Grass Fed | Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD

BEEF: Why it’s not for dinner as much anymore…but maybe it should be

February 4, 2013 by Bonnie

This weekend I attended a conference sponsored by the Food and Culinary Professionals practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) in Napa Valley. The tour was sponsored by the National Beef Council. Recently AND has come under intense scrutiny for the sponsorship of education events. I want to share my experience so you can judge for yourself: Are dietetic professionals unduly influenced by industry?

Last Friday afternoon I signed up for a tour and panel discussion at Oak Ridge Angus Ranch outside Calistoga, California. With rolling hills and cows grazing in the distance, it absolutely trumps any conference room I’ve ever sat in.

TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW COWS

Five representatives from the beef industry spoke on a panel. We first met Cheryl LaFranchi, and her husband, Frank Mongini, DVM, who is the owner of Oak Ridge Angus. Frank is a large animal veterinarian and helps with the animals as well as tends to his own practice. Scott Stone of Yolo County Land & Cattle Company raises grass fed cattle. They sell grass fed/grass finished beef directly to consumers, and as there is more demand, fewer cattle will be grain finished on feedlots. Mike Smith represented Harris Ranch which also operates a slaughterhouse; he spoke to the packing issues. Steve Hanson traveled from Nebraska to speak to the challenges of feeding cattle in the corn belt.

Each member of the panel spoke to issues in their business. I heard the passion and dedication of each presenter, and I heard the distinct edge of muted dissonance. It was evident that not every panelist was on the same page. I especially appreciated Frank’s perspective. As a veterinarian, he directly addressed the issue of animal welfare. Cows have adapted to eating corn, but are not meant to be only eating corn. Grain fed animals bloat and they have more metabolic disease.

HOW THE FOOD AND CULINARY PROFESSIONALS RESPOND

When it came time for questions, most of them were of the softball variety. Eventually, I decided to test the water with a bit more pointed question about the fatty acid mix of grass fed versus grain fed beef. The answers from the panel were a bit muddled until a dietitian from the Beef Council stepped in. I heard a carefully crafted answer about lean beef, portion size and the minimal impact the omega six fatty acids in that single portion.

At that point I decided to stop asking questions. I wasn’t prepared to take all the difficult issues on by myself. Tough questions need to be asked about the use of hormones, feed, endocrine disruptor bio-accumulation, water pollution, and antibiotic use with antibiotic resistance microbes. I knew there was little likelihood of any candid discussion regarding the farm bill and crop subsidies, soil ecology, pesticide usage, bee colony collapse disorder and the like.

Next the panel was asked how they address issues regarding diversity of the herds. The answer given was fascinating. The ranchers were focused on the current vitality of the animals, mixing up the gene pool in successive generations by introducing other breeds. The current practice tweaks the genetic properties of the most productive animals. I understand the benefit of that practice, but I can’t help wondering if focusing on the vitality of the best breed is one of the dynamics that leads to less diversity overall.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE OMEGA 3′S

My question addressed a scientific issue I continue to wrestle with: The contribution of conventional beef and all grain fed animal products to inflammation–a condition that is linked to diabetes, heart disease, cancer and more. Currently the Standard American Diet (SAD) tallies a 20:1 ratio of omega 6 to omega 3. Omega six fatty acid drives inflammation and the ratio is what counts. Ideally we are thought to thrive with a ratio between 1:1 and 4:1. Basically the SAD contains too many foods rich in Omega 6.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/

Corn fed beef–and all animal products from animals raised on grain (ie: milk, yogurt, cheese, ice cream, etc), contain a much higher ratio of omega 6 to omega 3. Fats from these food contribute to overall inflammation and because of the feed–not the animal product itself. When animals are allowed their natural diet of grass, pasture, and forage, the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 looks very different. (See Figure 1) The issue is bigger than the singular contribution of a 3 ounce serving of lean beef.

Granted, omega three from salmon trumps all of these sources, but that doesn’t solve the problem. We are overfishing and polluting our oceans. Most people can’t afford wild caught salmon all that often, if at all. People drink milk, eat cheese, use butter and eat beef far more frequently. Shouldn’t there be some attempt quiet inflammation using all of our food? I’m wondering what that ω6:ω3 ratio looks like when the diet includes meat, milk, cheese, and butter from grass fed cows. (Look for part II of this blog sometime in the distant future–it will take a bit of doing to gather the data and do the calculations!)

WILL THE BEEF INDUSTRY BE PART OF THE SOLUTION?

At the moment, this tour revealed important truths. Ranchers already know about the harm in feeding animals grain, but only three percent of all beef sold in America is from grass fed/grass finished cattle. Still, consumers are catching on. Sales of grass fed beef is growing at 20% per year. Costs continue to influence food choices, since grass fed and finished beef is more expensive. It takes longer to get animals to market. At the same time treating all the diseases linked to inflammation is even more expensive. Maybe it’s time to compare more than the basic cost of food.

