, by quality, or by dollars in and dollars out? Debt load per acre? or by children raised per acre? The other question is do you really believe the yields reported at the local bar? Simply in terms of quantity, our farm sometimes compares with our neighbors'. Sometimes our yields are less. In dry years our yields tend to be higher because of our higher organic matter holds moisture better. We often raise different varieties from our neighbors. The organic market is often looking for different quality specifications. For example, the neighbors who raise oats are growing it for animal feed and ours is usually sold as milling oats. We are more likely to choose a wheat variety for it's milling qualities over it's yield potential. Lots of wheat in the bin that no one wants is less profitable than a smaller quantity that sells at a premium price. So comparing yield often doesn't mean much.
Our farm is about a third the size of the average farm in the county and is the same size as it was when my grandfather quit farming it sixty years ago. Imagine what our rural community would look like if the same were true of my neighbors' farms?
Perhaps we need different measures of "productivity."
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 7:30 am
07 Oct 2009
Yes, the FDA is underfunded -- but the USDA is utterly captured by the industry it regulates and does not seem to be able to act in the public interest to reform the US meat processing system. Some believe the FDA would take a more rigorous stance on food safety and act in ways that would truly enhance safety -- but of course it's also possible that it would in turn be captured by the industry it regulates (as seems to have occurred with the FDA and drug companies). But we need to some *something*.
Permalink
Matt N. Posted 10:36 am
07 Oct 2009
I couldn't resist googling up an ironic quote, this one from a Capitalism Magazine 2006 article on Earth Day. "Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable." Undoubtedly Cargill would defend its right to use antibiotics to keep its cattle (and profits) alive, while they risk taking these tools out of medical professionals hands perhaps at the cost of many lives.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 1:02 pm
07 Oct 2009
Permalink
roncastle Posted 3:09 pm
07 Oct 2009
Permalink
roncastle Posted 11:09 am
07 Oct 2009
Read the rest of this essay by former Governor of Kansas and chairman of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, Mr. John Carlin.
http://www.byebyebeef.com/2008/12/cattle-on-drugs.html
Permalink
esbee Posted 5:57 pm
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 8:45 am
09 Oct 2009
I certainly did ask you an open ended question, huh. I enjoyed your answer too. Now how do I measure productivity? Sounds like it is similar to what you do. It isn't all about yields but the return to the dollar I have invested into the crop. Yes, my foodgrade crops yield less, but most of the time bring in the highest income after expenses.
I should have asked the question this way...Based on pure yield per acre or productivity per unit, whether an animal unit or an acre, do you see the same yields as your non organic neighbors? It is a curiosity question of mine. I am speculating that, in the case of grains, the yields are lower. If that is the case, how do we develop a system that will supply the needs to meet the food demands that will be required in the future? SOme say a 70% increase by the year 2050. Keep in mind that some of our best agricultural lands are being gobbled up daily by urban sprawl. We have limited resources to grow our food, and it gets more limited each day. I may sound anti organic, but I am very concerned that the bashing of so called "industrial ag" will hurt all agriculture and put unnecessary hardships on everyone.
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 9:20 pm
09 Oct 2009
Yes, sometimes my conventional farmer neighbors have higher yields per acre than we do. But assuming that means their current farming practices will always out-yield organic methods seems to me to be a flawed assumption. Their yields are completely dependent on applications of anhydrous ammonia, phosphates, potash, herbicides, pesticides and sometimes fungicides. All of those inputs require petroleum in their production. What will happen to their yields when they either do not have access to those fertilizers and pesticides or they cannot afford to apply them? You can argue that technology will find substitutes, but so far, that is not the case. Mineable potash, for example, is a finite and diminishing resource. Take away their petroleum based inputs and I can guarantee you my yields will be far higher than theirs.
