Federal government prevents meatpacker from testing cows for BSE

Creekstone Farms, a U.S. meatpacker, last week announced that it is suing the federal government for the right to test its meat for "Mad Cow Disease" (BSE). From the company press release:

Creekstone is challenging USDA’s claim that it has the legal authority to control access to and the use of the “test kits” needed to perform BSE testing. Over the past two years, USDA has repeatedly denied Creekstone’s requests to conduct voluntary BSE testing. Creekstone Farms has publicly stated that it believes U.S. beef is safe. Nevertheless, Creekstone’s customers, as well as other beef consumers around the world, want beef from BSE tested cattle. For example, a December 2005 poll by the Kyodo News Service found that more than half of Japanese consumers want U.S. beef to be tested for BSE. Creekstone simply wants to satisfy its customers.

From Reuters (via USA Today):

The suit was applauded by consumer groups. But USDA, which persuaded Japan to drop its own universal testing program, opposes private testing of cattle. Mad cow incubates for years, USDA says, and "is not detected in young animals," the bulk of the 35 million head of U.S. cattle slaughtered for meat each year.

Mad cow is always fatal in cattle. People can contract a deadly human version of the disease by eating contaminated meats. No U.S.-origin cases are known.

USDA says its tests show a low incidence of mad cow disease, formally named bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in America. Three cases have been found since December 2003.

The Creekstone lawsuit has received some good press from food webloggers. Kate from Accidental Hedonist writes:

Good for Creekstone Farms Premium Beef for understanding what's at stake. The Mad Cow issue is as much of an economic one as a health one, and they get that clearly. From a free market standpoint, it makes sense for a beef distributor to want to be able to label their product as "tested for BSE". Not only would it help the consumers from a health aspect, but it would also be a boon for them financially.

May it Please the Court takes the same view:

What's wrong with this picture? Consider this: A meatpacking company in Kansas wants to test every cow it slaughters for Mad Cow Disease, but if it does, then the USDA has threatened to institute criminal prosecution proceedings. That's right. Go back and read that second sentence again. A private company wants to do more than it's required to do to protect consumers, but the government won't let it....

Am I missing something here?

GAO criticizes USDA on Asian Soybean Rust

From GAO's report (.pdf) last month on USDA efforts to address Asian Soybean Rust (ASR), here is the good news:

USDA developed and implemented a framework—with federal and state agencies, land grant universities, and industry—that effectively focused national attention on ASR in 2005 and helped growers make informed fungicide decisions.

The framework was effective in several ways. For example, sentinel plots—about 2,500 square feet of soybeans or other host plants planted early in the growing season in the 31 soybean-producing states—provided early warning of ASR. Officials in 23 of 25 states GAO surveyed reported that this effort was effective. Researchers could also promptly identify and report on the incidence and severity of the disease on a USDA Web site, alerting officials and growers to ASR’s spread.

And here is the bad news:

Going forward, however, differences in how researchers monitor, test, and report on the disease could lead to incomplete or inaccurate data and detract from the value of future prediction models.

For example, models to forecast ASR’s spread partly rely on states’ observations of sentinel plots. USDA asked states to report results weekly, but updates ranged from 4 reports, in total, during the growing season in one state to 162 reports in another state. Inconsistencies also occurred in the designation and placement of plots and in the testing of samples for ASR. Further, changes to the successful management approach employed by USDA in 2005 raise questions about how the program will perform in 2006. For 2006, most operational responsibility for ASR will shift from USDA headquarters to a land grant university.

GAO is concerned that USDA’s lack of a detailed action plan describing how program responsibilities will be assumed and managed in 2006 could limit the effectiveness of ASR management for this year.

American Dietetic Association promotes low-fat ice cream

In a link from The Common Voice, I read about the American Dietetic Association's recent web page promoting low-fat ice cream with the advertising slogan, "We All Scream for Ice Cream."

Can you imagine a worse message of unrestrained frenetic consumption of a high-sugar dessert? The conventional wisdom in dietetic circles is that, for many people, a zero-tolerance message for favorite desserts is unwise, but that a message of moderate portions and reduced frequency within a balanced diet is compelling and effective. In this weblog, I am a disciplined and obedient follower of this lesson from my dietetic colleagues. But really -- "We All Scream for Ice Cream"?

The ADA web page says this ad was produced by the "ADA Public Relations Team." This raised several questions, which I sent on March 9 by email to the media email address on the ADA site (links added).

1. Could you please tell me if any funding from the dairy industry, the fluid milk or dairy checkoff boards, or the federal government, helped support the new ADA web page entitled, “We All Scream for Ice Cream”?

2. Could you please say if there was any assistance from the above groups in suggesting the messages or composing the language in that web page?

3. Can you please explain who is the “ADA Public Relations Team,” mentioned in the web page? If there was no support from the dairy industry, who pushed this message, and why on earth?

I apologize for the loaded questions. But I simply cannot believe that the ADA policy on its own would be to promote a high-sugar dessert with such a strident marketing message. The ADA’s role in positive nutrition health promotion is extremely important in the current U.S. food policy environment. I have read the ADA ethics policy, and this is setting off my alarm bells.

I contacted you a while ago about the web page on dairy weight loss, which is inconsistent with the Federal Government's dietary guidelines. It claimed you could lose weight “without depriving yourself” on a high calcium high dairy diet. At that time, your office acknowledged by email that it was written with support from the Milk Processors Education Program. Has that page been removed? Would that page now be consistent with your ethics policy?

