New England Health Advisory

You can drop weight and reduce fat without ever counting a calorie or stepping on a treadmill.

It starts with what you eat first thing in the morning.

When you eat a high-fat breakfast, it turns on your fat-burning metabolism. You’ll drop fat off your body and use up the calories you eat for the rest of the day.

But if you eat a low-fat, high-carb breakfast, your body will hold onto fat, and your appetite will increase.

Your bad cholesterol goes up, along with your triglycerides and blood sugar … which sets you up for diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

And this metabolic maladjustment occurs independent of how many calories you eat or how much you exercise.

The key is to eat your high-fat meal at breakfast, and to have a low-fat meal for dinner.

I’ve been following this research in the International Journal of Obesity. Before now, no one has looked at the timing of your meals and how it affects your weight and your health.

It’s something we should know instinctively. Nature didn’t intend for you to eat breakfast out of a cereal box.

Your ancestors thrived on foods like eggs, meat and fish. This is what gave them power, strength and vitality.

I remember staying at my grandparents’ place when I was a kid. I’d wake up to the smell of steak and eggs and race down the stairs to get my place at the table.

Your grandparents ate this way, too. It’s much better for you than what the media wants you to believe.

Today, you’re brainwashed by commercials for low-fat granola, Cheerios and Special K. You think you’re eating healthy products because they tell you it’s “high-fiber, whole oat and whole grain wheat.”

But all those low-fat carbs throw your metabolism out of whack. And eventually, your health will suffer.

To help avoid that, I recommend you eat a solid, high-fat breakfast. You’ll feel good all day with no mid-morning and mid-afternoon crash. You’ll think clearly and have plenty of energy. You won’t be as hungry, and cravings will seem to vanish. You’ll notice it’s easier to drop weight, and you’ll feel like exercising again.

Then, when it comes to dinner, take it easy. Keep your fat consumption down, and watch your total calories as well.

Give this a try for the next few weeks. See how much better you feel and how your health improves.

To get you started, here are two of my favorite breakfasts you might enjoy:

1. Fried eggs with a side of steak: Look for cage-free eggs at the grocery store. They come from antibiotic-free chickens raised in a natural, healthy environment. Fry them in organic butter.

Make sure to buy grass-fed beef. Animal fat is good for you, as long as it’s from disease-free livestock that haven’t been injected with hormones or fed antibiotics. Stores like Whole Foods carry it.

If you gravitate toward bacon, remember this is a highly processed food. So look for grass-fed and a brand that doesn’t contain nitrates. They cause cancer and changes to your DNA.

2. Cheese omelet with salmon: Look for 100% organic cheese. Get it from grass-fed cows if you can. You get none of the hormones and antibiotics and far more nutrients. Buy wild salmon instead of farm-raised. It has no dyes, less toxins like PCBs and higher levels of omega-3.

To Your Good Health,

Al Sears, MD
Contributing Editor
New England Health Advisory

—

M S Bray, J-Y Tsai et al. “Time-of-day-dependent dietary fat consumption influences multiple cardiometabolic syndrome parameters in mice,” International Journal of Obesity 2010 Mar; doi:10.1038/ijo.2010.63 Original Article.

Now that you are bringing home the best food possible (based on what you’ve learned from the previous articles on fruits and vegetables as well as those on dairy, meat and fish), how can you make sure you’re getting the most nutrients from that food?

As we learned in the fruit and vegetable series, the nutrient value of today’s food is dramatically diminished. Remember the reference to peaches: In 1951, two peaches would supply a woman’s Recommended Dietary Allowance of vitamin A, but today she’d need to eat 53 to get the same nutrients?

So with reduced nutrient value, it’s more important than ever to ensure that you get all the nutrients you can out of the food you cook—and that you avoid adding carcinogens or chemicals or altering the food profile with your cooking method.

Today I’m going to discuss some of the best ways to prepare food infused with nutrients.

The Best Cooking Methods

Stir-frying is a great way to eat perfectly balanced meals because you can cook protein, carbohydrates (vegetables) and healthy fats (olive oil or grapeseed oil) in one pan. Using a wok over medium heat and continuously stirring the food allows it to cook while remaining crisp and maintaining nutrient value.

It’s important not to let the heat get too high or the oil will oxidize and turn rancid. (If it discolors or imparts a smoky flavor, you’ve definitely gone too far). I rarely if ever turn my stove dials above three (on a 1-10 scale). You can also use broth instead of oil.