A second question is if we, American farmers, are or should be feeding the world. Wouldn't it be better for others to feed themselves? In order for them to do that, they have to have access to agricultural practices which are site specific, scale appropriate and use available and affordable inputs. The majority of the world's food producers cannot afford to buy seed every year, buy fertilizers and chemicals or safe equipment with which to apply it. Increasingly, research is indicating that small scale, organic agriculture can feed the world. It should be possible to do it without sacrificing the environment in the process.
Organic agriculture as we now practice it in this country is probably not going to be the long term solution nor is it appropriate everywhere. We use petroleum too. We could do better with nutrient recycling. We do need to find ways to control weeds better, market our crops more efficiently, keep our soils covered. We should should not be growing monocultures. All of us would be well served if more research dollars went to improving organic farming methods.
Multinational corporations are not really interested in feeding the world. Their sole purpose, and legal mandate, is to provide their stockholders with a return on their investment. They are interested in SELLING their products to the world. They are not interested in keeping farmers on the land. It is easier for them to sell their products or buy commodities from one farmer than a thousand. Chemical companies count their business in acres, not farmers. Buyers count theirs in bushels, semi-loads, unit trains. They don't really need you or me. They need our acres and a few farm managers.
I appreciate your questions and I believe you are sincere in your concern for feeding the world.
Permalink
esbee Posted 3:22 pm
09 Oct 2009
Permalink
. "
but it is ok for industrial ag to put hardships on those who are not even involved with them, like me for instance.... I am in no way involved with them except to buy meat, yet I will be forced against my will by NAIS regulations to file reports everywhere I go with my horse so they can say the meat they sell is safe? That will involve lots of costs for microhips, scanners, time and freedoms and I get no benefits nor paychecks for this.
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 4:58 pm
09 Oct 2009
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 8:36 pm
11 Oct 2009
That being said: I would like to introduce myself, 5 years ago I took over my grandparents' beef farm in WV. My grandfather did very well as a cow/calf producer, he was very old school and knew what he was doing. When hormones came out he rejected them. He also quit growing corn for silage. He told me, "cattle do just as well on grass and hay".
The farm is now completely forage based and raises beautiful cattle. My goal is to further reduce inputs like chemical fertilizer. More because of cost more than any reason. But land is like a junkie. One has to wean it off the chemicals (have cut fertilizer by half in three years and almost tripled production. This could take several years as I try to rebuild organic matter.
Pastures do not need chemicals but the hay meadow is a different story. I do plan to graze that as well. But fencing and water are the issues.
I am direct marketing my beef, the biggest issue being reputable local processing.
There appears to be a big hurdle to make organic and grass fed the norm rather than a niche market. PRICE. In order to become mainstream, while still making the farmer a sustainable income, organic and grass fed products need to competitive price wise. Priced to compete with the meat counter at the local grocer. One of the most common comments I get is that grass fed beef is too expensive (almost double conventional beef).
Whatever happened to saving money by buying direct. Since economics have taken a downturn the interest in organic foods have dropped off to 11% that are willing to pay the higher prices of niche market products. I spoken with other producers about this and consistently the say they are marketing to 2% of the population.
My philosophy is different. I keep my prices lower, $3/lb. for ground beef. I do not have the over head of chain grocery stores. I have a whole list of things that are not done which cut my inputs dramatically. Ironically I am still making 3 to 4 times what I was making as a cow/calf operation.
Thank you again,
R
Permalink
Matt N. Posted 10:34 am
12 Oct 2009
The problem I keep running into when discussing cutting corn subsidies or abolishing the use of antibiotics in agriculture with my friends is that any true "reform" of industrial agriculture will result in its destruction. I cannot imagine a CAFO surviving without a way to combat the swarm of bacteria rising from the unsanitary, crowded conditions. So then it becomes the question of how many jobs will be lost if this industry crumples. Even if you can replace those jobs with smaller, locally sourcing farming operations (which by all accounts would produce more jobs), during the transition you would have a lot of angry, out of work people and soil which could take years before it could be used profitably again (if ever). This is a step that many people who don't take antibiotic resistance, soil and aquifer depletion, and the plethora of other environmental consequences of industrial agriculture as seriously as I do. If you are more informed then please poke holes in this argument, since it has stop me in my tracks in many a discussion of Ag. reform.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:02 pm
12 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 2:31 pm
12 Oct 2009
If you can find a way for the farmer to be more profitable, he will send those profits down the line. BTW, you have to make the farmer more profitable while not impacting the cost of food negatively. Remember last year with the grocers association blaming the price paid for grains as the reason for the high price of food? Now that the price of grains, meat and milk has fallen, why hasn't the prices fallen by the same percentage? ASk them. Also ask why the largest food processors saw a 51% increase in their income?
