Sunday, March 21, 2010

This blog has moved


This blog is now located at http://blog.byebyebeef.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.byebyebeef.com/feeds/posts/default.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Manure becomes pollutant as its volume grows unmanageable

The Washington Post March 1, 2010
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer

Nearly 40 years after the first Earth Day, this is irony: The United States has reduced the manmade pollutants that left its waterways dead, discolored and occasionally flammable.

But now, it has managed to smother the same waters with the most natural stuff in the world.

Animal manure, a byproduct as old as agriculture, has become an unlikely modern pollution problem, scientists and environmentalists say. The country simply has more dung than it can handle: Crowded together at a new breed of megafarms, livestock produce three times as much waste as people, more than can be recycled as fertilizer for nearby fields.

That excess manure gives off air pollutants, and it is the country's fastest-growing large source of methane, a greenhouse gas.

And it washes down with the rain, helping to cause the 230 oxygen-deprived "dead zones" that have proliferated along the U.S. coast. In the Chesapeake Bay, about one-fourth of the pollution that leads to dead zones can be traced to the back ends of cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys.

Despite its impact, manure has not been as strictly regulated as more familiar pollution problems, like human sewage, acid rain or industrial waste. The Obama administration has made moves to change that but already has found itself facing off with farm interests, entangled in the contentious politics of poop.

In recent months, Oklahoma has battled poultry companies from Arkansas in court, blaming their birds' waste for slimy and deadened rivers downstream. In Florida, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed first-of-their-kind limits on pollutants found in manure.

In the Senate, Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) has proposed a bill that would allow farmers in the Chesapeake watershed to cut pollution more than required and sell the extra "credits" to other polluters. The EPA, in the middle of an overhaul for the failed Chesapeake cleanup, also has threatened to tighten rules on large farms.

"We now know that we have more nutrient pollution from animals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed" than from human sewage, said J. Charles Fox, the EPA's new Chesapeake czar. "Nutrients" is the scientific word for the main pollutants found in manure, treated sewage, and runoff from fertilized lawns. They are the bay's chief evil, feeding unnatural algae blooms that cause dead zones.

Around the country, agricultural interests have fought back against moves like these, saying that new rules on manure could mean crushing new costs for farmers.

"It's clearly going to put a squeeze on people that they've always said they didn't want to squeeze," including family-run farms, said Don Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The story of manure is already a gloomy counterpoint to the triumphs in fighting pollution since the first Earth Day in 1970. An air pollutant that causes acid rain has been cut by 56 percent. By one measure, the output from sewage plants got 45 percent cleaner.

But, according to Cornell University researchers, the amount of one key pollutant -- nitrogen -- entering the environment in manure has increased by at least 60 percent since the 1970s.

"We've dealt with the kind of conventional pollutants," that helped spark the first Earth Day, said Donald F. Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "Now, we see the things that are eating our lunch, if you will, are natural products . . . that are just overloading the system."

The reasons for manure's rise as a pollutant have to do, environmentalists say, with a shift in agriculture and a soft spot in the law.

In recent decades, livestock raising has shifted to a smaller number of large farms. At these places, with thousands of hogs or hundreds of thousands of chickens, the old self-contained cycle of farming -- manure feeds the crops, then the crops feed the animals -- is overwhelmed by the large amount of waste.

The result in farming-heavy places has been too much manure and too little to do with it. In the air, that extra manure can dry into dust, forming a "brown fog." It can emit substances that contribute to climate change.

And it can give off a smell like a punch to the stomach.

"You have to cover your face just to go from the house to the car," said Lynn Henning, 52, a farmer in rural Clayton, Mich., who said she became an environmental activist after fumes from huge new dairies gave her family headaches and burning sinuses. The way that modern megafarms produce it, Henning said, "Manure is no longer manure. Manure is a toxic waste now."

In the water, the chemicals in manure don't poison life, like pesticides or spilled oil. Instead, they create too much life, and the wrong kinds.

"You get Miracle-Gro for your water," said David Guest, a lawyer for the group Earthjustice who has fought for tougher limits on pollution in Florida.

