Take Action This Weekend on Proposed 'Naturally Raised' Meat Label

One of my favorite sources for food politics info, The Ethicurean (Chew the Right Thing) has a great opportunity for us all to do something in the wake of the Scary Meat Sitch in this country. Or, to clarify, we can complain to the USDA about proposed meat labelling that will make it even harder to figure out the backstory on meat in the stores. The USDA's proposing creating a new labelling requirement for 'naturally raised' meat that requires said meat to be free of hormones and antibiotics. So far, so good, right? Well, that meat can come from animals who have had zero access to grass, the outdoors, zero natural insemination, zero regulation of whether or not said livestock operations are polluting the air and water with animal waste (intersex fish ring a bell?), and zero attention paid to whether or not the animals were raised humanely. Remind anyone else of the watered-down organics labelling that infuriated so many small farmers?

Here's the thing -- to have an opportunity to register your comment, you have to do it by Monday, March 3! Check out the Ethicurean's post to hear their full take, or just click through to the commenting section below. I have included my response and Ethicurean's talking points below.

Here's the link to give the USDA your comments.

MamaBird's comment: "I completely agree with the Ethicurean talking points (see below) and am outraged that the USDA would want to further obscure meat labeling. I would love to be able to buy my meat in a regular grocery store instead of travelling to pick up meat from a farm, but I can't currently tell from labels which producers are using the methods I support in meat production. I'm not a vegetarian, by the way, just a concerned mother who wants to have quality meat for her kids. Meat that's been grass-fed, meat that is from animals who have had access to pasture, who haven't been horribly overcrowded or fed antibiotics or homones (that are polluting our waterways!), meat from NON-downer animals. Please don't make it any harder for me to buy meat that's safe for my family and good for the environment."


Ethicurean 'naturally raised' meat commentary info:

Important: All comments must reference "Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0131".

Also: Be sure to include your name, address, and if appropriate, affiliation(s) and/or interest(s) in the issue.

Remember: The public comment deadline is March 3, 2008.

Talking Points

• The proposed "naturally raised" standard fails to address many of the high standards consumers expect from sustainable livestock production, including animal welfare, access to pasture, and conservation and environmental requirements. Quite simply, the "naturally raised" label as proposed would not mean what consumers would think it implies and should be abandoned.
• With its less than comprehensive definition of "naturally raised" and seemingly similar relationship to other labels, the proposed label would confuse consumers. It could also undermine the consumer confidence in all other label claims, including the well-established and trusted "certified organic" label which numerous producers have built their respective businesses around.
• The naturally raised label claim would completely defeat a very important purpose of providing the label in the first place – to provide clear and reliable signals to consumers who want to make informed, environmentally-friendly, and healthy choices about their food purchases.
• The implementation of a "naturally raised" claim would further mislead consumers who are already uncertain and skeptical about the meaning of the "natural" label claim currently overseen by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The natural claim refers to processing of meat whereas the naturally raised claim refers to the production of livestock. The implementation of two distinct claims, both using the term "natural" yet addressing completely distinct issues and administered by two separate agencies will create confusion for consumers and farmers alike.
• Hormone and antibiotic supplementation and the use of animal byproducts as a feed source are extremely important issues that could be succinctly and accurately addressed through individual labeling claim standards. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service had previously proposed the development of "no antibiotics used" and "no supplemental hormones used" labels, both of which would provide clear and reliable signals to consumers. This approach would provide consumers with clear, reliable signals that will allow them the opportunity to make informed decisions about what they are purchasing, while sustaining their confidence in the integrity of all USDA process-verified labels.

*Photo courtesy of kovic at SXC - apologies for the cute, anthropomorphized kissing cow images right next to thoughts of your burgers....

**Also, I promise that I will post about something other than horrifying food issues some day soon!
Read more!

Another Scientist's Take on Hermaphrodite Fish

I think we're all on the same page about the hermaphrodite fish surfacing in our waterways. In case you missed the first installment, Dr. Alan S. Kolok (an environmental toxicologist who's researched the effects of estrogenic compounds in wastewater treatment on the feminization of male fish) let Surely You Nest know that, although hormones are indeed untreated pollutants at this time, the real danger's not in the tap water we drink but the swimming holes we might choose. He convinced me to lose the bottled water, go back to the tap and resume filtering.

