This morning, at home over breakfast, I opened the Wall Street Journal.  And, page A15 “popped” open.  What caught my attention was the article EU Extends ‘Frankenfood’ Fight, Nears Ban on Farm-Animal Clones.  The purpose of the story was to convey that the European Union (EU) had moved a big step closer toward a ban on cloning farm animals and a prohibition of imports of cloned livestock and their meat and milk.

The EU decision is silly, and is not based on a shred of scientific evidence.  I have written previously about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conclusion that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats.”  The “key” take-home message is that cloning is safe.

What elevated my blood pressure was the use of the word ‘Frankenfood’.  I continue to be mystified why a reputable journalist elected to use this word.  It slanders the scientific evidence base in support of animal cloning, and clearly sets a biased tone for the story.  This serves no one well, and is just a continuation of inappropriate “word play” that attacks some remarkable scientific accomplishments.  It is, simply, unfair!

I am hoping that when I open the paper in the near future that I see an apology from the journalist.  However, I wouldn’t bet on that happening.

Beef customers are being told many things about their food these days.  The advertisements for beef products shout this product is safer, this one is healthier, this one is better for the environment, and many other claims of value.  Mary Lou Quinlan, founder of the marketing company Just Ask a Woman, told attendees at the Food System Summit 2010 about research conducted from January to June indicating that the pressures of a bad economy, media stories about unsafe food, confusing and misleading labels and even friends questioning their food choices on Facebook all figure into beef purchase decisions. How can a customer sort all of this out and determine the real value they want in their beef ? Many of these attributes are placed on grass-fed compared to grain-fed beef.

The reality is there is no evidence whatsoever that grass-fed beef has any advantage for safety, human health, or impact on the environment than grain-fed beef. Both types of beef deliver the important factors of nutrition in the human diet of protein, iron, and zinc in equal proportions.

On the environmental front, studies by Yan et al (2009) in Ireland used growth chambers to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions from cattle with varying levels of forage and grain in the diet.  Coupling these results with a 30% increase of harvest age of grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed, it becomes clear there is a 500% increase in greenhouse gas emissions for each pound of beef produced from grass-fed compared to grain-fed cattle. Uncontrolled nitrogen and phosphate release to the environment, 35% more water use, and 30% more land use for grass-fed cattle compared to grain-fed increases the environmental impact of strictly grass feeding. A model reported by Canadian workers (Janzen et al, 2008) accounts for carbon loss from fossil fuels for corn production and other factors of production for both grass- and grain-fed cattle and shows the added efficiency of animal production and resource use from intensive grain feeding will reduce the collective environmental impact of grain-fed compared to grass-fed beef.

Two usual claims for grass-fed compared to grain-fed beef are that there is a greater content of conjugated linoleic acid or CLA, which was shown to decrease tumor growth in mice in laboratory studies, and that the grass-fed product is lower in cholesterol.  Cholesterol content has never been different in grass- or grain-fed beef.  That is just a convenient rumor that got started. Cholesterol does not follow fat content, and foods higher in cholesterol than beef, like shellfish, eggs, and venison, often have very little fat. There also are some legal issues for false labeling of cholesterol content that can get people in trouble.

The ‘potent anti-carcinogen’ CLA story may be one of the biggest hoaxes played on the consumer because the values used to differentiate grass-fed from grain-fed beef are from raw meat.  Samples of raw grass-fed beef consistently have twice the CLA content as a proportion of total fat than samples from raw grain-fed beef.  This means the typical grass-fed steak has the same CLA content as a Certified Angus Beef ®, heavily grain-fed steak because there would typically be twice as much total fat in the CAB steak. However, this is all irrelevant because studies show when the meat is cooked, there is no difference in CLA content because a large amount of the fat is lost in cooking.  Even if people ate the meat raw, you would have to eat 176 pounds of grass-fed beef daily to get the level fed to the mice in the original CLA study (Ha et al, 1987).  It also should be noted that in the original CLA study 16 of the 20 mice getting huge doses of CLA still got cancer. The dosage of CLA from this study would have to be increased 182,000 times for an equivalent dose to an average person. The whole CLA story has been based on these 4 mice, making this result irrelevant to human health.