I can’t help but wonder if overall beef sales are down because people are getting wise to the impact of corn fed beef products on our health, in our environment, and to the health of the animals. Too many either don’t have access or don’t understand that grass fed beef and beef products are very different. The beef industry is facing big challenges. This public relations effort skirted the toughest issues. Still, talking with Frank Mongini, DVM and Scott Stone gives me hope. I appreciate that these are really good people in the cattle industry who get it. Now I can only wonder, how long it will take for consumer demand for grass fed beef to show that consumers are getting it, too.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: beef, corn, cows, diabetes, farm policy, grain fed, grass fed, Harris Ranch, heart disease, inflammation, National Beef Council, Oark Ridge Angus, omega six, omega three, Yolo County Land & Cattle Company

When fine dining is not fine

January 11, 2013 by Bonnie

Six of us celebrated my birthday last night. Actually, two of us have the same birthday and we all stepped out of our usual routine to drive to Beverly Hills on a Thursday night to eat at Mastro’s Penthouse. We eat out less and less these days, and I was open to the adventure.

The food was mostly excellent. With six ordering, there was a lot of sharing and tasting. I especially enjoyed the crab gnocchi and would have loved my spinach salad–if they understood what lightly dressed meant. I ended up with at least 1/2 cup of salad dressing swirling on the bottom. I actually pushed the salad up the side of bowl to let it drain until it was just too soggy to enjoy.

There were excellent mushrooms and savory brussel sprouts; others enjoyed delicious tomato salads, one with burrata cheese and the other with onions. I didn’t think the chopped or house salad was anything to order again. My husband loved the prime New York steak we split while I prefer the tastier grass fed version we eat at home. I thought the scallops were divine and was thrilled to find two of them on top of the steak –saving me $22 because I was thinking of ordering them on the side. I was grateful for a few bites of a simple baked potato to counter the richness of everything else on the table.

HOW DOES HIP AND TRENDY TRANSLATE INTO LOUD AND NOISY?

The restaurant was busy and kept getting busier throughout the evening, significantly more crowded at 10 than at 7 pm when we arrived. At these prices, we were definitely sitting with the 1%. The scene was ideal for people watching, but that is about all you could do. Conversation was almost impossible except with the person sitting right next to you. In a party of six with three across, someone was always left out. We leaned close to each others ear to try to converse over the incessant thumping of a sub woofer controlled by an oblivious DJ (akin to what you hear and feel when that obnoxious car pulls up next to you while waiting at a stop light). All of us attempted a few simple words shouted across the table. We jokingly suggested maybe we should just text each other.

The Penthouse is positioned as a new and hip designation at Mastro’s. The dining room abuts the bar with barely a foot separating tables. I am sure the decibel level of noise is illegal somewhere and we asked the hostess, and then the wait staff, if there was a way to quiet the bass so we could hear ourselves talk. Of course. But it didn’t quiet. The manager came over at one point and I was surprised by the frustration in my voice. I was with friends to enjoy my birthday and we couldn’t even talk. He suggested we dine in the quieter space downstairs next time and sent us a tray of desserts to make amends. A nice gesture, but it doesn’t begin to address the reason I won’t be back.

MY BODY WAS NOURISHED, BUT NOT MY SOUL

Thankfully we will laugh about the experience and share stories with friends. The food was mostly delicious. But there is something bizarre about a culture that celebrates food and dining away from home in a social setting that makes conversation so impossible. I frequently scanned the room to see people unnaturally hunched over the cocktail tables straining to hear each other. I noticed that ours wasn’t the only table where people talked mostly to the person sitting next to them. Our server had to repeat specials several times around a table of 6 and I lost count of the number of times we asked her to repeat herself.

Too much about this scene compromises what I love about sharing good food with friends. My body was nourished, but not my soul. A frenetic and kind of vacuous energy filled the room. My senses felt assaulted. I can’t help but wondering if this is a place to take people you don’t want to talk to, or when you have nothing to say. I have already made a note to self. I don’t have to do this again for a very long time.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Beverly hills, fine dining, grass fed, indulgent eating, Mastro's Penthouse, noisy dining, noisy restaurants, prime steak, restaurants

Farm to Table: Visiting Organic Pastures

January 5, 2013 by Bonnie

It is not often that I get a chance to walk through a ranch or farm. I relish every opportunity. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures invited me and my family to tour their land and operations in Fresno last week. It was a privilege and a pleasure.

I grew up with with a garden– a different kind of privilege that I didn’t appreciate at the time. After the wonder of picking my first cucumber and tomato wore off, I spent my time grousing about all the weeds to be pulled and watering to be done. Dad planted at least half of the available land on our 3/4 of an acre lot which meant there was enough zucchini for the entire neighborhood come August. I didn’t inherent dad’s green thumb which probably contributed to a disenchantment with growing anything until I read Michael Pollan’s, The Omnivore’s Dilemma many years ago. During the last five years I have developed a deeper and more insightful appreciation for our precious food supply, from farm to table. I have become a far more conscientious consumer.

When we arrived at Organic Pastures, I was immediately taken by the efficiency of the operation. Mark is positively brilliant, blending the art, science and business of producing and distributing raw milk products despite a challenging regulatory environment. We visited the trailers where milk is bottled, kefir and cheese are fermented, and butter is churned. The site was immaculate and foot washes protected each individual space, a critical factor when your product viability is all about managing bacteria.

MANAGING THE MICROBES

Raw milk products are legal in California, but receive great scrutiny. Louie Pasteur developed pasteurization in 1864 to improve the keeping qualities of wine. Commercial pasteurization of milk began in the late 1800s in Europe and in the early 1900s in the United States. Pasteurization has been the primary means of managing bacteria in commercial dairies for almost 90 years–not really all that long ago considering that man has consumed milk products from mammals for thousands of years. I suppose the early European farmers were observant enough to see that milk provides a calorie- and protein-rich food source, comes in a relatively constant supply compared to the boom-and-bust of seasonal crops, and would have been less contaminated than water supplies.

Today the raw milk controversy has become intensely polarized and has involved the FDA, FBI, USDA, CDC, and the NIH, just to name a few scientific bodies, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies. In the press and in the scientific literature raw milk is mostly demonized as a severe potential health threat. Interestingly these same agencies have never considered potential benefits. The advent of mapping the human microbiome may change all that.

When it comes to the benefits of drinking raw milk and eating foods made from raw milk other scientists, clinicians, and consumers are already connecting the dots. The Weston Price Foundation is an ardent supporter of raw milk consumption. The pros and cons of consuming raw milk products are readily discussed. I starting buying raw milk over four years ago and continue to value all the benefits for everyone in my family.

The challenge has always been managing the microbes. For thousands of years, raw milk was mostly fermented into yogurt, cheese and churned into butter on a small scale for family farms and local neighbors. Drinking liquid milk came later. Not until the dawn of industrialization did communities intensely struggle with the challenge of keeping milk fresh. As more people moved to the city and the population exploded, disease from contaminated and spoiled milk was rampant. At that time up to 25% of food born illness was linked to contaminated milk. By 1924 the U.S. Public Health Service developed the Standard Milk Ordinance to assist states with voluntary pasteurization programs. In 1987 the USDA banned raw milk from being sold across state lines. Basically we are using 17th century science to minimize risk today. Raw milk proponents say science can and should do better. I agree.

Organic Pastures Creamery

Organic Alfalfa fields at Organic Pastures

This week I walked through the creamery, through the fields of organic alfalfa, past other fields ready for planting, and gazed upon the happy cows feeding on organic dried grasses in the dead of winter. I appreciate the care and attention given to the animals, the land, even the manure–a liquid gold that is used to fertilize the organic almond trees. In thirteen years Mark has created an incredibly efficient, sustainable and dynamic system where all resources are valued and utilized. There is no waste. And I saw all of this on December 31. I can’t wait to go back and pitch my tent in the vibrant growth of spring to see all those animals reveling in splendor of their grass.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: bacteria, CDC, farm to table, FBI, FDA, grass fed, Mark McAfee, Michael Pollan, microbes, microbiome, NIH, Omnivore's Dilemma, organic, organic pastures, raw milk, sustainability, USDA, Weston Price Foundation

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

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

October 18, 2011 by

Evan Kleiman elegantly interviewed Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser at the Vision and Voices presentation at USC last week. The conversation was mostly a celebration of the current food movements that emphasize eating “close to the earth.” Mr. Pollan’s mantra: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” prevailed throughout the evening.

I celebrate so much of this message. The Omnivore’s Dilemma was a seminal read for me. I went on to read a half dozen related books and continue to step up my game. As a dietitian it was confronting to realize how little attention I paid to how food is raised.

Today I am mostly horrified at the deterioration of our food supply. Only the staunchest of USDA conformists clamor that we have the safest food supply in the world. The word safe in used in the narrowest of contexts, and we fall down even in the realm of minimizing food contamination and food born illness. Big agriculture and corporate food interests have created an abundant and adulterated food supply that no longer keeps us healthy, but is easily over consumed and contributes to poor health.

The quality and sheer quantity of highly processed foods that are subsidized by USDA Farm policy is a big part of the problem. This is the arena that Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser effectively argue for change.

CONSUMERS CAN FOCUS ON THREE IMPORTANT FACTORS TO DRIVE CHANGE IN OUR FOOD SUPPLY

1. Avoid human antibiotics in animals. Purchase meats that state no hormones or antibiotics used as growth enhancers. Let your dollars make a statement.

2. Press for better access for everyone. I am privileged to access farmer’s markets 4 days a week. Other regions have nothing close by. I visited a new farmer’s market in South Culver City last Saturday. It is a fabulous press into an under served neighborhood. I hope the community supports this effort.

3. Pay attention to next year’s farm bill. It will be time for all of us to speak up. It is not OK that a few farm states drive this bill. These states depend on federal subsidies to overproduce crops that contribute to our abundant and adulterated food supply.

Lastly, as we work to improve our food supply, it is important to not let proponents of the status quo distort the conversation. Pollan and Schlosser make some key points.

KEEP THE CONVERSATION FOCUSED

1. American farmers grow about 4000 calories per capita annually–twice as much as is needed

2. Hunger is about food access, not yield

3. Our current food supply does not prevent hunger. There are about 1 billion people hungry, and about 1 billion people obese.

4. We consume about 12.5% of what is grown. 12.5% is wasted. The rest feeds livestock. For many reasons it is time to let the animals eat their natural diet.

Each of us needs to ask ourselves, “What can I do to promote a more sustainable and nutrient dense food supply?” Please share what is your next step in Eating Close to the Earth?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: antibiotics, Culver City, Eric Schlosser, farm bill, farmer’s market, food, Food Inc, grass fed, hormones, hunger, Michael Pollan, sustainable, USDA

I Was Told To Lose Weight

October 18, 2011 by

I recently completed a health questionnaire on the Kaiser website. Here is the 2nd of 5 blogs on the findings.

A range of 120-163 pounds is given for my height. The last time I weighed 120 pounds I was anorexic. So 120 is too low for my size and body build. What about 163?

I’m not so sure I am ready to feel like I am starving myself. I am already extremely careful with what I eat. The health screening tool didn’t have much to recommend on that front.

ALREADY EATING A NUTRIENT DENSE DIET

I got high marks for the fruit and vegetables in my diet. I eat mostly whole grains, albeit very few of them. I just don’t handle carbohydrates very well.

My diet is rich in grass fed meat and milk from grass fed cows. I enjoy fish several times a week and take omega three supplements regularly. I use pastured butter and olive oil preferentially for cooking. I cook at home using raw ingredients 5-6 nights a week. I shop at farmer’s markets for delicious farm fresh produce and farm fresh eggs, chickens, pork and beef.

I eat when I am hungry and mostly stop when I am satisfied. I rarely feel full or uncomfortable. I don’t eat many sweets, except for the occasional piece of dark chocolate two or three times a week.

ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT ENOUGH QUESTIONS

Maybe this tool needs to ask me why I am unmotivated to change instead of assuming that there is change to be made. The assumption is made just because my weight is higher than the ideal range. I wonder how many muscular and athletic people are also given misguided direction to lose weight?

There is no place to address lean body mass even though I was asked about my usual activity level. I bike most days of the week both for transportation and recreation. I walk with friends 1-2 times a week and enjoy a yoga twice a week. I received a hearty “good job” for my level of exercise from the screening tool.

The evaluation summary did mention I could increase my weight bearing activity. Evidently the tool assumes that yoga is only good for stretching, not building muscle. These people don’t know the class I attend.

JUST A NUMBER, NO PERSPECTIVE

I wonder if the designers ever considered asking me what I already do to manage my weight before suggesting what I should do differently.

In the end, I suppose I am just not willing to be more restrictive. I understand that quality of life and longevity have far more to do with overall health and not some silly ideal number range.

How many of us are tired of mindless recommendations with little perspective? I’m only slightly less annoyed that this recommendation comes from a digital screening tool. I am appalled it is supported by my health care provider.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: anorexia, cycling, dark chocolate, exercise, fruits, grains, grass fed, health screening, hungry, Kaiser, lean body mass, lose weight, muscle, restriction, vegetables, walking, weight, yoga

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

BEEF: Why it’s not for dinner as much anymore…but maybe it should be

When fine dining is not fine

Farm to Table: Visiting Organic Pastures

Is All Red Meat Risky?

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

I Was Told To Lose Weight

THE FOOD CHAIN: Human Nutrition Gets It Backwards

Search

Follow Bonnie

BEEF: Why it’s not for dinner as much anymore…but maybe it should be

When fine dining is not fine

Farm to Table: Visiting Organic Pastures

Is All Red Meat Risky?

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

I Was Told To Lose Weight

THE FOOD CHAIN: Human Nutrition Gets It Backwards

Search

Follow Bonnie

Topics