I just received an e-mail from a well-meaning acquaintance urging me to boycott McDonalds because they are importing South American beef.  The e-mail encourages boycotting McDonalds in order to help American ranchers.  It supposedly originated from the Texas Cattle Feeders and is signed by a Texas A&M University Animal Science professor.  I saw a version of this a couple years ago, too.

As much as I, as a Texas Cattle Raiser, want everyone to eat American Beef, I have to step in and say this is one of those e-mail perpetuated urban myths.  When it doubt, Snope it out. In addition, I know the professor whose name appears on the e-mail from my days as a TAMU professor, and checked this out with him a year or so ago.  He never put his name to this and has nothing to do with it.

Where’s the truth/ (or is it the beef)?  McD’s does import beef to supplement their mainly American beef supply, but from Australia and New Zealand where regulations are actually MORE stringent  and the beef is primarily grass-fed.  McD does so because they say they can’t get enough American beef that meets their standards for lean beef.  Believe it or not, McD’s has about the highest quality standards of any fast-food chain in the country for things like foreign material, leanness and source. (not sure that saying much, though).

As far as every rancher in the US having to signing papers at the auction barn.  There is a feed ban in most countries prohibiting feeding cow parts back to cows.  I can assure you that the average Joe rancher doesn’t sign any papers certifying anything about feed when his cattle go to an auction barn.

I can’t believe I’m defending McD’s, but couldn’t let the myth pervade.  So boycott away, if you want, but you’re not helping Texas cattle ranchers by doing so.

This has nothing to do with food, except that McDonalds is promoting one of the nominated toys:

The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood has nominated 5 toys for its TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young children) award for the worst toy of the year.

From thousands of toys that promote violence and/or precocious sexuality to children and push branded entertainment at the expense of children’s play, CCFC has selected five exceptional finalists

You can vote until Feb 8, with the winner being announced Feb 12.  Which would you choose?

• A doll that does everything; save your kids the effort of using their imagination
• A video game from a trusted name in children’s toys.  Even though it is rated 10+, McDonalds is including it in their Happy Meals to simultaneously promote the video game, junk food, and the violent Dark Knight movie series to preschoolers.  What’s next, Lego Deep Throat?
• A toy car that rides roughshod over family budgets and the environment.  Added bonus-no physical exercise required!
• An exercise bike/video game system for preschoolers that makes trips to the park superfluous. Don’t worry, the content is educational, so Mom and Dad won’t have to worry about brain-rotting screen time…or interacting with their preschoolers at all
• A doll that combines two classic gender stereotypes, so girls can learn their place at an early age!

It was a hard choice, but my vote went to the exercise bike.  In a good home environment, limited exposure to violence or stereotypes can be overcome, but simulating being outdoors instead of the real thing seems way over the top.  Guess I’m thoroughly a rancher-mom!

Allergic reaction to the products of introduced gene products (the ‘foreign’ genes)  is one of the primary concerns about GMO’s.  It is a concern that is legitimate, but, like “unknown consequences” needs to be put into perspective of the non-GMO food we eat every day.

Fanatic Cook (among many others) has been writing about it.  Bix links to a very helpful monograph on the subject of allergenicity in GMO foods. Predicting allergic potential is difficult and an inaccurate process, at best.  All genes used in GMOs at least go through screening for potential allergenicity.  Compare this to the vast majority of other foods that are effectively only screened on people through trial and error through a long history of eating.

The main reason the use of GMO grains is not required to be listed on labels is that the grains are not any more likely to cause allergies (or any other adverse affect) than their  non-GMO counterparts.  Voluntary labelling such as “no-GMO” is allowed, which is something I applaud and support in the interest of freedom of choice and information.

I’ve been asked if eating meat from animals fed GMO grain means that we are eating the GMO proteins themselves?  Only to the extent that the particular modified protein passes through the digestive system wall.  In a healthy animal, most proteins are broken down before they are passed into the blood.  If this were a concern, we should be far more concerned that my pasture-raised cattle graze ragweed and other highly allergenic plants.

