Different Day, Same Cow?

Would you ever eat the meat -- or drink the milk -- of a cloned cow?

Heck, why am I even asking? You really have no choice!

One of George W. Bush's last decisions as Commander-in-Chief included quietly passing legislation allowing the meat and milk of cloned animals to be sold to consumers without being labeled as such.

The Food and Drug Association's argument is that since food from cloned cattle is no less healthy than that of "conventional" cattle, there is no need to differentiate between the two.

In fact, some documentation quotes scientists as saying cloned meat can actually be better, since it often results in tender, juicier steaks (right, I am sure this was the driving force behind animal cloning).

The main line of reasoning behind cloning is to provide more food to the American public.

Really? The food industry is already supplying an average of 3,900 calories per person -- almost double the requirement for most people. Do we really need more food? And if we do, why is red meat the chosen one?

The chances of you having consumed food from a cloned animal is low, as the number of them is currently too low to enter the food supply.

However, don't expect any special announcements once this happens.

Industry response to concerns from consumers? "If you don't feel comfortable eating food from a cloned animal, buy organic."

Thoughts?

You Ask, I Answer: Weston Price Organization

What do you know about the Weston Price Foundation?

-- Dennise O'Grady
Bay Head, NJ

Let's start with the positive -- they advocate for small farmers, and particularly strengthening farmer-to-consumer relationships.

Other than that, I view them as an extremist group that tends to border on silliness. That's their logo, by the way, which, they explain, illustrates Western societies' narrow-mindedness towards food.

An odd choice, since the "narrow vision" includes everything from Houston to Peruvian highlands to the Caribbean. Meanwhile, a lot of the nations in the "wide" circles have just as many problems with obesity, diabetes, and junk food consumption as the United States. I don't get it.

Their core belief? Full-fat raw dairy, butter, red meat, and soaked grains are the answer to a healthy life, while plant-based diets are the root of all health problems.

I'll let their writing speak for itself.

Exhibit A:

"According to an article in the Washington Post ("Don't have a cow, Mom," October 31, 2006) vegetarianism among teenagers is increasing. Vegetarian families eat a more varied diet, we are told, which includes such yummies as rutabaga and tofu. Not to worry, Mom, says the American Dietetic Association, ". . . a well-planned all-veggie diet for children and adolescents can be nutritionally sound. . . " as long as teens consume soy beverages and cereals fortified with vitamin D and B12. The dietitians claim teens can get adequate calcium, iron, zinc and protein from vegetables, grains, fruit, and, of course, soy foods. No mention is made of vitamin A, so necessary for reproductive health, nor of the downside of all those soy foods. So, don't have a cow, Mom. Just don't expect to have any grandchildren."

Gee,I must have missed all the headlines about vegetarian women being physically incapable of having children!

I have so many problems with that paragraph I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, vegetarianism does not necessarily translate into a high consumption of soy foods.

Additionally, the term "soy foods" is too broad. Adding nutrient-packed soy foods like tempeh or tofu to a dish is very different from eating two bags of processed soy chips every day.

As for vitamin A: we know that 12 micrograms of beta-carotene equal 1 microgram of Vitamin A. We also know that women need 700 micrograms of vitamin A a day.

Let's do some math. A half cup of cooked sweet potato provides approximately 7,000 micrograms of beta carotene, which translates into roughly 580 micrograms of vitamin A (more than three quarters of a day's worth!)

If this women were to then eat some carrots, an orange, an egg, some vitamin A-fortified milk, or a grapefruit that same day, they would easily meet their vitamin A requirement. So, what is the problem?

Exhibit B:

"George Rene Francis of Sacramento, who turned 110 this year, enjoys "tons of milk, tons of eggs, lard on bread and salt pork sandwiches." He avoids visits to the doctor but smokes cigars. He credits his virility to a combination of fresh camel's milk, daily walks and plenty of meat—rabbit, lamb, chicken and wild animals, which he still hunts himself (www.telegraph.co.uk, August 24, 2007)."

This is what you call bad science. No, make that horrendous science. Using an anomaly as proof of something is ludicruous. It's akin to a tobacco company using this news item to show that, hey, smoking is harmless!

