Chicago Tribune., Monica Eng, September 24, 2010

Critics of factory farms say we pay a high price for low-cost food

If you adjust for inflation and income, Americans have never spent less on food than they have in recent years. And yet many feel we’ve also never paid such a high price.

U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show the average American spent just 9.5 percent of his or her disposable income on food last year, a lower percentage than in any country in the world.

And although meat consumption has risen slightly over the past 40 years, its impact on the pocketbook is less than half of what it was in 1970, falling from 4.1 percent to 1.6 percent in 2008.

The majority of this cheap protein is delivered by “factory farms” that house thousands of animals in confinement. These concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, produce mass quantities of food at low cost.

Register with Chicago Tribune and receive free newsletters and alerts >>

“We have found the most efficient way to meet consumer demand for a high-quality, relatively inexpensive product,” said Dave Warner, spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council in Washington, D.C. “We’re the lowest-cost producer in the world, which is why we’re the No. 1 pork exporter in the world.”

But the system also has created disasters like last month’s recall of half a billion salmonella-tainted eggs. Critics say the consolidation of food production has led to environmental damage, the loss of millions of small independent farms, rising health care expenditures and billions in tax-funded subsidies to produce cheap animal feed.

The U.S. House of Representatives held hearings this week on just what went wrong with the factory-farmed eggs implicated in the salmonella outbreak and whether regulation could have helped. But many environmentalists, farmers and advocates of “sustainable” food say that even with better regulation, this kind of agriculture is not sustainable and only artificially cheap.

“Cheap is in the eyes of the accountant,” said Daniel Imhoff, a researcher who edited the new book “CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories.” “Somehow we’ve forgotten how to add the total costs of cheap meat production to our health, environment, the loss of vibrant rural communities with lots of family farms.”

The costs not calculated in the direct consumer price of meat and other animal products — called externalities — touch on a variety of issues. Among them:

Health

Meat producers put antibiotics in feed to make the animals grow faster and to prevent disease. But this summer, officials from several federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified in support of new guidelines that would curb CAFOs’ nontherapeutic use of antibiotics, citing a rise in dangerous antibiotic-resistant infections.

The meat industry objects, saying no studies directly link drug resistance in humans to the use of antibiotics in animals.

A cheap meat supply also may affect health by encouraging people to eat more of it. Americans already eat more protein than the USDA dietary guidelines recommend — an average of 5.5 ounces of protein from meat, fish, beans and nuts combined daily. The USDA is expected to add eggs to that list of protein sources this year.

According to a recently published Harvard School of Public Health study that followed 84,000 women over 26 years, women who ate two servings per day of red meat had a 30 percent higher risk of developing coronary heart disease than those who had half a serving per day.

“So maybe it’s time to step back and ask if it really needs to be that cheap,” said David Kirby, author of “Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment.” “Maybe we don’t need so much. Maybe we need better-quality animal products in moderation and less regularly.”

Food safety

While some CAFO supporters say these operations benefit from having enough money to hire consultants who help create safer and more efficient facilities, the multiple violations at the huge Wright County Egg operation at the center of the salmonella outbreak show that larger doesn’t always mean safer.

Last year, the Consumers Union found that two-thirds of American supermarket chickens they tested were contaminated with salmonella or campylobacter, another bacterium that can sicken humans.

The relatively rapid consolidation of U.S. meat, poultry, egg and dairy production and processing greatly increases the potential for these “problems to spread fast and wide throughout the food system,” Imhoff said.

via Factory farms: Meat is cheap, but at what cost? – chicagotribune.com.

A low-carbohydrate diet with protein and fats primarily from meats may increase susceptibility to heart disease or cancer more so than a high-carbohydrate diet, according to a study published last week by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health.

“The bottom line is that not all low-carbohydrate diets are created equal,” said Frank B. Hu, a professor of nutrition at the School of Public Health and the study’s principal investigator. “The original Atkins diet, which was loaded with animal fats, is certainly not ideal. Versions of low-carbohydrate diets that are high in vegetable protein and fats are significantly healthier.”

All together, the researchers investigated data from over 85,000 women over a period of 26 years and 44,000 men over a period of 20 years, making the study the largest and most comprehensive to be conducted on the topic of low-carbohydrate diets, according to Hu.

The study found that people who ate the most animal-based proteins and lipids were 14 percent more likely to die from heart disease and 28 percent more likely to die from cancer than those who ate a high-carbohydrate diet.

Low-carbohydrate diets have long been touted as wonderful for weight loss and cardiovascular health. However, according to Teresa T. Fung, the study’s lead author and an adjunct associate professor of nutrition at the School of Public Health, when people want to reduce the amount of carbohydrates they eat, they need to decide where to get their energy replacements.

“Proteins and fats come from many sources,” Fung said.

She said that foods like beans, nuts, and vegetable oils should be preferred over meats and animal fat, though she added that a “plant-based diet” does not necessarily mean a vegetarian diet.

People whose diets had the most plant-based protein and lipid substitutions had a death rate 20 percent lower than those who ate the high-carbohydrate diet.

According to Fung, the results were to be expected because previous research has shown that vegetable proteins and fats have been linked to lower risks of cancer and other diseases, whereas red meats and processed meats have been observed to cause increased risks of disease.

The researchers emphasized that their low-carbohydrate diet scores are not meant to mimic any commercial diet regimes.

“The risk estimates do not directly translate to assessment of benefit or risk associated with popular versions of the diet,” the study stated.

via Low-carb Diets May Negatively Affect Health | The Harvard Crimson.

Health.com, Amanda Gardner, August 16, 2010

Eating too much red meat has long been a no-no for people with high cholesterol and other risk factors for heart disease. But it hasn’t always been clear how much is too much.

Now, a new study suggests that you don’t have to cut out red meat altogether to improve your heart health. If you eat red meat more than once a day, cutting back to one serving every other day can substantially reduce your risk of having a heart attack or dying from heart disease, the study found.

Replacing the red meat in your diet with other, less fatty sources of protein — such as nuts and fish — can lower your risk even further, the researchers say.

Women who eat two servings of red meat per day have a 30 percent increased risk of heart disease compared with women who average three to four servings per week (or half a serving per day), according to the study, which appears in the journal Circulation.

That’s a “pretty dramatic increase,” says the lead researcher, Dr. Adam Bernstein, a research fellow in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston. Although the study included only women, Bernstein says he would expect the findings to be similar in men.

The study provides a good overview of how red meat consumption can affect heart health, says Suzanne Steinbaum, the director of women and heart disease at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City.

“This gives you an understanding of what moderation means,” says Steinbaum, who was not involved in the new research. “It gives you something to grab on to.”

Some types of red meat appear to be worse for your heart than others. Eating one serving of beef per day increases a woman’s heart-disease risk by only about 8 percent, compared with eating it never or rarely.

But eating one hamburger, one serving of bacon, or one hot dog per day ups a woman’s risk by 42 percent, 41 percent, and 35 percent, respectively, compared with eating those foods once or twice a month (if ever), according to the study.

The saturated fat in meat may only be partly to blame. Iron and other minerals found in red meat may contribute to heart-disease risk as well, Bernstein says. (Consuming high-fat dairy items — such as ice cream, sour cream, and butter — also increased the risk of heart disease in the study, but less so than red meat.)

Bernstein and his colleagues followed roughly 85,000 middle-aged women for an average of 26 years, during which time 2,210 of the women had heart attacks and 952 died from heart disease. The women were all nurses, and were part of a long-running study on health behaviors that included lengthy diet questionnaires given every four years. To zero in on the link between diet and heart health, the researchers took into account other health factors, such as body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Replacing red meat with healthier sources of protein will go a long way toward reducing heart risk, the researchers say.

For instance, they estimate that swapping one serving of red meat per day for one serving of beans will lower a woman’s long-term heart-disease risk by about one-third. Replacing a daily serving of red meat with one of several other foods — including nuts (30 percent), fish (24 percent), chicken or other poultry (19 percent), and low-fat dairy (13 percent) — will also reduce heart-disease risk, the study found.
Though these are estimates, they represent the first time that researchers have been able to quantify the heart benefits of these food swaps.

“We know that red meat is not as good as other protein sources,” says Karen Congro, a registered dietitian at the Brooklyn Hospital Center, in New York City. “Now we actually have the numbers to put next to them.”

via Love red meat? Cutting back just a bit helps heart – CNN.com.

The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2010, Ron Winslow

Maybe that juicy steak you ordered isn’t a heart-attack-on-a-plate after all. (But still raises the risk of colon cancer sic.)

A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that the heart risk long associated with red meat comes mostly from processed varieties such as bacon, sausage, hot dogs and cold cuts—and not from steak, hamburgers and other non-processed cuts.

The finding is surprising because both types of red meat are high in saturated fat, a substance believed to be partly responsible for the increased risk of heart disease. But the new study raises the possibility that when it comes to meat, at least, the real bad actor may be salt. Processed meats generally have about four times the amount of salt as unprocessed meats.

While the study is far from definitive, researchers said the findings suggest that people, especially those already at risk of heart problems or with high blood pressure, should consider reducing consumption of bacon, processed ham, hot dogs and other packaged meats that have a high salt content. Salt increases blood pressure, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease.In a report that pooled data from 20 different studies from around the world, the researchers found that daily consumption of about two ounces of processed meat was associated with a 42% increased risk of heart disease and a 19% heightened chance of diabetes. By contrast, a four-ounce daily serving of red meat from beef, hamburger, pork, lamb or game wasn’t linked to any increased risk of heart disease. There was, however, a small, but statistically insignificant risk of diabetes.

“The conventional wisdom is that red meats have higher saturated fat and cholesterol levels,” factors that have made all red meats potential culprits in raising the risk of cardiovascular disease, said Renata Micha, a research fellow in the Harvard School of Public Health’s epidemiology department. “But when you try to separate processed from unprocessed meats, you get an entirely different picture.” She is lead author of the study, which appears in Tuesday’s issue of the American Heart Association journal Circulation.

None of this suggests that steak is a new health food. While red meat wasn’t linked to an increased risk of heart disease in the study, it didn’t lower it either. Other research suggests frequent red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of colon cancer. The new report didn’t look at cancer effects.Based on information about meat products sold in the U.S., levels of saturated fats are similar in processed and unprocessed meats, while steak and other red meats have on average slightly higher levels of cholesterol, the researchers found. But sodium levels average about 622 milligrams per two-ounce serving of processed meat, about four times the 155 milligrams found in steak, hamburger or pork. Other preservatives, called nitrites, were also higher in the processed meats. In some studies, nitrates have been shown to interfere with the health of blood vessels and the body’s ability to process glucose.

“Should people eat more red meat because of this analysis?” asked Robert Eckel, a cardiologist and nutrition expert at University of Colorado, Denver. “I don’t think that is what the study is saying.”

The study was a meta-analysis, which combines the results of several studies looking at the same issue. Like others of its kind, the study “is limited in terms of scientific value,” Dr. Eckel said. None of the studies in the analysis, for example, was a randomized controlled clinical trial, just one factor affecting the strength of the findings. The report is helpful in raising issues for further study, but “it doesn’t answer any questions,” he said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Eckel said, “I was amazed to see the differences in sodium content” between the two categories of meat.” It suggests that people with high blood pressure “might need an [additional] drug” to control their condition if they eat a lot of processed meat,” he said.

The American Meat Institute Foundation took issue with the findings, saying they conflict with national dietary guidelines. “The body of evidence clearly demonstrates that processed meat is a healthy part of a balanced diet,” James H. Hodges, president, said in a statement. He said the study didn’t “achieve the standard threshold that would generate concern” and that “it is no reason for dietary changes.”

Current U.S. dietary guidelines call for limiting saturated fats—the kind found in red meats and dairy products such as milk, cheese and butter—to less than 10% of calories consumed each day—while keeping overall fat consumption to under 30% of calories. A big reason is that saturated fats are associated with higher levels of cholesterol in the blood. Dr. Eckel said that “is still a reasonable recommendation.”

“There is growing evidence that it’s not which nutrient we eat, but the type of foods we eat that is important,” said Harvard’s Dr. Mozaffarian. “We have to get away from trying to micromanage nutrients and look at the health quality of foods.”The report is the second meta-analysis in recent weeks to question just how much of a culprit saturated fats are when it comes to cardiovascular risk. In March, a meta-analysis (involving 21 different studies) by a team headed by Ronald Krauss at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, Calif., found that intake of saturated fat wasn’t linked to a statistically-significant increased risk of heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease.

That a good cut of red meat might be healthier than a heavily processed serving of other meat, he added, “is intuitive to most Americans. Maybe the science is catching up with the intuitive sense.”

That’s not necessarily a license to unleash your inner carnivore. Calorie control as well as a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, fish, whole grains and nuts remain the mainstay of heart-healthy eating, he said.

“If once in a while somebody wants to eat meat, our study suggests steak or other unprocessed cuts aren’t going to increase their heart risk,” he said.

Eating Hamburger, Steak Dont Raise Heart-Disease Risk, Study Says – WSJ.com.

Meat and meat-related compounds and risk of prosta… [Am J Epidemiol. 2009] – PubMed result.

There was a time when red meat was a luxury for ordinary Americans, or was at least something special: cooking a roast for Sunday dinner, ordering a steak at a restaurant. Not anymore. Meat consumption has more than doubled in the United States in the last 50 years.

Now a new study of more than 500,000 Americans has provided the best evidence yet that our affinity for red meat has exacted a hefty price on our health and limited our longevity.

The study found that, other things being equal, the men and women who consumed the most red and processed meat were likely to die sooner, especially from one of our two leading killers, heart disease and cancer, than people who consumed much smaller amounts of these foods.

Results of the decade-long study were published in the March 23 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine. The study, directed by Rashmi Sinha, a nutritional epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, involved 322,263 men and 223,390 women ages 50 to 71 who participated in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Dietand Health Study. Each participant completed detailed questionnaires about diet and other habits and characteristics, including smoking, exercise, alcohol consumption, education, use of supplements, weight and family history of cancer.

Determining Risk

During the decade, 47,976 men and 23,276 women died, and the researchers kept track of the timing and reasons for each death. Red meat consumption ranged from a low of less than an ounce a day, on average, to a high of four ounces a day, and processed meat consumption ranged from at most once a week to an average of one and a half ounces a day.

The increase in mortality risk tied to the higher levels of meat consumption was described as “modest,” ranging from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent. But the number of excess deaths that could be attributed to high meat consumption is quite large given the size of the American population.

Extrapolated to all Americans in the age group studied, the new findings suggest that over the course of a decade, the deaths of one million men and perhaps half a million women could be prevented just by eating less red and processed meats, according to estimates prepared by Dr. Barry Popkin, who wrote an editorial accompanying the report.

To prevent premature deaths related to red and processed meats, Dr. Popkin suggested in an interview that people should eat a hamburger only once or twice a week instead of every day, a small steak once a week instead of every other day, and a hot dog every month and a half instead of once a week.

In place of red meat, nonvegetarians might consider poultry and fish. In the study, the largest consumers of “white” meat from poultry and fish had a slight survival advantage. Likewise, those who ate the most fruits and vegetables also tended to live longer.

Anyone who worries about global well-being has yet another reason to consume less red meat. Dr. Popkin, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, said that a reduced dependence on livestock for food could help to save the planet from the ravaging effects of environmental pollution, global warming and the depletion of potable water.

“In the United States,” Dr. Popkin wrote, “livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process, 37 percent of pesticides applied, 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water.”

Finding a Culprit

A question that arises from observational studies like this one is whether meat is in fact a hazard or whether other factors associated with meat-eating are the real culprits in raising death rates. The subjects in the study who ate the most red meat had other less-than-healthful habits. They were more likely to smoke, weigh more for their height, and consume more calories and more total fat and saturated fat. They also ate less fruits, vegetables and fiber; took fewer vitamin supplements; and were less physically active.

But in analyzing mortality data in relation to meat consumption, the cancer institute researchers carefully controlled for all these and many other factors that could influence death rates. The study data have not yet been analyzed to determine what, if any, life-saving benefits might come from eating more protein from vegetable sources like beans or a completely vegetarian diet.

The results mirror those of several other studies in recent years that have linked a high-meat diet to life-threatening health problems. The earliest studies highlighted the connection between the saturated fats in red meats to higher blood levels of artery-damaging cholesterol and subsequent heart disease, which prompted many people to eat leaner meats and more skinless poultry and fish. Along with other dietary changes, like consuming less dairy fat, this resulted in a nationwide drop in average serum cholesterol levels and contributed to a reduction in coronary death rates.

Elevated blood pressure, another coronary risk factor, has also been shown to be associated with eating more red and processed meat, Dr. Sinha and colleagues reported.

Poultry and fish contain less saturated fat than red meat, and fish contains omega-3 fatty acids that have been linked in several large studies to heart benefits. For example, men who consume two servings of fatty fish a week were found to have a 50 percent lower risk of cardiac deaths, and in the Nurses’ Health Study of 84,688 women, those who ate fish and foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids at least once a week cut their coronary risk by more than 20 percent.

Ties to Cancer

Choosing protein from sources other than meat has also been linked to lower rates of cancer. When meat is cooked, especially grilled or broiled at high temperatures, carcinogens can form on the surface of the meat. And processed meats like sausages, salami and bologna usually contain nitrosamines, although there are products now available that are free of these carcinogens.

Data from one million participants in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition trial found that those who ate the least fish had a 40 percent greater risk of developing colon cancer than those who ate more than 1.75 ounces of fish a day. Likewise, while a diet high in red meat was linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer in the largeSelenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, among the 35,534 men in the study, those who consumed at least three servings of fish a week had half the risk of advanced prostate cancer compared with men who rarely ate fish.

Another study, which randomly assigned more than 19,500 women to a low-fat diet, found after eight years a 40 percent reduced risk of ovarian cancer among them, when compared with 29,000 women who ate their regular diets.

Personal Health – Paying a Price for Loving Red Meat – NYTimes.com.