Big Beef doesn't like it when smart people tell the raw truth about the science behind their meat.

In fact, a very deep-pocketed cattle rancher in California, where “happy cows come from,” made quite a beef about an agribusiness critic almost talking about sustainable food at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Michael Pollan, author of the book In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto never got the chance to broach the controversial subject at the university. Well, not in the way he'd originally planned to.

Why not? Too much money was at steak stake. University officials promptly pulled the plug on Pollan's long-scheduled lecture on the heels of a threatening letter from alumni and Harris Ranch Beef Co. Chairman David Wood. In it, Wood threatened to yank his firm's donation “because the university was providing an 'unchallenged forum to promote his stand against conventional agricultural practices.'”

Just how much cash buys the power to manipulate Cal Poly's impressive speaker schedule? Only $150,000 in funds headed for—surprise!—a new meat processing factory for the university's prized cattle herd.

Wood also made a stink about a Cal Poly professor's beef with his company's cramped feedlot; the educator doesn't think it's sustainable. Wood does, so he wants us, potential beef-eating consumers, to be leery of university types, with their “thinking,” backed-by-laboratory-science “opinions.” Why would Wood want impressionable, young minds to know that:

1. Beef isn't an essential part of our diet.
2. Neither is cow's milk.
3. Grass-fed, free-range, sustainable beef is available right now, if you look hard enough. (It's not exactly cheap, though.)
4. Industrial-scale beef and dairy ranches gobble up insane amounts of natural resources, fan the fires of global warming with a different, shall we say more fragrant, brand of wind energy, and Big Beef's eco-unfriendly carbon hoof-print only gets bigger ... 

When did the Ivory Tower put open academic debate up on the auction block? Cal Poly and its beef magnate benefactor(s) are messing with the wrong sustainable foodie. Pollan just happens to be a respected "meat scientist," a mass-scale organic lettuce producer and a journalism professor at the University of California, Berkeley, for starters. I'd say he knows enough about Big, Bad Beef and the science of agricultural sustainability, not to mention his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, to boldly stand up to this outrage.

So, did he? As reported in The Los Angeles Times, Pollan,
"no stranger to attacks from Big Ag," responded like so, “It's an open threat to the university. The issue is really about whether the school is free to explore diverse ideas about farms and farming."

See? Pollan didn't take the news lying down. Actually, in a way he did. He agreed to nix his solo speech and instead participate in panel discussion, which was held last month.

During the panel discussion, Pollan wasted no time in bringing up Big Beef's pressure to censor him. In response to the moderator's first question ("What is sustainability?"), he said:

"I would be remiss if I didn't address a little bit the circumstances surrounding this event, which I don't think we can let pass in silence. But one of the reasons we're doing the panel and not a conventional speech is that there was a real challenge to the university posed by the government, and what is potentially a real threat to academic freedom. And as much as agriculture is what we want to talk about today, academic freedom under girds the ability to have the kind of conversation about agriculture we want to have."

"You could have a monoculture of a university -- one that only tolerated one kind of thinking - and when the world changes, as it inevitably does, you would find yourself in serious trouble. But when you have a lot of different ideas, and they're all nurtured, and they're all brought into contact with one another as we hope to do today, that is where you get the resources to withstand shocks to the system. And god knows those shocks are coming."

For more of Pollan's remarks, check out the full transcript.

Big Beef: "It's what's for dinner," and it's powerful, scary stuff. Just ask Pollan.

(Photo credit:Flickr, Binary Ape)

"Food, Inc.," the food industry exposé that hits early release theaters today, is preparing to burst through the doorway cracked by Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma." “If you know the truth about what you’re eating … you might not want to eat it anymore,” investigative journalist Eric Schlosser ("Fast Food Nation") warns the movie's audience at the film's beginning. Says The Ethicurean (check them out—they'll help you "chew the right thing"), the film "persuasively confirms what the real 'real food' movement has long held: the only beneficiaries of our current food system are giant agribusiness corporations such as Tyson, Smithfield, Monsanto, and others like them."

But the food industry isn't taking this sitting down. The counter-propaganda SafeFoodInc.org calls the U.S. food supply "a modern miracle and one in which we as a society can take pride." Agri-giant Monsanto has hit the threat posed by "Food, Inc." even more directly with a rebuttal page that addresses the scuttle on "Food, Inc." head on. We foresee months of irate blogging, demonstrations and criticism—definitely a debate it's time for America to bite into.