Similarly, the Omega-6 to Omega-3 fatty acid ratio is an important feature of fat intake in humans. The recommended daily intakes of Omega-3  fatty acids from the World Health Organization of 1.1 to 1.6 grams/day show it would require a person to eat 4 1/2 pounds of cooked grass-fed beef daily to meet the minimum daily requirement.  Therefore, any speculation that eating grass-fed beef will enhance human health due to Omega-3 fatty acid consumption is clearly incomplete at best, and usually false.

Consumer science studies show food safety is important to consumers, and it is an important feature of food buying decisions.  The advertisements for grass-fed beef that claim there are no chances of E. coli infection in humans from grass-fed beef are scary and dangerous, and not because this is a threat to traditional beef products. It is dangerous because it gives consumers a false sense of security. In the case of E. coli, this contamination happens in a processing plant and has nothing to do with how or where the animal was raised.  Cattle in all types of environments- feedlots and pasture- have been shown to have the virulent form of E. coli in their digestive tract, and it requires the special care that is taken in beef processing plants to prevent meat contamination. It also requires consumers to use safe handling and cooking methods common to all foods for their safety, and these false claims do not diminish that need.

Grass-fed beef will usually be leaner with less fat in the edible portion than grain-fed beef, and this is due to less marbling, or the intramuscular flecks of fat measured in the ribeye steak.  The conflict for beef customers and producers is that consumer studies indicate the desirable factors of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor-generally described as “quality” by consumers-are highly related to marbling content.  One has to be careful what is described as ‘lean’ because leanness will be relative to marbling content in the edible portion of the meat. Consumers generally describe a steak as “fat” when it has a large amount of exterior or subcutaneous fat left on it. Since the consumer seldom eats this fat or it is cut off in the processing phase, little attention is given to the real source of fat in beef steaks-marbling. As the marbling content is increased, we increase the amount of saturated and other fats in the edible portion. Studies also show steaks can be too lean because it will not be as desirable to consumers. We walk a fine line between keeping the product lean and making it a desirable eating experience. Premium grain-fed beef such as Certified Angus Beef ® must meet a high standard of marbling content, and few grass-fed cattle can meet this standard.  We have no idea if the higher levels of marbling-resulting in high Choice and Prime quality grades-in grass-fed meat have a positive relationship to eating satisfaction. One small study showed it may actually be negative because of the influence on meat flavor.

It is very important that we have grass-fed beef as a choice for beef consumers because these are often consumers that do not buy other types of beef.  However, the enterprise cannot be sustainable and engage new customers if it is based on false and misleading information.  There are many other important factors for beef –buying decisions we can use to promote the grass-fed product.  Locally-produced, animals raised in a pasture environment, source verification, and others are very important features of beef that consumers value. Grass-fed beef can capitalize on many of these attributes without some of the deception going on now.

The latest American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Survey of retail food prices was just released.  In this informal survey, for the third quarter of 2010, shoppers reported the average price for a half-gallon of regular whole milk was $2.04, down 2 cents from the prior quarter. The average price for one gallon of regular whole milk was $3.16, up 10 cents. Comparing per-quart prices, the retail price for whole milk sold in gallon containers was about 25 percent lower compared to half-gallon containers, a typical volume discount long employed by retailers.

The average price for a half-gallon of rbST-free milk was $3.36, down 2 cents from the last quarter, about 65 percent higher than the reported retail price for a half-gallon of regular milk ($2.04).  This price differential (really price gouging) continues the historical trend of dramatically marking up the price of rbST-free milk compared to conventionally-produced milk.  The same “old” ploy of charging a lot more for rbST-free milk that is the same from a composition standpoint as conventionally-produced milk.

In this informal survey, the average price for a half-gallon of organic milk was $3.62, down 3 cents compared to the prior quarter–about 80 percent higher than the reported retail price for a half-gallon of regular milk ($2.04).

Compared to a year ago (third quarter of 2009), the retail price for regular milk in gallon containers was up about 10 percent while regular milk in half-gallon containers increased 8 percent. The average retail price for rST-free milk increased about 1 percent in a year’s time. The average retail price for organic milk in half-gallon containers dropped about 4 percent compared to the prior year.