The chemicals in manure serve as fertilizer for unnatural algae blooms. They drain away oxygen as they decompose. Scientists say the number of suffocating dead zones -- oxygen-depleted areas where even worms and clams climb out of the mud, desperate to respire -- has grown from 16 in the 1950s to at least 230 today. The Chesapeake's is usually the country's third largest, after the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Erie.

The law, however, has treated manure and other agricultural pollutants differently than pollutants from smokestacks and sewer pipes.

The EPA does not set a hard cap on how much manure can wash off farms, instead issuing guidelines that apply only to the largest operations. There, the rules might limit how much manure farmers can spread on individual fields, for instance, or order them to plant grassy strips along riverbanks to filter manure-laden runoff. Even that level of regulation has only been in place since the 1990s.

But now, the EPA has signaled an intent to tighten its grip.

Last Monday, the agency announced that reducing manure-laden runoff was one of its six "national enforcement initiatives." New rules went into effect in December that will impose even tighter restrictions on large farms.

Last fall, the U.S. Department of Agriculture also considered a change to its guidelines, which would have limited the amount of manure farmers could apply to their fields. But then it scrapped that idea, saying the issue needed more study.

Last week on the Eastern Shore, where farmers raised 568 million chickens last year, the problem of excess manure was still big enough to see from the road.

"See how dark that one pile is? That's chicken manure," said Kathy Phillips, 61, an environmental activist who patrols the peninsula for piles of manure stored outdoors. As a steady rain fell, she said that pollutants were probably leaching off that mound -- as tall as a van and the color of dark-roast coffee-- and into ditch water that would eventually reach the Pocomoke River, then the Chesapeake.

Phillips usually surveys these piles from the air. She has a mental map of dozens of these off-smelling mounds.

"I don't want to be the Poop Lady," said Phillips, who got into environmentalism because she loved to surf Ocean City's beaches. "But, you know, somebody had to talk about this. It's like this dirty little secret."

A few miles north, the poultry giant Perdue has come up with one way to dispose of excess manure. At a $13 million plant outside Seaford, Del., tons of poultry manure are dried, heated to kill off bacteria and compressed into pellets of organic fertilizer that is sold to golf courses or homeowners.

"This is sort of a reverse chicken," said Perdue spokesman Luis Luna, as bulldozers moved manure below. "In a chicken, the food goes in and the poop goes out. Here, the poop comes in and the plant food goes out."

That helps Chesapeake's manure problem, but it isn't the whole solution. Luna said there is enough manure on the Shore to keep more plants like this running-- but Perdue isn't planning to build more yet. So far, the fertilizer doesn't sell well enough to make that cost-effective.

Labels:

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

A Ban on Hormonal Meat is Three Decades Overdue

CHICAGO, IL, February 2, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/--

On January 29, 2010, with three other scientific experts, Samuel S. Epstein, MD, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, filed a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Petition seeking an urgent ban on hormonal meat, as it poses unrecognized risks of hormonal cancers.

The Petition requests the FDA to take the following action:

Require producers of hormonal meat to label it with an explicit warning such as "Produced with the use of sex hormones, and poses increased risks of breast, prostate, and testis cancers.

Prohibit the routine implantation of sex hormone pellets under the ear skin of cattle on entry into feedlots 100 days prior to slaughter. The object of the implants is to increase meat production by about 50 pounds per animal, and profitability by about 10%.

Ban hormonal meat. The hormones in past and current use include the natural: testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone; and the synthetic: trenbolone, zeranol, and melengesterol.

STATEMENT OF GROUNDS

Based on the scientific literature, besides World Health Organization (WHO) reports, there is explicit evidence that the use of sex hormones to increase meat production poses serious dangers to consumers," Dr. Epstein warns in the Petition.

"Of particular concern are the increased risks of hormonal cancers since 1975: breast by 23%, prostate by 60%, and testes by 60%," he emphasizes.

For these reasons, the Petition urges the FDA to take the following actions, now decades overdue:

Recognize that hormonal meat poses "imminent hazards" to the total U.S. population.