The "Food, Inc." web site enumerates the issues at stake:

• genetic engineering
• pesticides
• healthy eating
• environmental impact
• low-impact farming
• cloning
• factory farming
• foodborne illness
• farm worker protection
• food labels on restaurant food

"Food, Inc." is now previewing in limited release and will open in general release beginning June 19 at theaters nationwide.

(Photo credit:Food Inc.)

Hey, what's that between your chopsticks? Put down that wasabi and back away from the sushi. Slowly. Because chances are that no matter how delicious it is, you're eating one of the Toxic Five Enemies to sustainable sushi.

Sustainable ... wha'?

Sustainable sushi. You probably didn't think much about where that salmon came from or that bluefin tuna or ohhh, the shrimp. But if restaurants and the people who eat in them (let's start with the 2.5 million sushi meals served to Americans in 2007) don't start making some big changes, there won't be any sushi left to eat.

Take salmon. Wildcaught salmon, though eco-friendly, is expensive. So it's likely you're not eating it, not on that $9 sushi dinner special, anyway. And farmed salmon ... well, let's compare it to factory farms of all sorts. You get the idea. Packed like sardines in dirty water, eating and eating and eating. Same thing with hamachi.

Then there's shrimp. Scooped from the bottom of the ocean, catching wild shrimp is a little (okay, a lot) like clearcutting the rainforest. And farming them just destroys acres of ecologically fragile mangrove forests.

Like eel? Unagi is caught young, penned up and then fattened on huge quantities of wild fish.

So what to do? Well, turns out there are other fish in the sea. Literally. And a bait-and-switch practice may just save what's left of the Toxic Five sushi species. So set your taste buds for arctic char, sustainably-caught yellowfin tuna, and eco-trawled wild shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico. And consider taking along Blue Ocean's downloadable sushi guide [PDF] or one of these ways to ID safe fish next time you get a hankering to swirl some wasabi into your shoyu.

(Photo credit:ButterflySha, flickr)

Dr. Tom Anderson has died, suddenly and at the age of 54, and Nicholas Kristof blames the pigs. In a bout of sad irony, shortly before his death Anderson had invited Kristof to come to hog farm town Camden, Indiana to expose the problem of MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—one of the "superbugs" that has developed an unusual resistance to antibiotics. MRSA is, literally, a flesh-eating bacteria, which can occur as a rash and sores, or can also lead to heart inflammation. In 2004, a particularly virulent strain of MRSA erupted in the Netherlands, where a study found pig farmers were 760 times more likely than the general population to carry MRSA (whether or not symptoms erupted).

Dr. Anderson wasn't autopsied, but blood tests indicate a heart attack. And while human contact with raw pork hasn't been proven to spread the disease (though it is suspected), fears are growing that ground water could be contaminated with the disease from the pigs' waste; CAFO hog farms are particularly susceptible to accidental waste spills, and it is in these confined animal farming operations that so-called "prophylactic antibiotics" in feed are most commonly used. In the New York Times, Kristof leads us to blame "the routine use—make that the insane overuse—of antibiotics in livestock feed" for the development of MRSA and bugs like it.

Continue reading Pork industry breeding superbugs? ›

(Photo credit:sarah gilbert)

Okay, let's get it out of the way. James Cromwell is super awesome. His breakout role came at age 55 as Farmer Hoggett in Babe, for which he was nominated for an Academy Award; he was Captain Smith in L.A. Confidential; and he played George H.W. Bush in last year's W. Not to mention his funny and underrated performance as Prince Philip in The Queen.

Now I find out that he's been a vegan since 1994 and a vegetarian for 20 years on top of that. I have still not taken the plunge (In-N-Out is just too good!) but it helps to see Cromwell's passionate take on the issue during an interview with The Green Girls. Obviously, Cromwell gives the interviewer a little bit more than she bargained for as he launches into a four-minute speech about conserving water, gaining knowledge, casting off hopelessness and leaving a better world for future generations.

Cromwell tells us his decision to go vegetarian in the 1970s was inspired while he drove a motorcycle through feedlots in Texas. He recalls nothing but cattle as far as the eye could see and he told himself that it was time to make a change. For someone like me, who can't even envision a future where I don't eat chicken, fish, turkey sandwiches or cheeseburgers, he says to start with one meal, then one day and then one week. Well, I think I can handle one meal. I didn't have any meat for breakfast. One day shouldn't be too much of a problem, either. One week? We'll see how I do. Anyone want to make a vegetarian pact with me? I'm not cutting out cheese yet. You've got to leave me something!