In April, 2008, I had written a blog Food Costs Increase and the “Smoke and Mirrors” of rbST-Free Milk Marketing Rolls On …and On…and On that discussed how many dairy producers using rbST in their herds were getting cheated by being forced to give up the technology, and, yet, the retailers were selling the milk for considerably more.  The “historical” milk price data presented in the figure below (Source:  American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Survey) show this marketing scheme  (i.e., the differential between the price of rbST-free and “regular” milk) continues.  Astonishing, isn’t it?

Notice anything different between the two salmon in the image above?  The salmon are the same age–the difference is the larger fish is transgenic, and has a much faster growth rate, which is due to the presence the Chinook growth hormone gene (more about this later)!

For 15 years, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at FDA has been evaluating reams of data about the safety and efficacy of transgenic salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Incorporated, located in Waltham, MA.  You might wonder why so long?  Especially when, in my opinion, it is clear there are no significant questions of human food safety surrounding the food from fish grown with AquAdvantage salmon eggs, nor are there any question of material difference between fish grown from genetically enhanced salmon eggs and conventionally bred and born salmon, or between farm-raised salmon and those sold as “wild-caught” fish.

In my 35+ years as a scientist, I cannot remember a CVM application that has pended as long as that of AquaBounty.  This product has been before the Center for more than 15 years. Nor can I recall a CVM review that has been as comprehensive and rigorous as that given to AquAdvantage salmon eggs.  However, this review has gone much, much longer than needed.  Much of this delay relates to the quagmire arising from politics, activist groups doing their best to misrepresent the science (and scare consumers and politicians – you have heard this “one” before), and the inherent risk adverse nature of the FDA scientific review process.

The Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) is an FDA/Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) advisory panel which has as its sole purpose to review the science underlying and the center’s review of an application under the New Animal Drug approval (NADA) approval process.  Their most recent meeting to review Aquabounty salmon was held on September 19 and 20, 2010.  My sense is that the fish will be approved in the near future, which will be an important milestone for animal biotechnology.

The recent FDA/VMAC review again prompted the usual response from activist groups that oppose the approval of transgenic salmon, and all other food biotechnologies.  My blog will present the facts about transgenic salmon, based on science, to provide a factually-based context for my opinion, and that of many other scientists, that Aquabounty salmon should be approved by FDA.

Background

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering approval of AquAdvantage® Atlantic salmon eggs. These eggs include a gene from the Chinook salmon (my “beloved” growth hormone or somatotropin gene) that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. This fish would be the first food from a transgenic animal application approved by the FDA.

The FDA must provide premarket approval and examine the environmental impact of any genetically engineered (GE) food animal before it can be made available commercially. Extensive study is required before approval. The FDA will only approve food from GE animals that are safe to eat. The agency’s food safety evaluation looks at the same information recommended by the Codex Alimentarius.

GE animals are regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The elements of this approval process include:

• Product definition;
• Molecular characterization of both the recombinant DNA (rDNA) aspect of the animal and its lineage;
• Comprehensive data on the characteristics of the animal and its health;
• Safety for human consumption;
• Demonstration of effectiveness (label claim); and
• Environmental impact.

Aquaculture Facts
Aquaculture, or fish farming, has increasingly stepped in to fill the gap where capture fishing fails to meet consumer demand. Largely dominated by Asia, the aquaculture industry grew dramatically for decades but recently has begun recently to moderate.

• Capture fishery production stopped growing in the mid 1980s. Even as consumer demand continues to rise, fisheries worldwide are on the verge of collapse, largely due to overfishing. Overall, 80 percent of world fish stocks are already fully exploited or over-exploited.
• Aquaculture currently provides 47 percent of fish consumed worldwide.
• Over the past 50 years, world aquaculture grew dramatically, from 1 million tons in the early 1950s to 51.7 million tons in 2006 – making it a $78.8 billion industry.
• Aquaculture has maintained an annual growth rate of 8.7 percent worldwide (excluding China) since 1970.

Benefits of Land-Based Aquaculture Systems
Consumer Benefits

Is there a need for a faster-growing fish?
By 2020, the global demand for animal protein is projected to be 20 million tons per year. AquAdvantage® eggs will help address the need for healthy protein by producing more fish in less time compared to current salmon farming techniques. AquAdvantage® Salmon can be grown in contained facilities, which offer environmental advantages compared to historical cultivation methods.