Exhibit C:

"Today's dietary gurus tell us that we must eat vegetables and fruit to obtain vitamins and minerals. Per Magnuson, an astute member from Sweden, points out that fruits and vegetables cannot compare in nutrient levels with animal foods, especially nutrient-dense animal foods like liver. Here's what we came up with as a way of assessing the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables versus meat and liver. Note that every nutrient in red meat except for vitamin C surpasses those in apples and carrots, and every nutrient-including vitamin C-in beef liver occurs in exceedingly higher levels in beef liver compared to apple and carrots."

What a riot! How can someone in the nutrition field expect to be taken seriously when they don't take into account phytonutrients (which, by mere definition, are only available in plant foods)?

Good luck getting fiber from liver, too.

I also can't comprehend how so-called "experts" don't mention that one of the causes of hypervitaminosis A (vitamin A toxicity) is frequent consumption of liver!

Exhibit D:

"According to government and media health pundits, the top best 14 foods are:

1. Beans
2. Blueberries
3. Broccoli
4. Oats
5. Oranges
6. Pumpkin
7. Salmon
8. Soy
9. Spinach
10. Tea (green or black)
11. Tomatoes
12. Turkey
13. Walnuts
14. Yogurt
    

This uninspiring list reflects the current establishment angels (anti-oxidants and omega-3 fatty acids) and demons (saturated fats and animal foods).

Our list of the 14 best top foods, foods that supply vital nutrients including the fat-soluble vitamins, looks like this:

1. Butter from grass-fed cows (preferably raw)
2. Oysters
3. Liver from grass-fed animals
4. Eggs from grass-fed hens
5. Cod liver oil
6. Fish eggs
7. Whole raw milk from grass-fed cows
8. Bone broth
9. Shrimp
10. Wild salmon
11. Whole yogurt or kefir
12. Beef from grass-fed steers
13. Sauerkraut
14. Organic Beets

A diet containing only these foods will confer lifelong good health; a diet containing only the foods in the first list is the fast track to nutritional deficiencies."

Except that no one is saying people should limit themselves to the first fourteen items; rather, the recommendation is to include as many of them in your diet as you can. Making an argument based on erroneous pretenses is futile.

And what is up with the feeble "uninspiring list" diss? If anything, the first list has more variety and color than Weston A Price's!

Besides, does anyone really believe that a diet rich in tea, fruits, and vegetables causes nutritional deficiencies?

And where did the list attributed to "government and media pundits" come from? That list is not nutrition dogma by any means; any dietitian will tell you that you can be perfectly healthy without ever eating a tomato or a pumpkin as long as your overall diet patterns are healthy.

Again, illogical conclusions based on bad science.

I rest my case.

UPDATE: Since this post went up, I have received many comments on other (non-related) postings from "anonymous" sources who, ever-so-coincidentally, suggest I take a look at the Weston Price Organization's website for the "truth."

Numbers Game: Answer

It is estimated that 30 to 40 percent of all cancers are directly linked to diet and exercise (mainly as a result of not eating enough health-promoting foods and not performing sufficient amounts of physical activity).

Source: American Institute for Cancer Research

Similarly, the National Cancer Institute estimates that up to 35 percent of cancer deaths are diet related.

Believe it or not, the notion that diet had anything to do with risk reduction of certain cancers was considered laughably by the medical community as little as thirty years ago.

By far the most important institution that has consistently -- and successfully -- worked on showing the strong links between diet and cancer risk within the scope of science-based clinical research is the highly respected American Institute for Cancer Research, which turns 27 years old this year.

Among their recommendations -- which include limiting consumption of salty foods and basing one's diet on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes -- the AICR strong suggests a weekly intake of no more than 18 ounces of red and processed meats, as the evidence between their consumption and a higher risk of colorectal cancer is too strong to ignore.

You Ask, I Answer: Saturated Fat

You mentioned that saturated fat is the "bad" fat and this definitely is the common understanding these days.

Have you read any conflicting evidence about this?

After reading the first half of Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories I came to the conclusion that saturated fat really isn't a big deal unless you're in the extreme heart disease risk category, which, at 27 and with normal cholesterol levels, I don't think I am.

And, while I don't agree with Taubes' anti-carb approach, I found his evidence about regarding the fat-cholesterol link (and how research was so highly influenced by politics, guesswork, and some key personalities) very interesting, and moderately convincing.

It seems that cholesterol levels are only veeery minimally affected by saturated fat in one's diet.

I'm wondering how you feel about this aspect of his argument, or if you've seen other people calling the evilness of saturated fat into question recently.