Sautéing as it is traditionally done over high heat, is not usually a good choice because the oil is likely to oxidize. But some now call what was once called pan-frying sautéing, and it is a good way to prepare foods as long as the heat stays low and the oils are healthy ones. To me, it doesn’t matter whether you adhere to traditional naming conventions: With my stove dial on three, and using olive oil, grapeseed oil, or broth, cooking vegetables and/or meats in a skillet is a good alternative to using a wok and probably my most typical cooking method.

Steaming vegetables in a small amount of water in a covered pot (using a basket or colander) is one of the best ways to keep nutrients in your vegetables. Just be careful not to overcook: Vegetables should be brightly colored and slightly crunchy when they are done, not soggy and limp. (Try adding your favorite spice to the water for extra flavor!)

Poaching isn’t just for eggs: It’s also a way to cook fish, chicken and delicate foods that would not survive a boil. While better than boiling, there is still nutrient loss to the water.

Boiling tends to drain a lot of nutrients, but for some hearty vegetables like potatoes and root vegetables, it makes sense on occasion. It definitely makes sense if you are making soup and are keeping all the nutrients in the broth! Otherwise, try to avoid boiling. If you do boil, try to use the nutrient-rich water in your soup, broth or rice.

Pressure-cooking has been revived lately but remains an uncommon means of cooking in the U.S. But because pressure-cooking cooks foods very quickly, it tends to preserve a lot of nutrients and flavor, unlike slow cookers, which result in greater nutrient loss. I don’t use my pressure cooker often, but it does create tender succulent fall-off-the-bone meat dishes that convince even the most loyal grilling fans that there is another option.

Baking is not just for pies and cookies; it can be a good way to mix meats and vegetables into a simple meal. Roasting meat and veggies in a pan can also a make a hearty meal. It’s not something I like to do in the summer months, but in the winter, baked/roasted meals are comforting in taste, texture and smell.

And for vegetables, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that one of the best ways to serve them is raw. You can drizzle some olive oil and salt on them or create sauces from organic ingredients you have on hand. While my kids love broccoli sautéed in a little oil, they also adore it raw and crunchy. I often set out a raw veggie platter while I am cooking only to find it completely devoured before we sit down at the table. And that’s OK with me!

Cooking Methods to Avoid

Frying and deep-frying probably don’t need much of an explanation for why they are unhealthy. In addition to the excess calories and fat, frying at high heats causes oils to oxidize and turn rancid. This causes inflammation, which can result in myriad problems, including high cholesterol, arterial plaque leading to heart disease, and can produce cancer-causing chemicals.

Microwaving is a controversial cooking method and one that I’m going to discuss more fully in a later issue. Research shows that microwaving alters the chemical composition of food and affects the nutrient value. Microwaving poses great health concerns, but for now, perhaps knowing that microwaved broccoli results loses up to 97% of its beneficial antioxidant chemicals, while steamed broccoli loses fewer than 11%, may help you think twice about it.

I recommend you avoid microwaving food to the extent possible. Never use plastic containers when you microwave, as they have been shown to leach toxic chemicals like Bisphenol A into your food: Always use glass.

Grilling is a great American tradition and I know I’m not going to make friends when I say that you should minimize grilling to the extent possible. While gas is a better fuel than charcoal, and electric is best, anytime you generate a black char line on your food, you are creating carcinogens, or cancer-causing substances, in your food.

And even if you don’t char your meat, fat in the meat causes gases to be released when it drips onto the heat source, which pose additional concerns. For that reason, grilling vegetables and fish without char lines is OK—use foil or a basket and grill away.

As with everything, balance is key. If you do it on occasion, and live a healthy lifestyle, occasional char-grilled meat isn’t likely to cause you much trouble. Nor will using a microwave in a pinch. But if you do it regularly, and/or you have other health issues to address, then minimizing such cooking methods could be a big step forward to improving your wellness.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

P.S. All past issues of New England Health Advisory, such as the articles on fruits and vegetables, fish, meat and dairy, can be found on our website.

By Inger Pols

In March, I wrote about the practice of using ammonia to treat meat and the problems associated with it. A few weeks ago, I wrote about some of the problems with the presence of hormones, antibiotics and pesticides in our meat supply.