Continue reading James Cromwell calls for less meat now ›

(Photo credit:Image courtesy of PETA)

Mickey Mouse eggs had the world of eco-blogs roiling yesterday as everyone, blinking, replayed a 15-second commercial broadcast during the Today Show. Yes, Mickey Mouse, Mater, Woody and the princesses, stamped on the lily-white shells of a dozen eggs. Licensing gone too far? All we need as "proof of the evils of agribusiness and the coming apocalypse"? A really lame attempt to get kids to eat "this complete breakfast"? Perhaps it's not as bad as all that.

While I hesitate to get excited about how "great tasting, nutritious, and fun, too!" Disney's eggs are, especially when compared to the high-powered eggs of my own backyard chickens—who, it's certain, eat a more varied diet and get way more room to roam than the chickens at whatever Magical Farm to which Disney has licensed its characters—I also hesitate to call this the apocalypse. Disney made major changes to its food licensing requirements two years ago, when CEO Robert Iger announced the company's "name and characters only will be used on kid-focused products that meet certain guidelines in terms of calories, fat, saturated fat and sugar." Disney eggs are part of a healthy food strategy.

Want to really blow your mind? Disney is using Winnie the Pooh and Mickey to sell organic apples. The mouse can also be found as a Venetian gondolier on a box of organic pasta. It may be a bit ridiculous to put the characters on whole foods. But I'd rather my kids ate organic apples and boiled eggs than Disney Princess gummy bracelets (which Disney no longer licenses). And, as I doubt that consumers committed to buying free-range organic eggs will be wooed by the Disney eggs, consumer behavior won't change for the worse because of this product.

(Photo credit:Disney)

In a  recent study by Newcastle University's School of Agriculture in the UK. In this study they showed that cows whose farmers had named them produced 54% more milk than their nameless counterparts. 

Well d'uh! People who go to the effort of naming their cows are significantly more likely to care for them than someone who sees the cows merely as milk machines.

Dr. Catherine Douglas, who led the study, says that the "data suggests that, on the whole, UK dairy farmers regard their cows as intelligent beings capable of experiencing a range of emotions."

I'm with the farmers on this one. If you've spent any time around mammals you're going to notice that they feel emotions, lots of them.

And just what emotions do you think cows feel when they're factory farmed, with numbers instead of names, are milked three times a day, kept indoors six months of the year and kept pregnant and lactating as much of the time as possible? All this in the name of super-efficiency. I'd say they wouldn't be very happy cows.

So what can we do about it?

How about keep a cow at home? While a full-size cow isn't practical, what about a mini-cow?

That's right. For between $300 and $3000, families can buy a cow that provides up to 2.5 gallons of raw milk a day. 

And if you're not ready for a cow of your own, there's always the option of buying organic milk, ideally locally produced by non-factory dairy farmers.

(Photo credit:Sir_Mervs, flickr)

Do you know how your pork was raised? If you're buying chops or ham or bacon at the supermarket in the U.K. or the U.S., probably not. Not only are the terms confusing, but the labeling can be misleading. In Great Britain, sow stalls—the small indoor cages where most U.S. and European pigs spends their four- to five-year lives—are banned. Think of sow stalls as battery cages for chickens, or tiny feedlots for cows, and you'll get the idea. It's neither humane nor safe; pigs raised in these environments are more likely to contract diseases, their diets are less nourishing, and disposing of their waste becomes an environmental challenge.

But despite the banning of the practice in Britain, much of the pork sold in the country is raised in intensive indoor pig farms; even some of the stuff marked with the British flag logo. Cheaper pork is imported from Europe and processed, smoked, or packaged in Britain. And most consumers don't pay much attention to pork labeling, in any case, just looking for the cheapest price. As a result, pork farmers in the U.K. are going bankrupt.

Jamie Oliver is raising the alarm, warning that in five to ten years, there may be no British pork industry left. Unless, that is, Britons start buying locally-farmed pork; it could cost only "3p extra a rasher of bacon." He's producing a documentary, "Jamie Saves our Bacon," to illuminate the problem and encourage viewers to read labels and demand British pork; it will air as part of Channel 4's Great British Food Fight season, which begins January 19, 2009. Fun fact: the network won't "rein in" Jamie's occasionally foul language, the network says.

(Photo credit:sarah gilbert)