Recent press reports indicate that the Food and Drug Administration may soon consider lifting a four-year moratorium on mercury testing in fish. But FDA officials say there never was a moratorium. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Shafer Powell has more:
Transcript
Recent press reports indicate that the Food and Drug Administration may soon consider
lifting a four-year moratorium on mercury testing in fish. But FDA officials say there
never was a moratorium. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Matt Shafer Powell has
more:
Officials at the FDA say they take all possible food contamination seriously. As a result,
they say they never stopped testing for mercury in fish. Michael Bender of the Mercury
Policy Project believes that’s partially true. He says the FDA has continually done what’s
known as a “market basket survey”. That’s a small sampling of the most popular kinds
of fish. But he says the agency did scale back on more comprehensive testing four years
ago.
“They still continue with their market basket survey, so you can’t say they didn’t do any
testing. But, you know, in order to get an adequate sampling size, you’ve got to do
hundreds of samples.”
The FDA did issue an advisory last year about the dangers of eating too much of certain
kinds of predatory fish, like shark. But Bender says the agency used old data and old
standards to support the advisory. He says more comprehensive testing over the last few
years might have lead to warnings about other kinds of fish as well.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Matt Shafer Powell.
Most of the cattle raised in the Great Lakes region spend their lives in a feedlot, fattening up on corn and other grains before becoming dinner themselves… but there’s a growing number of organic farmers looking at putting their cows in the pasture. They say grass-fed beef is a healthy alternative. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Brad Linder has more:
Transcript
Most of the cattle raised in the Great Lakes region spend their lives in a feedlot, fattening up on
corn and other grains before becoming dinner themselves. But there’s a growing number of
organic farmers looking at putting their cows in the pasture. They say grass-fed beef is a healthy
alternative. Brad Linder has more:
(Sound of cows mooing)
Here on Natural Acres Farm in Millersburg, in Central Pennsylvania, 120 cows have their heads
to the ground. They’re chewing on tender shoots of grass instead of ground corn or some mixture
of grain feed.
Steve Shelley is in charge of marketing beef for Natural Acres. He says cows are designed to eat
grass, but most farmers today find it cheaper and easier to buy commercial feed made from grains
like corn.
“You know farmers nowadays. Well that’s the way their dads did it, so they’re doing the same
thing. It’s much easier to go out and dump a bucket of feed into a pen for that animal to eat than
it is for that animal to be out, to get the best benefit from the soil.”
And Shelley says another reason most farmers use grain feed is that it takes longer to raise cattle
on grass. Grain-fed cows are ready for slaughter within a year, but Natural Acres cows can take
six months to a year longer to reach the same size.
But Shelley says that convenience for the farmer comes at a cost to the cattle. Shelley says cows
raised on corn get sick more often than grass-fed cattle. As preventative measures, cows
traditionally have antibiotics mixed in with their feed and require frequent visits from the
veterinarian.
Cows on organic farms are naturally healthier. And since Shelley’s marketing his product to
consumers interested in “healthier meat,” the animals also don’t receive growth hormones or other
chemicals often found in commercial beef.
Natural Acres runs an organic foods shop on-site. But Shelley says the market for such products
is pretty small in rural Central Pennsylvania. Most of the beef isn’t sold here. Instead, much of it
is shipped to restaurants and stores, where people are willing to pay premium prices.
“In a grocery store, you may pay anywhere from a $1.75/pound to $2.00 for a pound of beef.
Retail, we get $4.09.”
Being able to charge more for beef is only one of the perks to raising cattle on grass. The farmers
who raise grass-fed beef don’t have to pay as much to the veterinarian.
“The animals rarely get sick. And I have talked to hundreds of people who raise animals on
pasture.”
Jo Robinson is author of the book, “Why Grass Fed is Best.” She also runs the website
‘eatwild.com,’ which compiles research on grass-fed cattle.
“The big surprise, I think – and this wasn’t known until about 1998 – is that an animal raised on
pasture has five times the amount of cancer fighting fat called conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA.”
Robinson says CLA helps prevent cows from developing tumors. There is some evidence
suggesting CLA has the same effect on humans, but it’s not yet clear if eating grass-fed beef is a
way for people to fight off cancer.
Robinson does point out that CLA is just one of the reasons there’s a growing demand for grass-
fed beef.
“Some people gravitate towards pasture finished meat because it’s free of hormones and
antibiotics. Some people are aware of the nutritional benefits. They like the fact that it’s lower in
saturated fat, higher in omega 3 fatty acids, higher in vitamin E, and a number of other
substances. It’s simply a healthier product all around.”
Robinson says she first started looking for American grass-farmers in 1997, and only found about
sixty. Now, she says, the market has grown to include at least ten times that number, which still
only represents a small portion of the American Beef Industry.
Paul Slayton is director of the Pennsylvania Beef Council, the non-profit organization charged
with promoting the state’s beef industry. Slayton says less than 1% of the state’s beef production
comes from grass farms. But he says those farms do fill an important role.