Up today is an interview with an environmental, analytical, and marine chemistry professor who's also studying estrogens in our waterways. My eternal gratitude to Dr. Yuegang Zuo, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Graduate School of Marine Sciences and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, for taking the time to answer my questions. Dr. Zuo recently conducted a study entitled Monitoring Estrogenic Hormones - Undesired Fish Contraceptives, and Investigating Their Sources, Transportation and Fate in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. I so appreciate his taking the time to consider my basic questions about water quality and safety.

My quick-and-dirty on this interview? Dr. Zuo notes that, although they're not yet designed to remove hormones, current wastewater treatment processes actually do take care of some percentage of the estrogens. Glad to hear it. Also, he notes that livestock operations in the Midwest actually are polluting drinking water sources with hormones (scratch the tapwater there, folks. And if you live in D.C., make sure your water's lead-free before jumping on the local water bandwagon). Sounds like on many fronts, more research is needed. Many thanks to Dr. Zuo and Dr. Kolok for the ongoing work they're doing to figure out the causes of intersex fish and ramifications of hormones in our waterways.

***

Dear Dr. Zuo:

Please forgive this intrusion into your professional life, but I am a resident of Washington, DC who is concerned about the large numbers of intersex fish in the Potomac. I've contacted my local officials and WASA, the local water authority, and was told that since this is an "emerging pollutant of concern" that's not covered by the Clean Water Act, no action's being taken to treat DC water.

Thank for your interest in the current research on estrogens and other endocrine disrupting pollutants in our aquatic environment. Your local officials and WASA were right that estrogens and other endocrine disrupting chemicals are a group of emerging environmental pollutants;

Furthermore, WASA indicated that there are no existing methods to treat wastewater to remove hormones. Just from surfing online, this seems not to be the case.

current waste water treatment processes are not designed to decompose these compounds; and they are not regulated by the environmental protection agency.

Do you know of cities in which wastewater treatment removes chemicals including estrogen?

Although the current waste water treatment processes are not designed to eliminate these pollutants, they do remove a significant fraction of these pollutant ranged from 10 ~ 90%. Both chlorination, UV-irradiation, microbial degradation and ozonation processes, which commonly used for the wastewater and drinking water treatment, can remove the concerned pollutants at least partially. However, the removal efficiency of the concerned pollutants has not been well studied yet.

Do you have any advice for me as I attempt to figure out a)how to get my water treatment facility to take this issue seriously?...and b)whether or not the hormones in my public water supply are of concern for my (small) children?

So far, most problems are associated with waste water effluents and livestock operation. Except sites contaminated by livestock operation in some Midwest locations, we have not noticed any drinking water contaminations by estrogenic hormones. To make sure, you may check if your city drinking water source is not contaminated by waste water effluents and livestock operation.

Best regards,

Yuegang Zuo, Ph.D.
Professor of Environmental, Analytical and Marine Chemistry
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

*photo courtesy of GNewman at sxc
Read more!

Whither Our Water? Addressing Hormones in Local Waterways

Biology Professor Gives SurelyYouNest the Straight Dope
on Endocrine Disruptors in our Waterways

Anyone who has a kid, heck, anyone who drinks water has done a double-take on the hermaphrodite fish in our waterways. Um, are egg-producing male fish swimming around in my iced tea water? I'm just askin'.

Hermaphroditism isn't just rampant in the Potomac River here in the nation's capitol. Intersex fish are showing up in waterways all over the country. They're not sure why (birth control pills and chicken farm runoff are two top candidates), and most wastewater treatment plants are doing exactly, ah, nothing about it. My local councilmember emailed our water and sewer authority and they had this to say: Not it! We aren't doing anything atall because it's not mandated by the Clean Water Act but if forced to by regulations we will address the hormone issue in the future. In slightly more positive language, of course:

WASA is aware of the presence of these chemicals in wastewater and in the waterways. The science and technology of treating these chemicals in large waste treatment facilities have not been developed yet. Presently, these are not regulated by the federal Clean Water Act. WASA will continue to monitor developments related to these and other emerging pollutants of concern, and will take necessary steps as required and is feasible, especially to comply with related regulatory requirements. As with other chemicals that impact the environment, the most effective steps to take is to control these at the source, and any steps that can be taken to do so would be welcome.