Take prompt, and decades overdue, regulatory action to eliminate the use of sex hormones in meat production.

Dr. Epstein explains that some three decades ago, Dr. Roy Hertz, then Director of Endocrinology of the National Cancer Institute and world authority on breast and other hormonal cancers, warned of cancer risks due to the use of estrogenic cattle implants, particularly for the breast.

Dr. Hertz emphasized that these implants increase normal hormonal levels, and that such imbalance causes reproductive cancers. Hertz also warned of the essentially uncontrolled and unregulated use of these extremely potent biological agents, no levels of which can be regarded as safe.

"These warnings are even more apt today, particularly in view of the FDA's longstanding and reckless failure to ban hormonal meat," Dr. Epstein declares.

The misleading assurances since 1979, by the FDA and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the safety of hormonal meat remain unchanged, Dr. Epstein declares. Of further concern are longstanding problems linked to conflicts of interest in senior agency personnel and their consultants. As clearly evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, the USDA and FDA have failed to take any regulatory action to protect the public from the dangers of hormonal meat, Dr. Epstein points out.

Dr. Epstein cites a 1986 report, "Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs," unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, which concluded that the "FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility - has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of verterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers - jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers meat, milk, and poultry."

In response to questions on hormonal meat raised in February 1996 by the European Commission, the USDA responded with assurances that less than 0.25% of animals tested annually proved positive for "residue violations." Dr. Epstein asserts, "These criticisms remain equally appropriate today. In fact, meat is still not monitored for sex hormone levels by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; The Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medalist for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and Toxic Beauty (2009).

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

http://www.preventcancer.com/

To subscribe to the Cancer Prevention Coalition click here http://ens-news.net/lists/?p=subscribe&id=9

Nicholas Ashford, Ph.D., J.D.
Professor of Technology and Policy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Ronnie Cummins
Executive Director
Organic Consumers Association

Quentin D. Young, M.D.
Chairman
Health & Medicine
Policy Research Group
Past President,
American Public Health Association

Labels: ,

Friday, January 29, 2010

Organic dairy farms being crushed by factory operations

Family farmers who produce organic milk are petitioning for the swift adoption of new strict rule-making that would rein in the abuses of a handful of factory farms, which are violating both the spirit and letter of the federal organic law.

The pending rewrite of the organic livestock standards, with an emphasis on assuring compliance with provisions that require grazing for dairy cows, is under review at the Office of Management and Budget, where the administration is being heavily lobbied by industrial farming interests to water down the rules.

To meet the explosive growth in the organic industry, over the last five years a number of large industrial dairies, milking as many as 7,200 cows, have exploited the stellar reputation that organic dairy products have earned in the eyes of consumers who are looking for safer and more nutritious food for their families.

With the flattening of demand for organic food, these giant dairies have flooded the market with cheap milk that is now crushing the family farmers who have built this industry. These CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are anathema to organic consumers investing in a more environmentally sensitive approach to food production and humane animal husbandry. Ironically, one of the reasons they are willing to pay extra for organic milk is they think that the farmers who produce it are being fairly treated.

The current surplus of organic milk, caused by factory farms, has forced prices down for family farmers. Sadly, there have been reports around the country of a number of suicides of both conventional and organic dairy producers. Some organic farmers are now facing foreclosure, a stark contrast to the economic promise of organics over the past two decades of growth.

Organic farmers are particularly resentful of two corporate players that heavily lobbied the USDA during both the Bush and Obama administrations, attempting to weaken regulatory language that requires dairy cows to be managed in a way that promotes their natural instinctive behaviors, including grazing on open pastures rather than spending most of their lives confined in barns and feedlots.

The largest villain, in the eyes of dairy farmers, is Aurora Dairy. The $100 million corporation owns five “factory farms,” each with thousands of cows, in arid regions of Texas and Colorado. Owning its own manufacturing plant, Aurora packages and ships milk for sale as store-brand products at Walmart and a number of leading supermarket chains. Aurora’s factory farm milk reaches every corner of this country, undercutting ethical farmers and their marketing partners.