“I see it being a very viable part of our production in this part of the country, because we have
such an eclectic consumer group. And there are some consumers that just won’t eat anything else
but organic. And somebody’s going to be providing their food.”
As the beef industry is recovering from public concern over mad cow disease and e. coli bacteria,
Slayton says anything that convinces people meat is safe is fine by him.
And as for the taste of grass-fed beef, Steve Shelley from Natural Acres Farm says it might be
more familiar than many people think.
“Many times when I go and do a taste test at a store or something, a lot of the older people, when
they try it, make the comment: ‘This tastes like beef used to taste.'”
Shelley says the meat is leaner and can be tougher if cows aren’t fed a little grain before slaughter.
But Natural Acres is experimenting with different types of grass that might lend a more
consumer-friendly texture to the beef.
Shelley says it’s a combination of taste and nutrition that gets most people interested, even some
people who had given up on commercial beef altogether. Shelley tells one story about a man
who’s wife had banned meat from their house for five years.
“So he bought a hamburger and finally got her to try it, and at the end of the day, he gave me a high five, and he said, ‘I can eat beef
again! She’s given me permission to bring beef into the house!’ Well, that really makes you feel
good.”
So grass-fed beef is entering households that hadn’t seen any beef in a while for environmental
reasons or because of health concerns. While the beef might be a taste of days gone by, organic
farmers are getting better prices for their meat than even in the best of days past.
(moo moo)
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Brad Linder.
People have been eating genetically modified vegetables and grains for several years. Now a genetically altered salmon might be headed for the market. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports that a few hundred seafood retailers are planning to boycott the new fish:
Transcript
People have been eating genetically-modified vegetables and grains for several years. Now, a
genetically-altered salmon might be headed for the market. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams reports that a few hundred seafood retailers are planning to boycott the new
fish:
The genetically-altered salmon grow twice as fast as other farm-raised salmon. The Food and
Drug Administration is deciding if it will approve the fish for human consumption.
If it gets to market, it might be tough to find buyers. That’s because of a boycott organized by
environmental groups.
Julie Francis is a restaurant owner in Cincinnati. She’s joining more than 340 chefs, seafood
distributors and grocers in the boycott. Francis is concerned that not enough is known about the
effect on humans and wild salmon.
“I really, being a chef owner, come from the background of, you know, ‘I want the best fish, I
want the best vegetables,’ and I just, it’s just, in my personality, to be concerned about things like
chemicals, and additives, and different things that we just don’t know, I don’t know that much
about.”
The seafood retailers plan to boycott genetically-altered fish until they feel it’s safe to eat. They
also want the FDA to insure that wild fish stocks won’t be harmed.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
A new study claims the U.S. government is losing billions of dollars by allowing farmers to grow genetically modified crops. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
A new study claims the U.S. Government is losing billions of dollars by allowing farmers to grow
genetically-modified crops. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
The study from the British Soil Association reports the U.S. has increased farm subsidies by 12
billion dollars over the past three years to make up for lower exports. Many European countries
will not allow the import of genetically-modified food. They say it hasn’t been proven to be safe
for human consumption. But U.S. farmers refute the report.
Leon Corzine is a Central Illinois corn and soybean farmer. He says a report criticizing the economics of genetically-modified
crops is nothing more than propaganda.
“If bio-tech crops – just like any other item – if it is not economically viable, they don’t last and
we don’t use them. That’s how I operate on my farm.”
Corzine says there are so many variables in the agriculture industry that it’s impossible to blame
one thing for higher subsidies. He also says while some European countries are turning away
U.S. grain, other countries are increasing their import levels.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
Health care providers are struggling with ways to reduce the cost
of medical care. But one money-saving tactic is raising concerns about
patient safety. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson
reports:
Early next year, the nation’s two largest meat-packers will test market
a new product—ground beef that’s been irradiated to kill harmful
bacteria. The Federal Food and Drug Administration approved irradiation
for red meat in 1997, but the meat industry has been moving cautiously.
Companies are unsure whether consumers will accept irradiated meat. The
product got a major test recently in Minnesota. Minnesota Public Radio’s
Mary Losure reports:
They pushed for nutrition labeling on food. And they put out exposesabout movie theater popcorn and Chinese food. Now, theCenter for Science in the Public Interest is at it again. This timethey’re taking on beetles – or at least, a food coloring made from thebugs. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson reports:
Researchers say two newly developed Lyme Disease vaccines show promise preventing the tick-borne illness. The drugs could be available next summer. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Patty Murray has more:
Americans are eating more and more processed foods. And that means that food labels are getting longer, as manufacturers add new ingredients to their products. But labels may not tell consumers much about those additives or how much the food was processed. To help educate themselves, consumers can now turn to a new guide to food ingredients. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Frenkel has more:
A national coalition of scientists, health experts and religiousleaders is suing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The lawsuitfiled today (Wednesday, May 27th) claims that the F-D-A’s policy towardgenetically engineered food doesn’t protect consumers. The Great LakesRadio Consortium’s Steve Frenkel reports: