• Home
  • Private Counseling
    • FAQ
  • Corporate Consulting
  • Seminars and Workshops
  • Expert Witness
  • Media
    • Bio
    • Extended Bio
    • Curriculum Vitae
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Online Resources
    • Instructional Materials
    • Newsletters, Articles and Press
  • Contact Us

Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD

Nutrition Consultant, Author, Speaker

530 Wilshire Blvd Suite 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(ph) 310-395-4822 (fax) 310-917-2274
(email) bonnie@muchmorethanfood.com
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our Email Newsletter
You are here: Home / Archives for animal feed

Is All Red Meat Risky?

March 14, 2012 by Bonnie

All red meat is risky” glared the headlines of Tuesday’s LA Times.   That got my attention. We eat red meat probably 6-8 times a week between lunches and dinners.

This story deserves more scrutiny. 

LIMITS OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES

First off, this is an epidemiological study. That means a group of people were asked about their eating and lifestyle habits 20 years ago and that data was compared to mortality records. There are a few reasons to question the findings.

First, association is not the same as cause and effect. No one, not the researchers nor the journalist makes this point clear. The thinking is that if you study lots of people (110,000 in this case) over a long period of time (20 years), the data has stronger statistical significance. It does. But the study design limits interpretation. An epidemiological study won’t ever be able to prove beef causes the outcomes described.

WHAT’S A FOOD FREQUENCY QUESTIONNAIRE ?

Second, people being surveyed were asked about their food habits using a food frequency questionnaire, a very limited tool. Here is what some scientists have to say:

“The substantial limitations of FFQs have been known for some time (1) and published studies based on FFQ-derived data have long included in their discussion sections a litany of weaknesses due to suboptimal dietary assessment. However, few of us expected the astonishingly poor measurement characteristics of FFQs when compared with doubly labeled water (a gold standard for energy intake)”

I find the lead author’s assertion that “there is no amount of red meat that is good for you” rather arrogant given the limitations of the study.

A VEGETARIAN DIET ISN’T NECESSARILY HEALTHY

Lastly, this study is presented as if it can stand alone, without any context of other findings. A note to the journalists: It is not enough to have Dr. Ornish offer his opinion. That is not science; it is pandering to his particular bias regarding a vegetarian diet. When people eat a plant based diet, they don’t just eat vegetables. They often eat lots of refined starch and sugar.

The thinking that people will eat more healthfully and have less chronic disease without red meat is an interesting assumption. I know many of my own clients who are healthier, leaner, with less evidence of disease from actual bio-markers like blood pressure, serum glucose levels, lipid values (cholesterol, triglycerides, etc) and body composition when they eat enough protein—including red meat— in their diet.

IS IT THE CATTLE OR WHAT WE DO TO THEM?

I do have a few reservations. There are a couple of reasons eating beef could be associated with greater risk of disease. Cattle are raised over a longer period of time than poultry. They accumulate more fat.

1. When they are fed a diet of corn, soy and stale bakery products (allowed by the USDA up to 2.5 kg. per day) their fat is higher in pro-inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids and after six months of a feedlot diet, the omega three contents drops in direct relationship to time away from the pasture.   It is clear that the animal scientists who champion this feed were far more concerned with yield and quality of the product (ie: profit potential) than any nutritional ramifications.

2. Persistent organic pollutants accumulate in fat tissue. These substances are endocrine disruptors and have a very strong link to disease. Cattle have a greater body burden than other animals because of their longer lifespan and greater fat accumulation before slaughter.

So is it the beef or the way we conventionally feed cattle? Is it red meat or the fact that we spew polluting chemicals into our environment and can’t find the political will to contain the contamination?

We don’t have those answers. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy my grass fed beef, knowing I am doing what I can to minimize what I see as the real risks to my health.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: animal feed, beef, disease, endocrine disruptors, environment, epidemiological study, fat, food frequency questionnaire, grass fed, Harvard, mortality, Ornish, persistent organic pollutants, USDA

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

October 18, 2011 by

McDonald’s announced it’s newest Happy Meal version yesterday. Media swarmed at the news and Michelle Obama added her words of encouragement.

The newest Happy Meal version includes 1/4 cup of apples and a smaller 100 calorie (1.1 oz) portion of French fries along with a choice of entree and beverage. McDonald’s estimates calorie savings up to 20% for any one Happy Meal. Most weight loss experts celebrate that kind of change. But not everyone has nice things to say.

A CRESCENDO OF CRITICS

There is a rising crescendo of voices that want to denigrate every food option that doesn’t meet their idea of acceptible or healthy. Andy Bellitti complains that there aren’t adequate nutrients in the Happy Meal. Mark Bittman tweets, “It is McD’s ‘job’ to make money, mostly by selling junk.” Yoni Freedhoff retweets Andy Bellitti’s assumptions and tells everyone, “we need to cook.” Marion Nestle says “I’m not impressed.”