Permalink
afml Posted 12:16 pm
13 Oct 2009
Permalink
esbee Posted 3:52 pm
13 Oct 2009
New Zealand."
this is exactly why big ag wants NAIS so they can cover the fact that they are bringing cheap foreign meat into this country from other places where they may not have the same disease controls and they can hide it under the guise of disease traceback of having me and other private animal owners file movement reports on their privately owned animals, like knowing everywhere i go with my horse prevents mad cow disease.....in the meantime big ag sells domestic beef for big $ to other countries.
If you do not know what NAIS is check my previous comments or go to nonais.org for more info on the program that will affect ALL who eat!
Permalink
chapluqa Posted 8:24 pm
13 Oct 2009
But I don't eat beef in any case... it's just not tasty.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 8:57 pm
13 Oct 2009
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 11:16 am
14 Oct 2009
I beg to differ. How and what cows are fed does seem to make a difference. There is a growing body of research that shows a reduction in E. coli in cattle fed hay and grass for at least the last few days before slaughter. More research needs to be done on totally grass fed animals. If cattle are fed in a feed lot rather than on pasture or in a straw covered lot, they have a lot more manure on their hides and it is much more difficult to keep the manure off the carcass when it is skinned. I again would protest blaming the cook. Poop does not usually get on the meat in the kitchen. Contamination happens before the consumer takes it home. We should not have to prepare our food assuming it was dropped on the floor before it was ground up.
That being said, I would assume all beef I don't know was dropped on the floor and either not eat it or cook the heck out of it.
You are right, however, so far, "grassfed" labeling and standards are voluntary. Unless you know the producer, there really is no guarantee it is what it says it is. Unlike "organic," third party certification of a "grassfed" claim is not required even in this country.
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 2:44 pm
14 Oct 2009
Antibiotic resistance is a fact of evolution - all of the medicine we give to humans generates resistance eventually. Blaming it on ag is both inaccurate and hides the reality that our over-medicated society has much to answer for. (I wish I could find the research right now about the drug traces in our drinking water from people flushing drugs down the toilet...)
E.Coli contamination happens at the slaughter house. Yes, there is preliminary research that show that cattle fed hay the last few days before slaughter might have a lower e. coli population (can't recall the strain) but more work needs to be done. I hope it turns out to be accurate. But, you can cook your meat to eliminate the e.coli risk. Why wouldn't you?
As for the oft-quoted percentage of world-wide antibiotic use being fed to livestock...well, folks need to read the paper on which this statement is based. First of all, the term used is 'antimicrobials'...which includes products (ionophores for example) that only get fed to animals, not humans. Second, the issue properly stated is: should we be feeding sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics as growth promotants to animals, or should we reserve them for when an animal is sick? And, which of these antibiotics are also used in humans? And, can we detect their presence in the meat we are eating?
More here than we can get into in a small text box, but if we're going to have a conversation that leads to something better, we need to share facts, not misinformation.
Permalink
Matt N. Posted 4:40 pm
14 Oct 2009
You said "Second, the issue properly stated is: should we be feeding sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics as growth promotants to animals, or should we reserve them for when an animal is sick? And, which of these antibiotics are also used in humans?"