Although the president of Aurora Dairy, Mark Retzloff, has heavily contributed to the Democratic Party, President Obama, and Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor who is now USDA secretary, we trust that the current administration will focus on the suspect practices of his company rather than its past financial and political support.

In what has been described as the largest scandal in the history of the organic industry, in 2007 the USDA found that Aurora had “willfully” violated 14 tenets of the federal organic law, including confining its animals instead of grazing, and bringing illegal conventional cows into its factory farm operations.

The Bush administration let Aurora off without a cent in fines, instead placing the company on a one-year probation. Since then, 19 class-action lawsuits by consumers, charging Aurora with consumer fraud, have been working their way through the federal court system.

Bruce Drinkman, an organic dairy farmer from Glenwood City, Wis., who milks 55 cows, is right when he says:

“It would be a national scandal, as some of us face losing our farms due to the industrial dairy scofflaws, if the Obama administration sides with the ‘bad actors’ in our industry. We are in dire financial straits because of the same kind of unethical competition from factory farms that put so many of our conventional neighbors out of business. We need the president and the USDA on our side!”

By Mark Kastel, senior farm policy analyst for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute.

Labels:

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Russia Bans Imports of USA Chicken

Industrial meat is taking a pounding (no pun intended) in overseas markets.


Russia banned imports of U.S. poultry from Jan. 1. Imports cleared by customs before Jan. 19 are permitted.

Russia cites the use of chlorine as the reason for the ban. Consumer protection watchdog Rospotrebnadzor says the presence of chlorine in water used to cool poultry results in "the accumulation of by-products dangerous to human health" in and on the surface of the meat.

U.S. meat firms routinely use chlorine to kill bacteria that cause food poisoning. The country says the process is safe.

Russia restricts the use of chlorine in poultry plants to 0.5 parts per million.

Labels:

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

E. Coli Beef Recall in California 864,000 Pounds

January 18, 2010

A Montebello company is recalling 864,000 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today.

Inspectors from the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service found a potential problem while conducting a safety assessment of Huntington Meat Packing Inc. The investigation is continuing.

In the meantime, several products produced between Jan. 5 and 15 are being recalled. And after further review of the company’s records, the same products produced between Feb. 19 and May 15, 2008, are also being recalled.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

McDonalds Ammonia Enhanced Pink Slime Hamburgers

The question to McDonald's corporate website about what's in their hamburger was:

Does McDonalds use Beef Products Inc.'s, (a South Dakota company) hamburger filler product known by some in the meat industry as "pink slime"? The New York Times says you do.

NOTE that I did not say or ask anything about ammonia. Get your pink slime burger at McDonalds.
 
Their answer:

Hello Ron:

Thank you for contacting McDonald's and for sharing your concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to share the following information with you.

Please know that McDonald's food safety and quality assurance standards are among the highest in the industry. With extensive food safety measures in place throughout the entire supply chain process, McDonald's standards meet or exceed government requirements. McDonald's uses only 100 percent USDA-inspected ground beef in their hamburger patties.

Be assured that we do not add ammonia to our hamburger patties. In fact, ammonia is only used by our suppliers as a processing aid to kill harmful bacteria. This process is approved by the USDA and ensures safe, quality food.

Additionally, ammonia is a basic building block of protein and occurs naturally in beef, both raw and cooked. It is a key component of the flavor of cooked beef. Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound in meats and fish - (fish and shellfish have more than beef). Ammonia is a nitrogen containing compound and so are proteins.

As you may not know, lean beef trimmings are approved by the USDA and are a widely used and well-established industry practice. They are subject to the same stringent standards, and inspection and testing practices, required for all beef used in the production of our hamburger patties.

McDonald's continues to work with its suppliers, local, state and federal agencies, our industry and others, to ensure these standards are rigorously maintained. And, more importantly, that we serve safe, high quality products to every customer, every time they visit our restaurants.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact McDonald's.

Lisa

McDonald's Customer Response Center

ref#:6578462

Labels: