Ground beef: a risky choice for families and the planet

Story by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com

The New York Times reported on October 11 that eating ground beef is still risky. Well, yes, but what's new about that? Of course it's still risky. Every now and then the media decide to write up something about the hazards of beef as though it were new, but the situation remains as it has been for some time.

The New York Times article focused on E. coli, a short name for the bacterium Escherichia coli. We all have E. coli in our intestines; most strains of E. coli are harmless. But one strain can be deadly to humans, causing bloody diarrhea and kidney failure. That strain is E. coli 0157. It lives in the bowels of half of the beef cattle in the United States. A very small number of these bacteria can kill you - some say as few as ten bacterial cells.

 A beef-cattle feedlot in photo above. Photo courtesy of http://oceanworld.tamu.org

Virtually all cattle in feedlots spend their days and nights standing around in manure, and so their coats are usually contaminated with E. coli 0157. Keeping the bacteria out of their meat is a challenge. After cattle are killed in a slaughterhouse, the carcasses pass through a hot-steam area, then are sprayed with a disinfectant to get rid of E. coli 0157. In some slaughterhouses and processing plants, the carcasses are irradiated. The radiation kills bacteria, although there is some debate about effects that irradiated food may have on human consumers.

Young Dancer Paralyzed by E. coli

In the U.S., there are occasional outbreaks of E.coli 0157 poisoning, where several people in one town will become extremely ill and a few may die. Since children eat half the hamburgers sold in the U.S., the victims are often children. The poisoning is usually traced to a single hamburger restaurant that has a batch of meat contaminated with E. coli 0157. The New York Times article featured a children's dance instructor, Stephanie Smith, who was left paralyzed at the age of 22 after ingesting a hamburger contaminated with E.coli 0157 in 2007.

Before the advent of feedlots, dangerous E. coli from cattle could not survive in human digestive tracts because our stomachs were too acidic for them. But the unnatural corn diet fed to beef cattle in feedlots, to marble their flesh and increase their weight gain, increases the acidity of cattle's stomachs so that it's more similar to ours. So the cattle's E. coli 0157 have adapted to a more acidic stomach and now can survive in our stomachs too.

A Possible Solution

It doesn't have to be this way. According to a study by Dr. James Russell at Cornell University, feeding cows their natural diet of hay instead of corn for only five days before slaughter will reduce the acidity in their stomachs and get rid of the acid-loving and dangerous E. coli 0157. Any remaining E. coli would not be able to survive in our acidic stomachs and so would not be dangerous to humans..

Of course, if cows were not fed corn in the first place, but were fed hay or allowed to graze, then we wouldn't have any problem at all with the dangerous E. coli 0157. So, remind me, why is it that cattle are fed corn? Oh yes, it's that familiar corporate incentive: shaving pennies from production costs to maximize profits. Because corn-fed cattle gain more weight and gain it faster, they make more money for beef producers. And we Americans have gotten used to that fat-laced meat and now prefer it.

Is beef worth the risks, and the ecological down-side? You might be surprised at how fast you can get used to a life without beef. Aside from the E. coli issue, consider that a recent Worldwatch document declared beef and dairy products to be the two ecological "hot spots" in our diet - that is, the two diet items whose production does the most long-lasting damage to the planet.

Anyone for a Tofurkey sausage? All plant-based and indescribably delicious.

Sources:
Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2005. Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and a Healthy Planet. Fulcrum Books.

BBC Online Network. "Change of Diet Could Defeat Killer Bug." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/169255.stm

Sarah DeWeerdt. "Is Local Food Better?" Worldwatch Institute

Michael Moss."E. coli path shows flaws in beef inspection." October 11, 2009. New York Times.

Photo courtesy of http://oceanworld.tamu.org 

Key words:: beef feedlots E. coli health meat cattle diet hot spots

Is local food the greenest choice? New study says no

Dairy cows' rear-ends: bad news for our climate.
Photo by Sally Kneidel

"Local" is the mantra in sustainable food these days. But should it be? Is eating locally-produced food the most powerful thing we can do to reduce our ecological "foodprint?"

A new study from Worldwatch Institute says no indeed. I love Worldwatch. They crank out study after study with lots of hard data, evaluating the environmental impact of various consumer choices. So useful! So fun to quote!

Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of local food. We definitely should support small-scale farmers in our own communities who are growing food organically and sustainably. For years now, I've been writing and speaking in support of them, on this blog and in our books and at various conferences.

There's no question that, all other things being equal, buying food grown nearby is better than buying food that's been trucked for long distances. Less transported food means fewer emissions and a smaller carbon footprint. But as Sarah DeWeerdt points out in this new Worldwatch article, we need to look at the whole production picture - not just how far food was transported from producer to market.

As it turns out, when we look at life-cycle analysis, a "cradle-to-grave perspective" on food products, food miles are "a relatively small slice of the greenhouse-gas pie," says DeWeerdt. In fact, according to a comprehensive analysis last year by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University, final delivery from the producer or processor to the retailer accounts for only 4% of the U.S. food system's greenhouse-gas emissions! Materials required for cultivation and processing must be transported too; this transport is considered part of the "upstream" miles and emissions. Such materials include fertilizer, pesticides, animal feed, etc. But the transport of these items, together with transport to market, still accounts for only 11% of the food system's emissions.

What's the source of all the other greenhouse gases associated with agriculture? Production. Primarily, production of livestock. Weber and Matthews from Carnegie Mellon found that a whopping 83% of food-related emissions occur before the food leaves the farm. Tara Garnett, in a recent analysis of a U.K. food system reached similar conclusions.

What you eat may matter more than where it came from

Numerous studies reviewed by DeWeerdt have found that livestock production generates a much higher volume of greenhouse gases than does plant production. Beef and dairy cattle are the worst culprits; DeWeerdt calls them "agriculture's overwhelming 'hotspots' " in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions. A group of Swedish researchers has calculated that meat and dairy account for 58% of that country's total food emissions. In Garnett's study, meat and dairy accounted for half of the U.K. food system's greenhouse gases. Garnett writes, "Broadly speaking, eating fewer meat and dairy products and consuming more plant foods in their place is probably the single most helpful behavioral shift one can make" to reduce food-related greenhouse gases. Weber and Matthews reached a similar conclusion: "No matter how it is measured, on average red meat is more GHG-intensive than all other forms of food. " The dairy industry, in their study, was the second-biggest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

A large proportion of emissions associated with beef cattle and dairy cows are the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is 23 times more potent at trapping solar heat than is carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide is 296 times more potent (molecule per molecule). Methane comes from the rear-ends of ruminants such as cows. Both methane and nitrous oxide come from manure, especially the vast, open "waste lagoons" associated with factory farms.

Well then, just how much does food contribute to the planet's overall carbon footprint? I reported on that in a previous post. In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a live-wire of a paper entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow." According to that research document, livestock account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. And here's the kicker - that's more than all forms of transportation combined! You can easily google that document for yourself. Just read the 3-page Executive Summary in Part I, which summarizes the the whole 400 page report.

After concluding that red meat and dairy are emissions hot-spots, DeWeerdt does go on to review the merits of buying local food. One clear advantage, which Sadie and I talk about in our presentations, is that local food is in general grown by small-scale farmers who are openly accountable for their treatment of the environment and their livestock. The farmers I know who sell food to their own communities welcome visitors to inspect their methods. This is a far cry from industrial producers who keep their exploitive and often abusive operations shielded from public view.

So buy local. But, if you want to contribute to a liveable planet for your grandchildren, eat low on the food chain too. And join me in a tip of the hat to Worldwatch for another fine study.

by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Sources:
Sarah DeWeerdt. Is Local Food Better? Worldwatch Institute. Accessed May 15, 2009.

Livestock's Long Shadow. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, 2006.

To see my primary post about Livestock's Long Shadow and about Weber & Matthews' research, click here

To see all my, Ken's, and Sadie's posts that mention Livestock's Long Shadow, click here

To see my favorite Worldwatch Institute document, Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry by Danielle Nierenberg, click here

Key words:: Worldwatch Livestock's Long Shadow meat industry local food red meat cattle dairy livestock greenhouse gases carbon emissions food carbon footprint foodprint Sarah DeWeerdt Weber and Matthews Matthews and Weber Carnegie Mellon