The hidden story behind the beef recall

You'd have to have been living under a rock not to have heard that last week the US had the largest meat recall in its history.

Over 143 million pounds of beef produced by Westland/Hallmark Meat of Chino California were recalled, an absolutely unprecedented amount that will ultimately extend to dozens of products which used even small amounts of the meat, including soups, sauces, burritos and boullion cubes.

But there's another part of this story that's not getting nearly the attention it deserves.

How did we find out about the problem at Westland in the first place? Due to a courageous whistle blower who used a hidden video recorder to document what was going on at the factory. And that's the really, really horrific part.

Cows too sick to walk were literally kicked and beaten into submission, forced to limp along to the slaughter. Workers used cattle prods on them-- the cow version of tasers-- to make them feebly hobble to their deaths.

It's a scene of such horrific animal cruelty that it could make you weep.

All the media talked about was that "sick" cows were processed into meat causing a clear and present danger (sick cows are more likely to have Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease). No doubt.

But this story also tells us a lot about the conditions under which factory farmed cattle- not to mention pigs and chickens- are "raised" got almost no attention.

And that part of the story got almost no attention.

All of us who deeply love and honor animals have long been appalled by the conditions of factory farming, or what Michael Pollan calls "feedlot" farming. (Just rent "Fast Food Nation" if you want some visual images to illustrate.)

Which leaves many of us- like me- with a personal and moral dilemma.

On the one hand I don't want to contribute to or support the cruelty these animals are routinely subjected to. So I don't buy feedlot meat.

On the other hand, I truly believe that we humans do better with some animal products in our diet.

What to do, what to do?

Each person has to draw the line for himself. Some won't wear fur but will wear leather. Some won't do either. Some will eat certain animals, but not others. Some will eat fish but not fowl.

There's no perfect answer to this dilemma, but I'd like to share mine.

I only buy and eat grass fed beef that have lived relatively stress free lives on the open range grazing on pasture, and die relatively painless, quick deaths.

And because there are no such conditions for pork that I know of, I don't eat pigs, who are subjected to perhaps the most cruel conditions of all, particularly considering that they are highly social animals and as intelligent as dogs.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's the only one I've been able to come up with.

Now if by chance you don't care about animals, there are still selfish reasons to care about the conditions under which they're raised.

Feedlot (factory farmed) animals are fattened up with tons of steroids and hormones. Because they're forced to give milk almost constantly instead of in keeping with their natural cycles, they're fed huge amounts of antibiotics to keep them from getting infections on their udders.

Because they're fed an unnatural (for cows) diet of grains, they have almost no omega-3 fats and are high in inflammatory omega-6's. And because they die in highly stressed situations where they're treated- well, like cattle- their meat is laced with hormones secreted during stress.

I'm glad that people are concerned about the potential contamination of the meat from sick cows.

But I also wish the untold story of cruelty to animals that routinely takes place in these feedlots got a little more ink.

Warmly
jonny

new research on low carb and even more interesting response

I've been reading a ton of political stuff recently, including some excellent books about why voters choose what they choose. And here's the short form of what I've learned: People decide based on their gut feelings and then look for the "evidence"later

It has little to do with the issues and little to do with rational thought. Decisions happen in the gut; the head rationalizes those feelings later on.

And if you think it's any different in nutrition, I'm sorry to disappoint you. No Virginia, deciding where you stand in the nutrition debates is no more rational than deciding where you stand on the political candidates.

Last month, Thomas Halton and associates published a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that showed that a low-fat diet didn't prevent type 2 diabetes. In fact, the low-carb diet performed better. What's probably most astonishing to anyone reading this is that the researcher himself was surprised by these results. "I was also suprised", Halton said, "that total carbohydrate consumption was associated with type 2 diabetes, and that the relative risk for the glycemic load was so high".

Well, Dr. Halton, you might be a little late to the party, but we're glad to have you just the same.

But here's where it gets interesting.

Within microseconds, vegan fanatic Dr. Joel Furhman published the following post on his website, DiseaseProof, under the headline: "Diabetic Confusion: Low-Carb Unhealthy, Veggies Healthy".

"And that's the truth!" said the poster, endorsed, obviously, by Fuhrman. "If you're looking to get healthy, lose weight, and prevent and reverse disease, DON'T even consider "low-carb" or "high-protein diets".

As my father used to say, sarcastically, "Don't confuse me with the facts".

Fuhrman is an interesting guy, but, like his cohorts over at Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, he has an agenda. And God could come out of heaven and show him that low-carb diets do wonders for a number of parameters of health and it wouldn't make much of a difference. He's made up his mind. Like so many others.

Don't bother to confuse him with the facts.

The dairy industry is at it again

I recently read of a new study claiming that obese adults can eat four servings of dairy every day and lose as many pounds as those with a low-dairy diet.

Before reading any further, I said to myself, "Bet this is another Zimmel study".

Sure enough, a few inches down in the copy:
Prof Michael Zemel, co-author of the research, said the findings were "important to help us gain further information about the dairy/weight loss connection".

So here's the deal: Zemel has been doing these dairy industry-funded studies for years. And his studies always seem to show that dairy helps with weight loss. It was Zemel research that was behind those ludicrous televisions ads showing impossibly thin and fit women dancing around eating fruit-on-the-bottom yogurt and claiming that dairy was responsible for their weight loss ("research shows.. blah blah blah"). Virtually every Zemel study is funded in whole or part by the dairy industry.

And dairy always comes up smelling like a rose.

Imagine that.

Never mind that out of about 35 clinical trials on the link between dairy and body weight since 1989, 31 of them have shown no relationship between dairy and weight loss.

Never mind that a recent study of 155 women aged 18-30, carried out by scientists from Purdue University, concluded that increased consumption of dairy calcium was no more likely to encourage weight gain or loss.


And never mind that the latest Zemel study put the obese subjects on a reduced calorie diet plus exercise along with their four glasses of milk. Heck, with that research design I could put M&M's in their diet and everyone would lose weight. Does that mean the M&M's are a weight loss food?


Sure if you substitute some milk for 32 ounces of Coca-Cola you might see some benefits. But does that make milk a magic bullet for weight loss?

Funny how these same folks who love to tout soy because it's part of the "heart healthy" Japanese diet we're supposed to be imitating seem to forget that the Japanese don't drink milk.

Those of you who've read my "150 Healthiest Foods on Earth" know that I'm no fan of pasteurized, homogenized milk (though I'm a huge fan of raw, organic milk, which unfortunately is hard to find). And while I don't think milk will kill you, I hate the fact that the media continues to report these biased studies that are designed with one purpose in mind: to sell you dairy (specifically milk) as a necessary and essential part of every diet and to convince you that you need to be drinking three glasses a day or you're putting your health at risk.

That's simply not true.

And don't get me started on the troubling connection between milk and prostate cancer or milk and teenage acne.

Do we need calcium? Of course (although probably not in as high amounts as we've been told). And we need synergistic nutrients like magnesium (which approximately 75% of us aren't getting enough of), and vitamin D and other synergistic minerals just as much.

Whether we need milk is an open question.

But the question of whether milk causes us to lose weight is not an open question at all.

The answer is "no".


As always, let me know what you think!


Warmly

jonny