Grass Fed | Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD

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

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

Topics