Don’t consumers already have enough salmon?
Salmon is a popular seafood choice, not only for taste, but for the well-documented health benefits. This has increased demand for farmed and wild salmon products that the industry and capture fisheries will not be able to meet.

Are farmed salmon a healthy alternative to wild salmon?
Atlantic salmon is a great source of heart healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. AquAdvantage® eggs are designed for growth in land-based salmon hatcheries that will provide high-quality facility management and control. There is a lower likelihood for the introduction and spread of disease, and a corresponding reduction in the need for disease treatment. In addition, contrary to unsubstantiated claims disseminated by opponents of this Atlantic salmon is a great source of heart healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. AquAdvantage® eggs are designed for growth in land-based salmon hatcheries that will provide high-quality facility management and control.

Environmental Benefits

Can fast-growing salmon help reduce pressures on dwindling wild fisheries?
Many of the world’s fisheries are in distress or in danger of collapse. A 2006 study published in Science predicted the loss of all commercially captured species of fish by 2048 if current fishing practices are maintained. Yet overfishing continues as the demand for seafood increases. The vast majority of Atlantic salmon sold in the U.S. is farmed. Many American wild salmon populations are in steep decline, so much so that commercial fishing runs in West Coast have been closed several times. With closures in early 2009, salmon fishermen lost their livelihood for the second season in a row and the price of wild salmon soared as a result of shortened supply. By providing a ready source of faster-growing fish, salmon grown from AquAdvantage® eggs can help reduce pressure on wild fish stocks.

Won’t the demand for salmon food offset any protection of wild fish stocks?
Accelerated growth means shorter production cycles and more efficient use of feed. The feed conversion rate (i.e. feed efficiency) for AquAdvantage® Salmon is approximately 10% better than other farmed salmon. In addition, there are emerging technologies in the salmon feed industry that use more sustainable foodstuffs for salmon feeds thereby reducing the amount of fishmeal and fish oil used.

Does this fish have any impact on carbon emissions?
Because fresh and frozen fish are flown to markets all over the world, seafood has a large carbon footprint. AquAdvantage® Salmon are designed for on-shore facilities that can be built closer to consumers to reduce the need for energy-intensive shipping and transportation.

Isn’t fish farming bad for the environment?
The contained, land-based systems used by customers of AquAdvantage® eggs are endorsed by most environmental groups as a more environmentally friendly and responsible alternative to traditional sea-cage farming of salmon.

Won’t the fish escape and breed with native populations?
Fish grown from AquAdvantage® eggs are all female and sterile, making it impossible for them to breed amongst themselves. In addition, FDA approval requires them to be grown in physically contained systems, further reducing any potential impact on wild populations.

Business Benefits

How do aquaculture producers benefit?
Faster growth and greater efficiency mean a more efficient use of capital, reduced feed costs and less time to market. Better economics makes interest in land-based culture feasible, which leads to better biosecurity, reduced disease risk and the opportunity to grow salmon closer to markets.

How do restaurants benefit?
The majority of seafood consumed in the U.S. is in restaurants. The AquAdvantage® Salmon developed by AquaBounty will help increase supply to satisfy growing demand with a dependable, high quality product.

American Economic Growth
Aquaculture provides opportunities for U.S. jobs. Today the U.S. imports over 97% of the Atlantic salmon sold to consumers. The introduction of land-based salmon farms in the U.S. would spur investment into this industry in the United States.

Let’s be optimistic and say that that the agricultural industries are slowly getting better at informing the general public on how and why their food is produced the way it is. The days of assuming we can raise animals any way we want and keep consumers in the dark are OVER! However, we must do a much better job of educating the public to the realities of food production.

While it may be appealing to many to return to the days of small low-tech farms, the fact is we just can’t feed the world with those techniques. In less than 40 years the world population is expected to increase 33% to an incredible 9.15 billion people. At the same time per capita income in developing countries will increase significantly. By the year 2050 some experts are predicting an overall food demand increase of 70% and a 100% increase in demand for animal products.

One of the more interesting presentations at the recent national animal science meetings in Denver was a presentation by Dr. Jude Capper of Washington State University. She first compared our beef production efficiency in 2007 versus 1977. In that 30-year time span the industry produced 13% more beef products while slaughtering 13% fewer animals; clearly more consumable products for mankind while using fewer resources.