The EPA gave hormones in the the Potomac a concern ranking of eight back in 2006. DCist had this to say at the time:

Presumably this eight lies on your typical scale of one to ten, one being "someone might have peed in the river" and ten being "water-loving alien creatures have made the Potomac their homebase to mete out the destruction of the human race."

A pollutant of emerging concern? I'll say it again, holy man-boobs, Batman! I want to drink clean water. And I know that tap water is more environmentally friendly but I have been loath to drink DC's H2O. Heck, I have been par-tic-u-lar about my water since I was in high school -- when I first posted about my water sourcing agonies here, my friend's mom wrote in chuckling to remind me that I wouldn't even come for sleepovers without my trusty Brita pitcher.

Ah, the power of an interview with a kind, generous-with-his time scientist and professor to ease my mind! Turns out my creative writing degree makes for some wonderfully imaginative bedtime stories but proved dead wrong on the drinking water front. And not just because our federal government hasn't put a finger on the source of their concern yet. It's because the water we swim in is more likely to have issues than the water we drink. See below for the details -- but from now on, it's a sigh of relief and back to the tap for me. I'll be quaffing local water to hydrate while I figure out how to register my concern about chemicals in our waterways, and the impact on not only marine life (some of which we eat) but our swimming holes.

My eternal gratitude to Dr. Alan S. Kolok at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, for taking so much time (on a holiday weekend, no less) to answer my questions. Dr. Kolok is an environmental toxicologist who has researched the effects of estrogenic compounds in wastewater treatment with regard to the feminization of male fish.

***

Dear Dr. Kolok:

Please forgive this intrusion into your professional life, but I am a resident of Washington, DC who is concerned about the large numbers of intersex fish in the Potomac. I've contacted my local officials and WASA, the local water authority, and was told that since this is an "emerging pollutant of concern" that's not covered by the Clean Water Act, no action's being taken to treat DC water.

DrK: That is true.

Furthermore, WASA indicated that there are no existing methods to treat wastewater to remove hormones. Just from surfing online, this seems not to be the case.

DrK: I am not aware of municipalities that have made changes to their treatment specifically to remove hormones. However, there is a growing dataset supporting that aerobic digestion of is an effective remidiation technology for hormones.

Do you know of cities in which wastewater treatment removes chemicals including estrogen?

DrK: In Nebraska the small cities that have incorporated aerobic digestion at their facilities have not been found to be releasing hormones into the environment. I know of at least two facilities in Nebraska that do not use aerobic digestion and are releasing hormones into the environment. This has been found to be true in other states and other countries as well.

Do you have any advice for me as I attempt to figure out a)how to get my water treatment facility to take this issue seriously?

DrK: There are two components to water treatment: wastewater treatment and drinking water. While wastewater treatment has been shown to contain steroids, I am not aware of any studies finding significant concentrations of steroids in drinking water. I would be very surprised to find that both the drinking water and
waste water facilities in D.C. were not concerned about the issue. What to do about it, and how to generate the funds and political will to get it done is a very different matter.

...and b)whether or not the hormones in my public water supply are of concern for my (small) children?

DrK: Your drinking water is most likely safe. In fact, with governmental regulations for drinking water, the water that you get out of the tap is probably better for you than the water that you could drink out of a plastic bottle! Buy a Brita filter (these are fairly cheap) and keep filtered tap water in your fridge, if you are still concerned (this is what my family does).

Sewage effluent will not be a direct problem for your children providing you are vigilent about where they swim (in Connecticut, when I grew up, I used to swim at a beach near a river that drained the town dump! I wouldn't let my children swim there today), and also where your fresh seafood comes from.If you fish or enjoy other local seafood, make sure that you eat in moderation and that it comes from clean environments.

Remember that fish live in water constantly, and are subjected to every chemical dissolved in the water. Your children have a much more limited access to water, and short of swimming, their exposure to raw, untreated water is very minimal.

Alan S. Kolok
Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nebraska at Omaha

Read more!

Brave New Water

Pigs are flying, folks! We can mix birth control pills, chickenfarm runoff, and drinking water! No more hermaphrodite fish! And soon, no more bottled water!

MamaBird faints with happiness, pledges to name next dog (firstborn already monogrammed) after scientists who figured out how to get rid of hormones during wastewater treatment. via ScienceDaily

Shappell! Heel, Shappell. Now go, Shappell! Go get WASA Jerry. Nip his heels, Shappell. Take him over to the research department. Make him promise to neutralize those hormones before dumping wastewater into the Chesapeake...and while you're at it, see if he can throw a bunch of the catalyst right on into the Bay.