The collective angst directed at McDonald’s no matter what they do is curious to me. I am a dietitian, seeing private patients for 25 years in Santa Monica. I taught at Santa Monica College for 15 years, 12 at UCLA Extension. I am no slouch when it comes to addressing nutrition science or working with real patients as they navigate food in their real world.

At the same time, I have consulted with McDonald’s Operators of Southern California (MOASC) for almost 20 years.(1) I see the food that they buy. I observe their crew cooking the same. This food is purchased from the same vendors supplying our neighborhood supermarkets.

I am left to wonder about all the angst and condemnation directed to fast food in general, and McDonald’s specifically.

DATA DISTORTION

Public health authorities tagged fast food as the culprit in the escalating incidence of obesity–especially for children– decades ago. We keep getting fatter despite it all. Has all their noise been ineffective? Could it be that the considerable amount of time and energy denigrating fast food is misdirected?

Part of the problem may be rooted in data distortion. Recently I was scouring the Report of the Dietary Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. I came across this statement:

“There is not enough evidence at this time to similarly evaluate eating out at other types of restaurants and risk of weight gain, overweight, and obesity.”

Does this mean that fast food has been the primary focus just because there was no other data to address eating at sit down restaurants?

I wonder what we will find out. Most sit down restaurants offer hamburgers topping 1000, 1200, 1500 calories and more. French fries are often served in only one size–a lot. For years one restaurant offered French fries in only one serving size, a one pound basket. Now they offer “endless fries”.

The largest hamburger at McDonald’s yields 770 calories, the smallest at 210 calories. McDonald’s offers small, medium and large fries–ranging from 2.5 oz. (230 cal) to 5.4 ounces (500 cal) per serving.

OBESITY IS A FOOD PROBLEM, NOT A FAST FOOD PROBLEM

In all the criticism about fast food, it is easy to miss the bigger picture. Our entire food supply is incredibly abundant and adulterated. The increasing incidence of obesity and disease is overwhelming to anyone who understands the trends.

Is the answer to continue to denigrate every effort by McDonald’s as not good enough? I don’t think so.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee, many researchers and clinicians agree. The obesity problem is too big for any of us to solve on our own. I hear the call for all sectors of society to step up:

individuals, families, physicians and allied health professionals, public health advocates, policy makers, scientists and small and large businesses, including farmers, agricultural producers, food scientists , food manufacturers and food retailers of all kinds.

EVERY FOOD VENUE NEEDS TO STEP UP, BUT SO DOES GOVERNMENT

We need to address the issues of abundance and adulteration of the food supply at every point of purchase: supermarkets, convenience stores, food marts at gas stations and snacks offered in pharmacies and drug stores. We need to look at every sector of catering and restaurant industry, from quick service restaurants to fine dining. Every entertainment venue, food cart, food truck and vending machine deserves the same scrutiny.

But mostly we need the government to step up, specifically the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. As long as problematic ingredients, additives, animal feed and husbandry practices, and farming practices are deemed safe and/or legal, the rest of the sectors are left to go it alone.

As for everyone wanting to believe that eliminating fast food is the answer, I would remind you that research colleagues in science labs tell us even the lab rats are getting bigger. What are they feeding the mice?

(1) The opinions expressed here are my own. This blog is not supported nor sponsored by any commercial interest.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Andy Bellatti, animal feed, animal husbandry, calories, children, EPA, farming, fast food, FDA, food, food additives, food science, French fries, Happy Meal, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman, McDonalds, Michelle Obama, obesity, restaurants, USDA, weight loss, Yoni Freedhoff

THE FOOD CHAIN: Human Nutrition Gets It Backwards

October 18, 2011 by

My degree is in Food and Nutrition, Human nutrition that is. When I read research studies the emphasis is on what happens to humans. There is all kind of debate whether animal models are a good surrogate for the human experience. Mostly nutrition science agrees that studies with human subjects are best to determine what is important for humans. Maybe. But we need to look far beyond the human experience to address many of the nutrition and health concerns of our day.

Last Sunday I spoke at the Good Food Fest celebrating 30 years of the Santa Monica’s Farmer’s Market.

As I prepared my talk I looked for a picture of a food chain to insert into my Power point presentation. Many show humans, or at least a carnivore, at the top of the chain. I started to wonder how much these graphics reflect and influence our thinking.

BACTERIA FRONT, CENTER, EVERYWHERE

I chose one of the graphics, copied it and then adulterated the second picture with the missing component. Bacteria.

My graphic was more of a circle of life than a chain. I plopped a picture of bacteria in between “the degraders” (vultures, worms, insects) and soil. Then and cut and pasted a picture of the bacteria at every stage of the chain. I think bacteria is at the top of the food chain, at the beginning, and at every incremental stage in the circle of life.