I am a small beef producer.  Last year, Wild Type Ranch sold about 11,000 pounds of beef at Farmer’s Markets and through local delivery.  Not only do I know the life history of each animal we harvested, I also tasted the beef from each one.  Often, I know the entire pedigree.  All this information helps us design our breeding program and select genetics that make our pasture-raised beef more tender and tasty than anything Donald Trump puts his over-priced name on.

I also know the names of the animals we harvest.

It freaks people out; “how can you eat something with a name?” they’ll ask in horror.  “Don’t tell me it’s name, just sell it to me!” is another common comment.

We name ALL the cattle born on our ranch, not just those we believe will go on to reproductive glory as cows or bulls.  Not to do so would be hypocritical.  The founding principle of our ranch is “respect for all life”.  The cattle destined for beef are no less worthy (in the most universal sense) than those destined for breeding.  Their “best use” is just different.

Our registered cattle mostly have names related to music (such as Pink Floyd, Sinatra, Layla).  I give the kids free rein on the unregistered calves.  Last year, we had all the planets-starting with Jupiter who was the biggest, Mars was red, etc.  I had to draw the line at Uranus, though.  Even I don’t want to eat beef from Uranus.

*****

For additional discussion, visit Rebecca, over at Honest Meat who is bravely delving into our disconnect from our meat and how it affects our food choices.

Since last month’s post on the role of technology in feeding the world, I’ve been thinking a lot about the fundamental issue of GMO’s.

A primary GMO-related fear is the unknown consequences of the genetic manipulation.  I won’t discount this concern, but I would like to put it into perspective.

Every bit of variation in all the food crops (plant or animal) we consume arises by genetic mutation.  As humans domesticated plants and animals, we selected mutants (sounds a lot scarier than ‘variants’, doesn’t it?) that suited our needs better.  These mutations had some visible difference (color, faster growth, better taste), but beyond what we could see, we had NO idea what other changes were caused by the mutation.

Since early in this century, plant breeders have produced new varieties of all sorts of plants by something called “mutation breeding“.  Seeds are subjected to some form of mutagenizing agent, such as a chemical, UV light or x-rays.  Thousands are planted to screen for and select desirable mutations.  This is a primary way in which disease-resistant varieties of vegetables, fruits and other crops are developed.  The FAO maintains a database with thousands of catalogued varieties.

Even heirloom varieties are mutants.  Are you familiar with those cool zebra-striped heirloom tomatoes?  Those stripes are caused by a “jumping gene” that randomly inserts itself in the genome, sometimes disrupting a color gene.

At least the GMO varieties had to go through some sort of characterization of their biochemical properties.

 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer posted a commentary on a food safety laywer’s Top Ten Food Safety Challenges for 2009.  Number two on the list of concerns is local food.  We’ve posted about “Big food vs. Small Food Safety” here before.  Small food isn’t necessarily safer just because it’s locally produced.

The longer I sell at farmer’s markets, the more I am convinced that the accountability I have as a producer who also interacts with the final consumer is both a great asset and great responsibility.  My customers trust me to tell them the truth. I have to look them in the eyes directly when they ask about what I mean by “Angus beef” or “Pastured” or “Natural”.    I can’t hide behind the USDA label definitions while working loopholes to sell something other than what people think they are getting. I also know my customers will tell me next week or next month if I’ve sold them an unsatisfactory product.

By the same token, because I am a producer-vendor, I find that although my customers want beef that fits the general definition of “natural” (no antibiotics, no hormone implants)  they are comfortable purchasing beef from cattle that may have been treated with antibiotics if they were sick, so long as it wasn’t a daily part of their feed ration.   Similarly, most of my customers are quite happy with “pastured beef” which receives a small amount of grain supplementation to maintain a minimal growth rate during droughts and tough times rather than being purely grass-fed.  Those I’ve asked said that if they were purchasing at a larger store, however, they would purchase only a “no antibiotics” and/or “grass-fed” label just to make sure.

Shortening the food chain CAN be a viable alternative to some of the very complicated, but necessary regulations that safeguard our food supply.  I think accountability is a vital part of a viable local food economy.