Image courtesy of the Simpson's episode guide at Lardlad.com

Read more!

Soy Vey

Maybe a health food, maybe a toxin? Not to knock the Tofurky, but soy seems to have been on some kind of nutrition roller coaster in the past few years, judging from the headlines. It's been bothering me, the not knowing about soy, while my child continues to gobble edamame in quantity. So here's the basic lowdown.

Some of the biggest hopes for and worries about soy stem from the fact that soy's rich in isoflavones (genistein and daidzein), chemicals which behave like estrogen and, possibly, anti-estrogen (!) in the body. They're not really sure how isoflavones work in our bodies. They may replace estrogen (which would be positive, if stemming the spread of estrogen-receptive breast cancer cells, for example, by replacing them) or they may mimic estrogen (which would be negative, if disrupting the endocrine system of a developing baby, for example). Soy's chemical makeup also may act as an antioxidant. Complicated plant. I'm surely no scientist and welcome any helpful analogies....

On the hopeful side, some argue that avoiding meat sources of protein (high in saturated fat, high on the food chain and therefore high in toxins) by any means necessary substituting soy protein can't be a bad idea, especially since many cultures have eaten soy for hundreds of years without adverse effects. Scientists still theorize that soy may be helpful in preventing heart disease, lowering blood cholesterol and blood sugar, preventing prostate cancer and osteoporosis, and lessening menopausal symptoms, but the jury is still out (and much-lauded heart claims may be overrated). Most research is unclear about the reality of soy's role in our diet, so doctors tend to advise people to eat it in moderation (surprise!), some on the basis that it's been eaten for so long in many Asian countries whose health profiles are vastly better than here in the US.

On what some have called the Dark Side of Soy, soy may cause breast cancer, disrupt thyroid function, cause premature puberty in girls, and may in fact be a problematic food source for infants due to possible hormone disruption during development. There has also been speculation that soy decreases mental function and sperm count in men. Sally Fallon, of the Weston A. Price Foundation (proponent of traditional foods including grass fed meat, raw milk, and lacto-fermented goods), believes that soy is dangerous to eat unless it's properly fermented. She highlights the seemingly obvious point that Asian societies have traditionally eaten small amounts of tofu/miso/tempeh, not highly-processed soy protein products we see in many supposed 'health' foods like meat substitutes.

Of those scary claims, and the laudatory ones too, it appears that the jury's still out (there's no solid evidence to back up most of the theories pro or con).

Because we lack information about most prospective positive benefits to soy, and it's a common allergen, some advise parents to feed babies soy formula only if a child has a milk allergy and there's a compelling reason to choose soy. Claims that soy might prevent allergies or cure colic are two common (unsubstantiated) reasons for its introduction but avoidance due to the theoretical possibility of hormonal/endocrine disruption due to soy formula hasn't been proven either.

So what do they know for sure about soy? Not much.... But here's a few (tofu) nuggets:

• Research this fall showed that genistein (an isoflavone in soy) in soy infant formula is protective against rotavirus (a really unpleasant and common childhood illness for which they recently introduced a vaccine as well).
• People who have had kidney stones should completely avoid soy because it contains oxalates, which promote the formation of the most common type of kidney stones.
• Research has shown that a diet replacing meat protein with soy nuts is effective at reducing a host of risk factors (abdominal fat, low HDL, high LDL) that together form a "metabolic syndrome" seen in postmenopausal women at risk for coronary disease. Soy nuts (not soy flour) effectively lowered blood sugar and LDL levels in this cohort.

Most soy available in this country is genetically modified and is not organic, which is another topic altogether but bears noting as some believe that genetically modified soy may account for skyrocketing allergy rates. So, if you're going to eat soy at all, make sure it's not GMO and that it's organic. This is harder than it sounds, btw, as you probably know if you've read The Omnivore's Dilemma; soy (and corn) products and by-products are everywhere in our food chain. Once again, time to read your labels. Such a conspiracy to get us to cook and source every food we eat!

I think my cautious takeaway from this may be to judiciously limit the edamame, as they're not fermented (to make the soy more digestible) and to consume limited amounts of organic, non-GMO tofu, tempeh, and miso, truly traditional soya foods. I'm sure we can come up with another satisfactory salt-bearing device for EGirl! Read more!