I thought I had it all figured out, but this is the one thing I'm still not sure about.

Thanks so much.

-- Meredith (last name unknown)
Via the blog

Gary Taubes is certainly not the first -- or only -- person to question the saturated fat/heart disease connection.

Although some studies date as far back as the 1950s, Mr. Robert C. Atkins brought the research out of the scientific community and into the mainstream.

He -- along with his proteges -- claimed that eating endless amounts of steaks, butter, and bacon actually led to healthier lipid profiles than low-fat, high-carb diets.

And so we come back to the issue of flawed logic. Let me explain.

Like Atkins, Taubes and his ilk approach this scenario from a very narrow "black or white" perspective.

Firstly, they are quick to judge detractors as low-fat advocates.

This is grossly inaccurate. For instance, I strongly disagree with Taubes, but a quick browse through this blog makes it clear I do not advocate low-fat diets.

Instead, I believe that an adequate amount of the right fats is crucial for our health.

I fail to understand why Taubes and his supporters practically worship saturated fat but completely fail to mention the health benefits of monounsaturated fats and omega-3 fatty acids.

They aren't saying "fat is healthy; make sure to include almonds, olive oil, and wild salmon in your diet!" Instead, they pretty much push red meat and bacon.

Mind you, current guidelines do not call for a complete elimination of saturated fat from the diet; they simply suggest no more than 20 grams a day (assuming a daily intake of 2,000 calories).

Many dietitians -- myself included -- recommend a low intake of saturated fat, but simultaneously urge people to seek out the healthy fats found primarily in salmon, olive oil, walnuts, flaxseed, and avocados.

Although there are some professionals who advocate very low-fat diets -- Dean Ornish comes to mind -- many of the dietitians I know do not support skimping on healthy fats.

Now, when you compare a high-fat (in this case, saturated fat) low-carb diet to a high-carb (conveniently, high in refined carbohydrate), low-fat diet, the high-fat diet will lead to a better lipid profile (triglycerides, for instance, are related to refined carbohydrate intake, not dietary fat).

This, however, is misleading.

It's akin to only comparing bronze (diet high in refined carbohydrates and low in fat) and silver (diet high in fat, albeit saturated, but low in refined carbohydrates) and claiming silver to be the most expensive metal.

Yes, the most expensive of the two.

But, bring in platinum (a diet low in saturated fat but high in mono unsaturated fats and whole grains) and suddenly silver doesn't look quite as amazing.

I would like Gary Taubes to compare two high-fat diets (one high in saturated fats, one high in mono and polyunsaturated fats) and conclude, with a straight face, that the saturated fat-rich one is the healthiest.

There are literally hundreds of human clinical research studies showing a correlation between saturated fat intake and heightened coronary heart disease risk.

One interesting one was published in the July 2005 edition of the British Medical Journal.

Turns out that, in 1991, the Polish government stopped subsidising foods high in saturated fat.

Eleven years later, "deaths from coronary heart disease had dropped by over a third in the 45-64 age group - a 38 per cent drop for men and 42% for women."

During this time, saturated fat consumption fell by 7 percent, and -- more importantly -- polyunsaturated fat consumption increased by 57 percent!

We again come back to the notion that the key is not in reducing total fat intake, but in replacing saturated fats with healthier varieties.

Taubes happily bashes anyone recommending a low-fat diet, but what are his arguments against replacing saturated fats with Omega-3 fatty acids (a type of polyunsaturated fat) for improved lipid profiles?

Moving on to red meat, there is also a good deal of research showing that colon cancer risk is indeed affected by red meat consumption (this 2006 meta-analysis from the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition summarizes some major findings well).

A great Italian study by Talvani et al in 2000 also looked at red meat intake and cancer risk.

I recall Mr. Taubes scoffing and referring to all this evidence as "questionable" when he was on Charlie Rose several years ago.

How he came to that conclusion I do not know.

In my mind, sanctifying saturated fat and telling people to eat it liberally is irresponsible.

By the way, this idea that advice to eat less red meat is some sort of conspiracy relating to politics is rather laughable since, as Marion Nestle brilliantly explains in Food Politics, the national beef association threw a major hissy fit when Dietary Guidelines originally urged the public to simply "consume less red meat".

They were quickly changed to "choose lean cuts of meat," so as to not offend the powerful beef lobby.

We come back, as always, to the issue of moderation.