Since this newsletter is only a few months old and I’ve discussed meat safety twice, you are probably catching on to the fact that this subject is near and dear to my heart. So I knew I had to write about a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that acknowledges that pesticides, drugs and heavy metals regularly contaminate our meat supply. The report says that this meat is knowingly and regularly distributed to big box stores, fast food restaurants and school lunch programs. It also states that various government agencies are unable to align to take action.

When we looked at ammonia, the rationale for using it was to treat the meat to prevent pathogens like E. coli. This new report focused on chemical contaminants like veterinary drugs and antibiotics, heavy metals (like copper, cadmium and arsenic), dioxins, polybrominated diphenylethers (fire retardants), and pesticides with canceled registrations that remain in the meat. The problem with these chemical contaminants is that cooking does not destroy them (unlike E. coli) and they can actually become even more harmful when cooked.

The report concludes that the various agencies policing our meat supply are not working together: The agencies are not testing for these contaminants and the appropriate thresholds for testing safety levels have not even been established. It appears to be a take off on the Abbott and Costello skit of “Who’s on First.”

Let’s look at how the system is supposed to work. (Bear with me through all the acronyms and initials.)

The Maze of Food Safety Regulators

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) administers the national residue program. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each play a key role in the process and in addition, they established a joint Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT) and an Interactive Residue Control Group (IRCG) to help reach their program goals.

Each year, the Surveillance Advisory Team is supposed to call on the FDA, the EPA and FSIS to determine what residues they will be testing. Despite convening and forming a joint consensus, the FSIS continues to test for only one type of pesticide each year.

The EPA claims that FSIS refuses its requests for additional pesticide testing. The FSIS, however, counterclaims that the EPA has not set the established tolerances for which the FSIS is supposed to test, so it cannot test for them. (At the same time, the FSIS also states that it doesn’t have the resources to do the testing.)

For any testing that does occur, the FDA must approve the proper testing methods. However, the FDA continues to make use of antiquated testing methods and has continually been unwilling or unable to use newer testing methodologies.

The methods employed by the various agencies are often in conflict with each other, so the SAT was created to help them coordinate and communicate. But year after year, no progress has been made. The report concludes there is a problem and that improvements must be made. Not surprisingly, this did not make headlines!

A Tale of Tainted Meat

The USDA report indicates that meat plant violations do not seem to concern the FSIS as they should. In 2008, one plant received over 200 violations, but was still allowed to continue operating after the FSIS declared the violations “not likely to occur.”

One of the concerns highlighted is the practice of cow “recycling.” When dairy cows get too old or sick to produce any more milk, they are slaughtered and the “spent” dairy cow meat makes it way into our meat supply. This is troubling because of the hormones, antibiotics and pesticides present in the meat fat of those cows. A 2008 investigation revealed that 90% of the residue violations occurred in plants that process spent dairy cows.

The same plants also process what is known as “bob” veal, or male calves born to dairy cows. Dairy cows receive large amounts of antibiotics after they give birth to calves to treat and prevent birth-related infections. Dairy producers must wait a certain amount of time before they can sell the antibiotic-laden milk for human consumption. So rather than waste the milk, they feed the antibiotic laden milk to the bob veal calves. The drugs never have a chance to leave their systems, and so they remain in the veal meat that is ultimately purchased by consumers. (And if the dairy cow does not recover after birth, she is slaughtered and her meat enters our food supply as well.)

Another concern highlighted in the report is the fact that livestock are now being fed industrial waste that remains after the process of converting corn into ethanol fuel. The waste is known as “distillers’ grains.” The USDA is aware that these grains are more likely to contain E coli, but it does not regulate the use of distillers’ grains in cattle feed. The ethanol fermentation process requires a lot of antibiotics, so those residues are present in distillers’ grains. In addition, they are laden with mycotoxins, which are linked to an imbalance in pigs called Mulberry Heart Disease, which can cause sudden death.

In the end, because there are no regulations and testing is not being done, all this substandard meat ends up in our food supply and the more tainted it is, or the lower the quality, the cheaper it is. That makes it more appealing to fast food restaurants, big chain supermarkets, and of course, school lunch programs where it is fed to developing children who are even more sensitive to the drugs, chemicals and antibiotics than adults.

Talking in Circles

Another section of the USDA report highlighted how the federal agencies fail to communicate. In one example, the EPA has recently canceled use of all pesticides containing lindane and will revoke its current lindane tolerance (or allowance).