Dosing animals with antibiotics as growth promoters does not strike me as a moral gray zone, it should not be allowed. Ionophores may be an exception. To me this is the point: if an animal is getting sick because we are raising it in unsanitary and crowded conditions (CAFOs), we keep it alive with antibiotics, often with antibiotics that are used to treat humans in similar situations. But is it even ethical to allow this situation to occur in the first place? Animals were domesticated for a long time before human use of antibiotics, which tells me that we do not need them. Sick animals are primarily a symptom, the disease is poor agriculture practices.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 5:41 pm
14 Oct 2009
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 7:36 pm
14 Oct 2009
To say that farmers should not be allowed access to medications that can save a suffering animal is cruel, inhumane, and unreasonable.
Now matter how livestock are kept; pasture, range land, etc, somebody is going to get sick and need treatment.
I have never had a case of foot rot in my cattle until this year, and I had three. It was an unusually damp year. Not having the ability to treat them would have meant the possibility of permanent lameness, loss of the hoof, and most likely death.
My cattle (about 120 head, including calves) are rotated over 250 acres of pasture (hardly over crowded for my region)and spend their entire lives on pasture. They are my extended family and much like (I must say most) I care very much about their quality of life.
I would love to hear what individuals that say farmers should not have access to antibiotics would say if they were told their children or pets could not be treated and it was their fault for mismanaging their households.
People get sick, animals get sick. We do our best to minimize this. But what cattle eat; corn, grass, cotton seeds, soy husks, etc. does not have anything to do with their need for antibiotics.
I find it insulting that when presented with facts that individuals keep repeating misinformation spread by organizations, whose only purpose is to keep the donations rolling in.
Note: you have my respect for attempting to engage and educate. Don't give up.
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 5:59 pm
14 Oct 2009
I think your last sentence is well said.
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 9:48 am
16 Oct 2009
You are right, while feeding corn itself may or may not directly cause acute infection and the need for an injection of antibiotics. Animals will adapt to eating all kinds of foods, that doesn't mean it is good for them. Corn, along with hormone implants, subtherapeutic antibiotics in feeds, overcrowded feedlots, slaughtering of downed cows, feeding animal proteins and poultry litter are all part of a system that places cheapness above the well-being of animals. Animals can be fed out faster and cheaper if you use these inputs. These efficiencies come at a cost. If everybody produces beef faster and cheaper the value of your calves goes down so you need produce them even cheaper and faster to stay in business. Somehow we always seem to think that we will be the ones that survive. So did our neighbors who have gone out of business. You are right that the economic model is at fault, but as producers we can also choose not to play the game.
My veterinarian is very concerned about antibiotic resistance and is always reminding me that these drugs need to be used carefully. I know far too many cattle people who do not understand how antibiotic resistance happens and regularly misuse these valuable tools. Good intentions are not enough.
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 7:37 am
17 Oct 2009
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 5:20 pm
17 Oct 2009
Maybe my customers don't read Grist, but I have had them ask us on more than one occasion if we are charging enough. They like knowing we'll be able to feed them again next year I guess. You are absolutely right, sustainability has to include a fair wage for farm workers and a fair profit for farmers as well as humane treatment for the animals we raise.
Consumers who buy local organic food and grassfed beef are doing just what you suggest. They are putting their money where their values are. Sadly, they are now being accused of being elitist.
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 7:00 pm
17 Oct 2009
May I ask question?
Your final statement, "Sadly, they are now being accused of being elitist." Is this in reference to my comment on marketing of grass fed livestock and pricing?
I am obviously new to this forum and not aware of the history of various posters and commentary. I was not trying to be inflammatory by bringing this issue of pricing forth. But I do feel it is an important aspect of the overall situation.
The demand for grass fed meats has doubled in the last couple years, while demand for organic products in general is at a 5 year low. When I look across the web and at other local producers of grass fed meats; and I see ground beef selling for $6 to $9 a pound (mine is $3), I have to wonder how or why anyone would consider purchasing it. I do wish to thank these producers because they have bulldozed a very wide road for me to navigate. But it does make me wonder how these producers (many who are purchasing yearling steers, putting them on pasture for six months, then butchering them) are justifying their prices, when the guy they purchased the steers from is the one carrying all the overhead and the risk.