Consider the current buzz words being applied to most industries, i.e., “decreasing our carbon footprint”. Comparing 2007 to 1977, the beef industry can claim the following reductions per pound of beef produced:

• 18% fewer total carbon emissions
• 9% less fossil fuel energy
• 10% less feed energy
• 20% fewer feedstuffs
• 30% less land
• 14% less water

Not a bad record is it? While many think the solution to all our problems lies in turning to an all grass-fed system it’s hard to support that notion with the facts. Dr. Capper pointed out that the average “days to finish” in feedlot cattle is 219; for grass-fed systems, 431. And for producing an equivalent amount of beef it takes about 3.5 times more land base for grass-fed versus feedlot. It’s simply a matter of energy density- “concentrates” have that name for a reason! This should in no way cast dispersion on those devoted to grass-fed beef systems; we just can’t begin to feed the world if the whole industry adopts that method.

Bottom Line-“Confinement” and even “feedlot” are evil words in many circles these days but have we really thought it through? As long as animals are humanely cared for aren’t we using LESS of the world’s open and /or wild spaces by concentrating animals on a smaller land area? Food for thought!

##

This article was originally published in the American Agriculturist magazine.

Increasing agriculture productivity to meet growing global demand for food must be accompanied by an intense, innovative effort to enhance the environmental imprint of farming to be sustainable.

“We face the daunting challenge of nearly doubling agriculture production to meet the demands of the estimated 9 billion people expected by 2050,” said DuPont Executive Vice President James C.Borel. “Success in this endeavor will require new and sustained levels of innovation, such as improvements in drought tolerance, to increase productivity of the global food supply without increasing the stress upon our natural resources or the environment.

“Drought tolerance technologies are part of the next great wave of agricultural innovation that will improve agronomic characteristics of plants so they more efficiently use available resources,” said Borel. “They will further empower farmers with better product choices to meet growing demand while reducing their environmental footprint.”

Many environmental factors can reduce agriculture productivity, but drought is by far the most damaging. In 2009 alone, drought cost farmers $14 billion worldwide. Eighty-five percent of the U.S. corn crop is affected by drought stress at some time during the growing season each year, and just four days of severe drought stress during the peak of summer can cut yields in half.

For those readers who have been following the news about eggs and salmonella, here is a very informative Op-Ed article written by Dr. Patterson that was published online in the New York Times on August 25.

##

The American food system, and in particular egg producers in Pennsylvania and other states, have made great strides in reducing the risk posed by salmonella enteritidis, to the point where eggs have not been a significant food-safety risk in recent years.

That wasn’t always so. Following a rise in salmonella enteritidis in humans starting around 1970, egg safety became a major concern. In 1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture traced salmonella enteritidis back to egg farms in the Northeast.

Hens most likely become infected from contaminated environments or from rodents bringing the organism to the birds. While salmonella enteritidis does not typically affect bird health, when a hen has a systemic infection of salmonella, the ovaries, and thus the egg yolks, become contaminated. Contaminated eggs can cause serious illness to people if eggs are not thoroughly cooked.

In response to the increased risk of salmonella, Pennsylvania egg producers, federal and state agriculture departments, Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania in 1992 initiated research to find solutions for salmonella egg contamination. Findings resulted in the establishment of the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, which was the first pre-harvest program in the country based on “hazard analysis of critical control points” to reduce salmonella egg contamination.

In the 18 years since the program began, the percentage of contaminated poultry houses has dropped to 8 percent from 38 percent. In 1992, 26 percent of samples from Pennsylvania hen houses tested positive. Today, that’s down to 1 percent. The risk of exposure from a single egg always was statistically small — just 2.6 per 10,000 eggs from infected flocks tested positive for salmonella in 1992. Today, thanks to the assurance program, that incidence is down more than 50 percent, to 1.2 eggs per 10,000. When Salmonella is found in eggs or poultry houses, eggs are discarded or pasteurized.

The program has been so successful that the Food and Drug Administration in July initiated a national program modeled after it. Had the program been in place earlier, the current outbreak may never have occurred. Now that it is, we can expect to see fewer salmonella outbreaks in American eggs.