The report states “One FSIS official stated that without a tolerance or a zero tolerance if FSIS finds lindane as a residue, it will have no basis for acting to protect the U.S. food supply from unacceptable levels of this pesticide. Another FSIS official disagreed and noted that in the absence of a tolerance (e.g., for lindane) any residue of a pesticide would be illegal and would adulterate the food—making it unnecessary to create a zero tolerance. Regardless of their position, both officials agreed that the agency needed to clarify its procedures regarding the actions agency personnel are to take concerning the disposition of carcasses that contain a potentially hazardous substance where no official tolerance has been established by the FDA or EPA.”

I don’t quite understand how canceling use of all pesticides containing lindane can be considered not establishing an official tolerance level, but that’s why I don’t work for the government!

How You Can Take Action

So what can we do? These stories are so common now that it’s possible we are becoming desensitized. Or perhaps we just accept the inability of our government to adequately protect us and our food supply. But there are things we can do. Support local farmers and Community Supported Agriculture where you get to know the producers of the food you are eating and ask them questions about their practices. Educate yourself by reading the reports such as the one discussed here and become aware of the challenges faced by our current food practices. Vote with your wallet and speak to your representatives: Let them know you care about our food supply and that you want something better.

There’s no point reforming our health care system if we are not changing our farming and food policies: Let’s get to the cause and not just treat the symptom.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

P.S. Continue reading for the executive summary of this report or the report in its entirety, please click here.

FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle
Executive Summary

One of the public food safety issues facing the United States is the contamination of meat with residual veterinary drugs, pesticides, and heavy metals. “Residue” of this sort finds its way into the food supply when producers bring animals to slaughter plants while they have these residual contaminants in their system. When the animals are slaughtered, traces of the drugs or pesticides contained in these animals’ meat is shipped to meat processors and retail supermarkets, and eventually purchased by consumers.

In order to safeguard the Nation’s food supply from harmful residue, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) administers the national residue program. FSIS inspectors sample meat processed through slaughter plants for residue testing and compare the results with tolerances established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prevent adulterated meat from entering into commerce.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the national residue program and to assess how well FSIS, FDA, and EPA were coordinating to accomplish the program’s objectives.

Based on our review, we found that the national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues. Together, FSIS, FDA, and EPA have not established thresholds for many dangerous substances (e.g., copper or dioxin), which has resulted in meat with these substances being distributed in commerce. Additionally, FSIS does not attempt to recall meat, even when its tests have confirmed the excessive presence of veterinary drugs.

To address these serious shortcomings in the national residue program, FSIS, EPA, and FDA need to take steps to improve how they coordinate with one another to accomplish the program’s mission. Recognizing that they needed to work together to prevent residue from entering the food supply, the three agencies established the Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT) and the Interagency Residue Control Group (IRCG) as a way of coming together to communicate and coordinate.

We found, however, that there were a wide range of problems with relying on this process: not all agencies were equally committed to the SAT and IRCG; essential participants were not required to attend; and no one agency had authority to ensure that necessary actions were taken to deal with disagreements. Due to problems with how the SAT and IRCG were established and were functioning, we identified four issues relating to coordination between FSIS, EPA, and FDA.

The three agencies involved need to: 1) expand the substances they test for, 2) improve their methodology for sampling hazardous residues, 3) determine more efficient ways of approving newer methods of testing for drug residues, and 4) collaborate to set tolerances for additional residues.

By Inger Pols

Today I’m going to continue the food swap series and look at making better meat choices. Unless you’re a vegetarian whose health is thriving, you most likely need to pay more attention to your animal protein selections. While it is possible to get everything you need to be healthy purely from plants, it’s difficult to do so. (I’ll talk more about how to create a healthy plant-based diet in a future newsletter.)

Almost every civilization has included some animal protein in its diet, even if it was only insects and bugs. While most of us do need to consume some animal protein to maintain optimal health, it’s likely that you are eating too much meat in general as well as too much unhealthy meat.

If you haven’t read the books The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan and Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, or seen the movie Food, Inc., I strongly encourage you to check them out. I could easily (and probably will) write a newsletter on factory farming and the challenges it poses to our food supply. But I’ll save most of that for another day. However, I do want to tell you a little bit about hormones, pesticides and antibiotics in meat and why eating them can be bad for your health.

Hold the Hormones

For decades, the meat and dairy industries have been using hormones to help young livestock gain weight faster. More weight means more meat means more profit. A pellet is typically implanted in the animal’s ear that releases hormones, commonly synthetic estrogens and testosterone, throughout its life.