Note: I am a capitalist at heart. I feel the best quality product at the lowest price wins the day. And I have found that to be true today in the grass fed market. The consumer wants to be able to make the choice of buying grass fed meats, but the price is keeping them away. This has been reflected in comments from my customers. I don't see where my comments could be considered as accusing people, who are looking for quality, local, safe, healthy food, as being elitist.
I guess the ultimate question would be, "Would I purchase my own product, and could I afford it?"
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 9:24 pm
17 Oct 2009
No, my reference to being called "elitist" has to do with a current mode of disparagement of alternative food sources by conventional food supporters that grassfed, organic, local are an elitist fad.
Certainly, there are segments of the market that are milking the grassfed label for all they can get while meeting the minimum definition. The same is true for organics. I don't know how they are justifying their prices except that is what someone is willing to pay. A sustainable system has to provide not only a fair living for the producer, but a fair price for the buyer as well. If it's not fair for either, the transaction will not be repeated. Capitalism as we currently define it (highest quality/lowest price) ignores relationship and community in the transaction. Sometimes the fact that we trust the person we are doing business with and we have security in their remaining in business to serve us again is also a factor in the sale.
I'm wondering how you are able to sell ground beef for $3/lb? IBP, carbon monoxide infused, plastic sealed lean ground beef from who knows where in my grocery store sells for nearly $4. Are you paying yourself for the cost of marketing your product?
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 9:18 am
18 Oct 2009
Thank you for clarification, I was hoping that my comment was not taken the wrong way.
True capitalism requires an even playing field with out government intervention of any kind. Our modern system is very distant from a true capitalistic system. Lobbyists, subsidies, grants, bailouts, etc. give unfair advantage to individuals and groups. Modern capitalism values profits at any cost. True capitalism as defined by Friedman and Rand equal rights for everyone. It means that one does not seek special favors at the cost of the rights of others.
"Money without philosophy is nothing." Ayn Rand.
To answer your question about my prices. You answered your own question. I do not have the overhead of expensive packaging, shipping, IBP, carbon monoxide infusing, expensive marketing campaigns, display cases, employees, 50,000 sq ft. stores, etc. In any business I have been involved in, I have always done my own signage, ad and brochure layout (my college degrees are in art, ancient history and philosophy). My cost is merely for materials. So far this year I have spent around $500 on advertising (most of that for farm market fees, $15/month for website (my wife is quite accomplished at designing and maintaining the website, paints, printer supplies and paper). The biggest cost is for processing which is about 90 cents a pound.
As for actual production costs of beef, the only thing I supplement with is mineral salt. I have been able to cut fertilizer costs by half over the last three years (with the hopes of eliminating it completely in the next five). I cut and split my own fence posts from locust stands on the farm, with annual replanting. I exchange a lot of sweat to hold down costs. I go through about 1200 gal of diesel a year. Bio-diesel is not yet available in my area.
I guess it also is a matter of perspective. If I was still operating as a cow/calf farm producing weanlings for fall sale, (my farm can comfortably produce 50 calves a year) at current prices, that would be about $400 a head. If I kept them til yearling, they would bring about $800 a head. If I market them directly, at the prices I ask, I can get $2,500 to $3,000 (if you figure in prime cuts, fillets sell for $16/lb.) a head (my most recent steer's hanging weight was 762 lbs.).
Finally, personally I am debt free, no mortgage, no loans, no credit card debt. I heat our old two story farm house with dead fall wood in a wood stove in the living room (no heat upstairs). We live quite simply, with the biggest expense actually being satellite internet (no TV, etc.) and required insurances. We raise our own produce with a couple acres of mixed fruit and veg. production for both us and local market sales.
So, I hope this answer's your question about how I can be able to survive on $3/lb ground beef.
I do feel as a country, inflation is right around the corner (the result of printing money and deficit spending). If this is the case, I might be forced to raise prices, but I will cross that bridge...
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 6:46 am
19 Oct 2009
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Permalink