WHAT ABOUT THE FOOD

On Sunday afternoon I spoke on a panel with Keith Eichenauer, the dairy/deli assistant manager at the Santa Monica Coop and Nate Pietso, owner of Maggie’s Farm. Keith defined organic, cage free, free range, grass fed and other notions of sustainably grown food. Nate discussed how this plays out on a farm and defined what it means to the farmer to grow food sustainably.

I followed. My first quip was something about humans not being the center of the universe. Bacteria probably is. It was the first time I had spoken these words and they resonated. I was struck by how this simple concept had eluded me until that very moment.

I spoke of the nutritional benefits of sustainably, organically grown food. More often than not organically grown food is more nutrient dense. More vitamins, more minerals and especially more antioxidants. In this day of inflammation involved with everything from diabetes to cancer and heart disease, more antioxidants in food is a good thing.

TROUBLING CONSEQUENCES OF CONVENTIONAL FARMING

I spoke of the very troubling consequences of conventional farming. I showed pictures depicting the extent of pesticide contamination and the impact of persistent organic pollutants. Many are known endocrine disruptors and are linked to major metabolic disease.

I discussed the impact of fertilizer run off and dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico come every spring. Excessive nitrogen in the run off drives algae overgrowth. The growth and death of algae sucks the oxygen from the waters. The entire ecosystem suffers, and a “dead zone” is created.

I spoke of antibiotic resistant bacteria from overuse and abuse of antibiotics in animal feed. Seventy percent of antibiotics used in this country are used in animals, mostly in feed to enhance their growth and minimize infection as they live in disease inducing conditions. I spoke of growth hormones used in animals being measured in ground water and the oceans.

REDEFINING THE STUDY OF HUMAN NUTRITION

I basically redefined human nutrition. My guess is that this awareness has been percolating for years. Now it feels obvious. Nutrition encompasses more than the study of nutrients in food. I can no longer be preoccupied by such a limited definition. Preparing for this presentation allowed me to formalize the notion that the entire food chain and all of the challenges of growing food are encompassed in the study of nutrition. They all influence the nutritional status and health of humans.

Today I am more curious than ever about the role of bacteria in nutrition and health. Research is poking at links with health and disease. All kinds of gastrointestinal (GI) tract and metabolic disorders are linked with bacteria. Our bodies host 10 times more bacteria cells than our own human cells. There are estimates of 500-1000 different types of bacteria in our guts and another 500-1000 species on our skin. We live symbiotically with these organisms, whether we pay attention to them or not.

BACTERIA AND RAW MILK

I showed a slide depicting a grass fed cow and the words “raw milk”. In the words of the moderator, the subject struck like a lightning bolt in the room.

Raw milk is a contentious topic, especially on the West side. Recent raids on Rawsome in Venice, CA, and confiscation of raw milk all over the country have raw milk afficcionados up in arms. Statements by the FDA claiming grave danger from raw milk seem out of proportion to documented risks.

My position is simple. We don’t live in the same world as Louis Pasteur. Science should be able to ensure adequate safety standards so that raw milk can be sold and consumed without undue risk to consumers who want their milk and milk products raw. After all, breast milk is “raw” and we don’t find too much trouble with collecting. storing and feeding that to our babies.

Maybe we need to rethink our position on food, period. Our food supply is safe, often too sanitary, and lack of adequate healthy bacteria is linked to many disease states. People now spend money for supplemental bacteria in the form of probiotics. They pay extra to feed bacteria in the form of prebiotics. Maybe we all could benefit from consuming healthy bacteria from carefully chosen raw, fermented and fresh-from-the-farm foods.

What is your take? Is there a need to get enough healthy bacteria from our food supply? Is raw milk the health risk that the FDA claims– or a vital living source of good bacteria?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: animal feed, antibiotic resistant bacteria, antibiotics, bacteria, dairy, dead zone, ecosystem, farming, FBI, FDA, food chain, gastrointestinal disease, Good Food Fest, grass fed, growth hormones, Gulf of Mexico, human nutrition, Maggie's Farm, nitrogen, nutrition, organic, pasteurization, pesticides, prebiotics, probiotics, raw milk, rawsome, santa monica farmer's market, Santa Monica Food Coop, smfms, sustainability

Search

Follow Bonnie

Follow Bonnie On Facebook! Follow Bonnie On Twitter! Follow Bonnie On RSS!

Topics

appetite bacteria BMI calories cancer carbohydrate cardiovascular disease child obesity cholesterol diabetes diet endocrine disruptors energy exercise farm bill farming fast food fat FDA food glucose gmo grass fed HAES health heart disease hunger inflammation Kaiser metabolism nutrition obesity organic persistent organic pollutants protein public health restaurants satiety self regulation sodium stress sugar USDA weight weight loss

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in