Please take this respectful query seriously – it is not frivolous criticism or harangue. Please let me quote from your response in future writing.

Thanks, Parke

Here is the response I received from the American Dietetic Association:

[Nothing]

Comments are open to all. Please consider contacting the American Dietetic Association, or leaving a comment here, especially if you are a member.

Gastronomica review of A Cow's Life

In the new Winter 2006 issue of Gastronomica, Yale's Ellen Fried reviews A Cow's Life by M. R. Montgomery.

Montgomery dishes out a bovine stew heady with chunks of history and liberally seasoned with dashes of etymology. From Stone Age caves to cattle bones ringing the pyramids, from Chinese pictographs meaning “supercow” to the cattle wealth origins of “pecuniary,” and from Spain’s corridas to Scotland’s grassy moors, the point is driven home that without cows life could not have evolved as we know it.

Fried is a nationally recognized expert on deceptive food advertising, especially advertising to children, and has the high honor of a biography on the food industry's secretive attack-dog website. (That biography, incidentally, has wonderful reasonable quotations from her.)

CARU gently criticizes Apple Jacks ad; Kellogg disagrees

The Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Better Business Bureau last month recommended (.pdf) that Kellogg Company discontinue a campaign of children's advertisements for Apple Jacks, in which a "Bad Apple" is the villain and the hero "CinnaMon" loves Apple Jacks. This recommendation from the advertising industry's self-regulatory body is advisory, not mandatory. The recommendation carries no penalty for the offending company.

After running the advertisements for months, Kellogg Company now says it has no plans to run them in the future. The company statement left open the possibility of changing the plans at a later date. Despite the painless sanction for a widely criticized campaign, the company complained about CARU's decision: "While Kellogg disagrees with the conclusions CARU reached in the decision and how it arrived at those conclusions, Kellogg fully supports the self-regulatory process."

Here is the Chicago Tribune's Andrew Martin reporting in October, describing the advertisements.

Kellogg's is trying to convince kids that Apple Jacks taste more like cinnamon than apples.

The cereal-making giant has created a Jamaica-like cartoon world called Cinna Island, part of a television and Internet advertising campaign that depicts a laid-back, skateboard-riding character named CinnaMon who extols the "sweet cinnamon taste" of Apple Jacks.

CinnaMon's foil is a grouchy, scheming "Bad Apple" who tries - and inevitably fails - to beat CinnaMon to a bowl of Apple Jacks. "Apple Jacks doesn't taste like apples because the sweet taste of cinnamon is the winner, mon," one ad concludes.

The "Bad Apple" Throws Obstacles in CinnaMon's Path

Is Whole Foods Wholesome?

Field Maloney at Slate has a weak argument about the Whole Foods chain, in a column titled, "Is Whole Foods Wholesome?" (link from Division of Labor). The exaggerated subtitle is, "The dark secrets of the organic-food movement."

In the produce section of Whole Foods' flagship New York City store at the Time Warner Center, shoppers browse under a big banner that lists "Reasons To Buy Organic." On the banner, the first heading is "Save Energy." The accompanying text explains how organic farmers, who use natural fertilizers like manure and compost, avoid the energy waste involved in the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers. It's a technical point that probably barely registers with most shoppers but contributes to a vague sense of virtue.

Fair enough. But here's another technical point that Whole Foods fails to mention and that highlights what has gone wrong with the organic-food movement in the last couple of decades. Let's say you live in New York City and want to buy a pound of tomatoes in season. Say you can choose between conventionally grown New Jersey tomatoes or organic ones grown in Chile. Of course, the New Jersey tomatoes will be cheaper. They will also almost certainly be fresher, having traveled a fraction of the distance. But which is the more eco-conscious choice? In terms of energy savings, there's no contest: Just think of the fossil fuels expended getting those organic tomatoes from Chile.

The truth is that the alternatives to the conventional food system offer a wonderful selection of options to satisfy your health and environmental principles. Depending on which principle you prioritize, you can select the appropriate option.

If you want an abundance of healthy fresh colorful organic produce in a picture-perfect appetizing display, then go to Whole Foods, Wild Oats, or a similar upscale health food retailer.

If you want to eat organic food from Whole Foods and Wild Oats, but are price sensitive, you can make only a small purchase at that display of fresh produce, and then load up more heavily from the affordable legumes and grains at the bulk foods section.

If you care more about reducing the energy footprint of food you buy, or about supporting local agriculture, you can find food at Whole Foods or Wild Oats specially labeled as coming from local farmers (Maloney is correct that "organic" does not automatically mean "local," although he overstates the degree to which that is a problem).

If you want local produce in season, not bulk foods, and are too price sensitive for Whole Foods and Wild Oats, go to your fine local or regional source of cheap fresh produce (for example, many low-key farmers' markets, or major wholesale produce markets in big cities).

You see where I'm going with this. No matter what your goal, you can find the right place to shop -- and chances are, if you a person of principle, you can do better than the traditional supermarket format.

If you want all of the above, organic, local, low energy use, low price, attractively and professionally displayed, produce (not just legumes and grains), at all times of year, that is fine too. I am sure you can find what you are looking for back on your home planet.

Jim Stipe's photography

It's less about food policy in the United States, and more about the world at large, but I can't help linking to the photography site of my friend Jim Stipe. He is currently in Pakistan and available for freelance jobs.

Here are some farmers in Senegal inspecting their crops, following a ceremony for a new irrigation system.