The hormones remain in the animal’s fatty tissue and are present in the meat we eat, albeit in smaller doses than the human body typically produces. But even small amounts of hormones have been shown to have big effects on some body processes. It’s long been known that excess exposure to estrogen increases breast cancer risk and now we know it increases prostate cancer risk too. Hormone-treated meat has been suspected of contributing to early puberty and male breast development.

The European Union has banned all hormones in meat. But there aren’t any studies underway in the U.S. to evaluate hormone safety in meat and milk, so this practice will likely continue. Perhaps if we were not so heavily exposed to estrogenic compounds in our daily environment, this might not be so problematic. But as we discussed in the prostate article, estrogenic compounds are hard to avoid and eating hormone-laden meat just adds to the burden on your body.

Rising Antibiotic Resistance

We know the benefits of taking antibiotics when we have a bacterial illness, but most livestock in the U.S. are fed antibiotics even when they aren’t sick! Antibiotics are primarily used to make animals gain weight. But now researchers are becoming concerned with this practice, as they fear it is giving rise to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which could pose a serious health risk.

In fact, a number of studies have shown growing resistance to antibiotics, including one in the New England Journal of Medicine that revealed that 84% of the salmonella bacteria found in supermarket ground beef was resistant to some antibiotics. Another study showed that pork that came from animals that had been fed the antibiotic ciprofloxacin led to people catching resistant strains of salmonella. The FDA estimates that 11,000 people caught intestinal illnesses in 1999 from eating antibiotic-resistant bacteria in chicken.

Pesticides: Not Just a Concern with Produce

We hear a lot about pesticides with respect to produce, and they are a concern. But pesticides in our meat supply may pose an even greater danger. You can ingest far more pesticides on a meat-heavy diet than you would from consuming fruits and vegetables. Today’s livestock are not fed a traditional diet, but rather a feed that is loaded with pesticides. (The feed also often contains meat from diseased animals that die before slaughter.)

Pesticides accumulate in the flesh of animals and have been shown to cause cancer, nerve damage, birth defects, and to inhibit the proper absorption of food nutrients. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 90% of fungicides, 60% of herbicides and 30% of insecticides are known carcinogens.

The EPA does set limits on how much pesticide can be used (according to what they deem as safe) and how much is allowed to remain on food. However, the only way to know for sure is to have the food tested, which does not occur today. So it’s really a guess as to how much is left behind and whether that amount of pesticides is “safe” or not. The EPA also states that in certain cases, such as economic loss to farmers, unauthorized pesticides (those known to be unsafe) are knowingly allowed to be used.

Making Better Meat Choices

Thankfully, in most supermarkets today you can find meat labeled as hormone free, antibiotic free and pesticide free, and that’s what I buy. (This does not alleviate all the problems associated with today’s farming practices, but it’s a step in the right direction.)

Because the food supply of the livestock is a big part of the problem, whenever possible, I look for grass-fed meat or chicken raised on something other than vegetarian feed. It can be hard to find, and it can be expensive, but I think it’s worth it. My kids also think it tastes much better; they can tell the difference!

Many people eat too much meat in one meal, so cutting back on portion size is another way to make eating meat more economical and healthy. Meat portions should never be larger than the palm of your hand. (Yes, that does mean those with bigger hands get a slight advantage!) But no one has a hand large enough to accommodate a 16 oz. porterhouse steak: A little meat protein goes a long way.

Another good food swap is to substitute bison for beef. Bison are fed grass instead of grain and are typically not given hormones, antibiotics or pesticides. Bison meat also has very little intramuscular fat, so it is low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol versus beef, pork or chicken. Venison is also a good choice.

Lastly, a comment on luncheon meats. In addition to the concerns already mentioned about hormones, pesticides and antibiotics in the meats, most packaged meats (bacon, salami, ham, pepperoni, hot dogs, etc.) contain nitrates as a preservative. Sodium nitrate is converted into nitrosamines, which are chemicals that can cause cancer.

While nitrosamines can cause virtually any kind of cancer, the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that people eating more processed meat were 50% more likely to develop lower colon cancer. Nitrosamines have also been linked to a 68% higher risk of pancreatic cancer, and increasing consumption of processed meats by 30 grams resulted in a 15% to 38% increase in risk for developing stomach cancer.

Consumption of nitrates has been shown to cause an increase in brain tumors in children and to result in DNA mutations. The food industry calls nitrates a color fixer, as they turn meats bright red and can make old, gray, unattractive meat look healthy and delicious.

But the good news is that most major grocery store chains have some nitrate-free meat in their organic sections and you can find them at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods. Again, they can cost a little more, but I’d rather see my meat as it really is and skip the cancer risk, especially for my kids, as their developing bodies can handle fewer toxins.

While these changes won’t fix the problems in our food supply, they will help you make healthier meat choices. Becoming an educated consumer and voting with your wallet is a step toward getting better meat options in our stores that are free of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and nitrates.

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

Stranger than Science Fiction

The Money Trail

The Food-Safety Disconnect

When will we realize that while budgets are tight, some savings are simply too costly to justify.

Take this story from the New York Times published in December of 2009.

Once upon a time, there was a beef processing company called Beef
Products Inc. looking to make more money (not unusual). It wanted to find a way to take the fatty meat trimmings (which could only be sold for pet food or cooking oil) and create a product they could use to enter the hamburger business

But the trimmings were susceptible to contamination by E. coli and salmonella, so the company had to find a way to treat the meat scraps so that they would be safe from contamination.

So Beef Products developed a process to treat the meat with ammonia. Yes, ammonia.

Untreated meat has a natural ammonia level that rates about 6 on the pH scale, similar to milk or rain water. But this company found that if they treated the beef with an ammonia process that resulted in changing the pH level to about 10 (an alkalinity that surpasses the range of most foods), they could kill the E.coli and salmonella.

Pink Slime

So the company took their study to the U.S.D.A., which was concerned about E. coli and salmonella. One former U.S.D.A. microbiologist admitted that he and several scientists were concerned that no independent validation of safety had been provided. Another, Gerald Zirnstein said the processed beef looked like “pink slime” and went on to say “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

But in the end, the U.S.D.A. not only approved the ammonia-processed meat, they were so pleased with the performance of the ammonia process that they exempted the company from routine testing of the hamburger meat!

A top lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry argued on Beef Products’ behalf that another company had just received approval to not disclose a chemical used in treating poultry, so therefore this company shouldn’t have to disclose the use of ammonia. He won.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the ammonia process.

The Money Trail

So the Beef Products sold its ammonia treated meat to McDonalds, Burger King and all the other fast food chains, as well as to many grocery stores.

And the Agriculture Marketing Service, the U.S.D.A. division that is responsible for buying food for school lunches, overcame initial objections and decided to use the ammonia-processed meat too because it saved three cents a pound off the cost of making ground beef. Last year, the company sold about 5.5 million pounds of the ammonia-processed meat to schools alone.

Beef Products, which does not disclose its earnings, generated an estimated $440 million dollars a year in additional revenue from the trimmings previously unfit for human consumption.

And we, as consumers, would probably never have known about this at all, had it not been for a problem.

The ammonia process left the meat smelling pungently of ammonia, even as the company produced a taste test saying that some school children preferred the taste of burgers with more of the ammonia processed meat.

In Georgia, officials returned 7,000 pounds of the meat to the company after smelling a “very strong odor of ammonia” in the meat being used to make meatloaf for state prisons. (They did not know about the ammonia process, because it was not on the label, so they assumed the meat had been tainted.) They noted in their complaint, according to the New York Times, that the “level of ammonia in the beef was similar to levels found in the contamination incidents involving chicken and milk that had sickened schoolchildren.”

Beef Products told the U.S.D.A. that the ammonia-treated meat was safe and when it was diluted with other ground beef. The U.S.D.A. accepted this conclusion, so the company was off the hook.

But others complained about the smell, too.

— Advertisement —

Shut Down the Aging of Your Skin

On October 26, 2008, people from all over the country attended a unique conference on telomeres (pronounced tell-o-meers).

Surrounded by some of the world’s most recognized, cutting-edge researchers in the field, we shared how telomeres are the key to aging. And everyone who witnessed the event walked away with the knowledge of how to control their aging clock and add years of abundant health to their lives.

Discover how this anti-aging breakthrough can now shut down the aging of your skin …

http://www.on2url.com/app/adtrack.asp?MerchantID=166930&AdID=487292

—

Vulnerable to Contamination

So the company had to do something and it released new research showing that E. coli and salmonella were undetectable at pH levels of 8.5. That enabled it to reduce the level of ammonia and lessen the smell. So Beef Products altered the process to lower the pH level, though the company would not reveal to exactly what level. (Samples that the New York Times collected showed a pH as low as 7.75, below their revised test minimum.)

But in doing so, this left the fatty meat scraps more vulnerable to contamination.

And that is where the company surfaced on the public radar.

School lunch program testing revealed E. coli and salmonella dozens of times in Beef Products’ meat. Back-to-back incidents in August of last year determined that two 27,000-pound batches of the meat were contaminated, but thankfully they were caught before the meat was consumed by school children.

Last July, salmonella concerns resulted in a temporary ban of Beef Products’ meat by school officials in Kansas. It was the third time in three years the company’s meat had been banned. But the processing facility remained open and continued to supply other customers (including fast food restaurants and grocery stores) with meat even though they couldn’t sell to schools during that time.

When the New York Times broke the story and presented the U.S.D.A. with the information, its top officials said that they did not know what their peers in the lunch program had known for years.

The agriculture department responded and revoked Beef Products’ freedom from routine testing. It also reversed its policy about pathogens: Because this beef was supposedly pathogen free, it was not included in recalls, even when pathogens were found in tainted hamburgers!

Food Safety Disconnect: What is Wrong?

While in a way I feel we should cheer that there was a response as a result of the NY Times investigation, it’s clear that there is a disconnect between the various divisions of government, and that this lack of communication and knowledge exchange is hindering public safety.

But more than that, I am concerned that we as a public have become too comfortable with scandal and no longer react.

I am not sure what aspect of this story bothers me most:

The fact that ammonia is being injected into meat;

The fact that the process of injecting ammonia into substandard previously inedible meat makes it then acceptable;

The fact that despite no outside substantiation that this process is safe, it was approved;

The fact that because it is seemingly safe, it is exempt from any further testing;

The fact that this meat is being consumed by school children as part of hot lunch programs in order to save pennies;

The fact that government agencies—and branches of the same agency—don’t talk to each other;

(When that happens in corporations, we consider them dysfunctional and they usually don’t stick around long.)

The fact that the company continued to sell the meat to other customers even after contamination was confirmed by one customer;

That there is no real recourse to be taken against this company and it continues on as before selling its ammonia-laden meat, although now it is no longer exempt from testing;

Or that when all of this comes to light, we read it and move on.

I feel outraged that we are allowing substandard food products to replace real food in our diets. Is this what we want to eat?

Are we OK letting accountants make food decisions, so that saving three cents becomes more important than health and wellness?

It strikes me that it is not dissimilar to the situation in the automobile industry in America. I remember being in a meeting 20 years ago in which there was a discussion on saving a half a cent on a screw that would last through warranty (hopefully) versus spending an extra half a cent for a more expensive screw that would last 10+ years.

It took awhile, but car manufacturers finally realized that they needed to take a more holistic view: That there were other costs associated with choosing the less expensive screw. Things changed when the decisions were no longer made solely by the bean counters.

When will we take a more holistic view of our food choices and realize that while budgets are tight, some savings are simply too costly to justify?

To your health!

Inger Pols
Editor of New England Health Advisory

P.S. Speaking of good articles … did you see the recent  (February 15, 2010) TIME magazine special issue on aging?

TIME featured the Nobel Prize winning breakthrough on telomere research. In the article, scientists discuss how telomeres, “are the closest we may come to identifying a biological clock—and our best bet for learning how to stop or turn back that clock.” What are telomeres? They are the part of your chromosome that gets smaller as you age. When the telomere runs out, cell division stops, and life comes to an end.

The telomere might be considered the most important discovery in human history. We now understand the mechanism of aging and how to influence it.  In fact, the discovery of telomeres just won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine.

Now we’ve discovered a way to apply this Nobel Prize-winning breakthrough to skin care. Using this new discovery to virtually extend the lifespan of your skin cells, and help erase all of the signs of aging and revive the youth and radiance of younger years.

For more information on how to feel the joy that comes with a healthier, more youthful face, please visit this link.

http://www.on2url.com/app/adtrack.asp?MerchantID=166930&AdID=487295

P.P.S. Last week I wrote about Jamie Oliver’s new show that tackles obesity in America through healthy cooking and the school lunch program aired last night on ABC. Jamie has a petition to go along with his new TV show that you can sign to support his assertion that America’s kids need better food at school and better health prospects. Jamie plans to take his petition to the White House after the TV series airs, to show the president and first lady how many people across the country really care about this and ask for their support. The link below will take you to the petition.

http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution/petition