If you eat meat, especially beef, it is mandatory that you read Michael Moss’ article “E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Inspection,” published October 3, 2009 in The New York Times. If, after reading the article, you still want to eat beef, know that you risk the same fate of Stephanie Smith unless you are willing to purchase your meat from a local, family-run, small-scale farm that raises its cows on grass (as close to 100% as possible) and leaves its chickens to roam freely in empty pastures. Every time you disregard these meat products for their high costs, consider the cost of long-term hospitalization, paralysis and/or death.

I do not speak here with hyperbole. In our society we, as consumers, are are often blind to the “hidden costs” of the products or services we purchase. The classic example of this is food; and as a ‘food blog,’ I will discuss this issue in the context of my advocacy for grass-fed and pasture-raised animals.

Many folks in my peer group recognize the environmental and economic dangers of both industrial agriculture and factory farming. After the release of films like Food, Inc. and King Corn, and Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore Dilemma, I think the politics of the food movement are embracing a wider audience. The fight against industrial food production has gone on for many, many years. I am proud to admit that I am new to “the movement,” and that I have much to learn in its history and so forth. That said, I do believe that the current explosion of food-related concerns in the mainstream are significant and of deeper examination. The article written by Michael Moss is a prime example.

Over the past several years there have been larger and more severe outbreaks of E. Coli, a deadly bacteria found in beef. The bacteria naturally exists inside the cow’s belly but given certain conditions, its potential to spread beyond the carcass is exponential. During the process-intensive slaughter and meat production there are numerous possibilities for contamination. The article discusses this at length. But what the article does not discuss, is why there is room for all of these contaminations. How are cows being raised and slaughtered so that there is room for E. Coli to survive?

To answer this question simply – cows are eating corn. Yes, cows are also raised in confined spaces, slaughtered in unsanitary conditions, and debased to the most inhumane standards possible; but the issue stems from corn. Cows do not naturally eat corn. Cows eat grass. Cows even have a special stomach to digest the grass, and yet it is cheaper to feed them corn. Since profitability is the name of the game, public health is of little concern. This point is most clearly demonstrated when

Dr. Kenneth Peterson, an assistant administrator with the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.

Wow. There you have it. A top official for the USDA makes the claim that the industry is at par with the consumer in the buy/sell equation. It’s moments like this when I find it hard to respect or trust the government in this country. As a skeptic of democracy I feel like this man’s comment totally justifies my criticism of our nations holy mantra, ‘by the people, for the people.’ Clearly, in our age, its more like ‘by the corporation, for the corporation.’

…Back to the issue of corn. Because the cows are fed corn and they are not supposed to eat corn, the cows get sick. To combat a potential pandemic in our cow population, another industry is introduced – the drug makers. As you may have heard, cows are given antibiotics to combat illnesses. Well, over time and adjustment, the bacteria develop the means to survive the antibiotics and become even stronger and deadlier. Now we have strands of E. Coli that are significantly more dangerous than previous ones.

Another article I read on Moss’ piece made the following statement (better than I could have,)

In short, E. coli didn’t just “happen” to the meat industry—it’s a consequence of industrial practices. But nowhere in the article (or in the halls of the USDA or the largescale beef producers for that matter) is the possibility of moving away from this corn-based system raised as a solution for the industrial system. Surprisingly, the article includes virtually no proposed solutions for this crisis—just vague assurances that the USDA isn’t “standing still” on the issue. In reality, the industry focuses exclusively on “managing” the ongoing presence of E. coli O157 though the development of an E. coli vaccine for cows, and irradiation or chemical washes for the meat. All of which are attempts to mask the risks of a failed system and represent an institutionalizing of the underlying failures. And none of which make me ever want to touch industrial meat again.

Indeed, if there ever was a powerful argument for eating only grass-fed beef from small producers, this article is it. The only conclusion worth drawing from this expose is that industrial ground beef simply isn’t worth the risk. And without wholesale industry and regulatory reform—neither of which appears likely or even possible, it may never be.

At this point I want to suggest 2 solutions to the issue:

1. If you choose to eat meat, be certain that the animal was fed grass and as mentioned before, as close to 100% as possible. When cows do eat grass the strain will not survive. When you purchase this meat try your hardest to buy from a small-scale farm where industrial slaughter is out of the question. Find out where the animals are slaughtered. FInd out how large the slaughter house is and how many animals they process a day. As a consumer you have the right to know and all you have to do is ask. I also suggest finding a family-run farm (that is small and only raises animals on grass) because there’s more room for trust and transparency. If you ever got sick you know who to call. You can directly source the meat from your plate to the field. You are empowered by taking the extra steps as a consumer. If you are willing to take these steps, the best starting place is EatWild.com. This is an excellent site to find the type of farm I am recommending.
2. As a general rule, eat less meat. If you eat standard meat that is from animals fed corn, you are more likely to get heart disease and other meat-related illnesses. If you eat strictly grass-fed and pasture-raised meats you are not condemned to these chronic ailments (see the first manifesto for more.) Another reason to eat less meat is the Earth. If you believe in climate change or global warming then you must also recognize the impact of eating meat on the issue. (While I do eat meat and recognize meat’s impact, I do not see this as a total contradiction. I will write on this soon.)

As I continue to advocate for greater consumer intelligence in the realm of food consumption, I will always return to the issue of grass-fed vs. corn-based diets for animals. The health of us, as a nation and as individuals, will depend on our interest in making healthy choices and taking the time to fulfill them.

Related posts:

1. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
2. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 3)
3. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (Part I)
4. “The Portland Meat Collective” (or) The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
5. USDA Destroys Local Economies

Tags: corn, cow, Food Politics, Grass-Fed, local food movement, Michael Pollan, USDA