Have a slice of Swiss cheese here and there or pour a splash of whole milk into your morning coffee if it makes you happy; just don't make saturated fats the main players of your diet.

In The News: Corn-utopia

The Wall Street Journal reports that the ever increasing prices of corn farming have led farmers to project this year's planting estimates at 86 million acres -- eight percent less than last year's figure.

"Corn prices have skyrocketed in recent years, helped by the burgeoning ethanol industry, which turns the crop into fuel, and rising world-wide demand for food. The higher prices have hurt poultry, beef and pork companies, who use corn to feed their animals."

Here's a thought -- how about feeding these animals the foods they are meant to eat?

In the case of cows, not only is a corn diet detrimental to their digestive systems, it also results in meat higher in saturated fat and omega-6 fatty acids than that of cows subsisting exclusively on a grass diet.

The repercussions also affect our wallets.

"Corn already is trading near its record-high price of $5.70 a bushel, more than double the price of two years ago."

Meat and dairy prices will continue to rise.

Additionally, since a large portion of this country's food supply is based around corn oil and corn-based syrups, expect bread and convenience snacks to also take a hit.

For more information on this very complex topic, I direct you to a highly informative 2002 interview with corn guru Michael Pollan.

Top of the Mocks

A mere decade ago, faux meats were mostly a fringe food, sought after at small health food stores by vegetarians and vegans.

Some tasted great, others were as appealing as dog food.

I remember my first veggie hot dog, back in 1997, purchased at a speciality vegetarian supermarket. It reminded me of potpourri with salt.

Over the past decade, vegetarianism (even if occasional) has been adopted by millions of people around the world, consequently resulting in a wider variety of much tastier faux-meat products available at conventional supermarkets.

One of my absolute favorite products is soy beef crumbles, available from the folks over at Boca Burger and Morningstar Farms.

I especially like to add some to my vegan chili.

As I always like to say, you know a soy product is good when steak enthusiasts gobble it up, can't believe that's ground SOY beef they are eating, and ask for seconds!

Now, let's compare and contrast.

Two ounces (two thirds of a cup) of Boca ground soy beef crumbles contribute 60 calories, .5 grams of fat, 0 grams of saturated fat, 270 milligrams of sodium, 3 grams of fiber, and 13 grams of protein.

The same amount of Morningstar farms soy crumbles adds up to 80 calories, 2.5 grams of fat, 0 grams of saturated fat, 240 milligrams of sodium, 3 grams of fiber, and 10 grams of protein. They are also fortified with half of the daily B12 requirement!

If you were to use that same amount of 70 percent lean ground beef in a recipe, you would be adding 153 calories, 10 grams of fat, 4 grams of saturated fat, and 14.5 grams of protein to it.

Even if going for a 90 percent lean variety, you would still be having 100 calories, 5.7 grams of fat, 2.3 grams of saturated fat, and 11 grams of protein.

This is not to say all your animal meat dishes should be replaced with vegetarian options.

However, soy beef enables you to satiate your taste for red meat in a much healthier way.

I dare all of you to substitute regular beef for soy crumbles in your next recipe (sloppy Joes, chili, shepherd's pie) and notice a difference!

You Ask, I Answer: Vitamin A

I know this is going to sound weird, but I kind of have an aversion when it comes to eating anything orange or red.

Even if it's supposed to be red (like a tomato), I still get freaked out.

Does this mean I'm not eating Vitamin A?

Paula (last name withheld)
St. Louis, MO

I'm sorry to hear about your aversion, especially since you're missing out on delicious foods like watermelon, strawberries, red peppers, and raspberries!

The good news is, your vitamin A intake is not affected, since green vegetables are also a good source.

Half a cup of cooked broccoli provides 24 percent of the daily requirement, a half cup of cooked peas will give you 34 percent, half a cup of cooked kale contains an excellent 177 percent, and a half cup of spinach packs a mighty 229 percent!

Dairy items also contain vitamin A, although in lower amounts.

A cup of milk fortified with vitamin A contains ten percent of the daily requirement, an ounce of mozarella cheese provides a mere three percent, and an egg contributes approximately seven percent of the daily requirement to your diet.

The most concentrated source of vitamin A is animal liver. A mere ounce (53 calories' worth) of beef liver holds 178 percent of a day's worth!

Numbers Game: Answer

An eight-year-long National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health study that followed 500,000 adults ages 50 - 71 -- and was recently published in the Public Library of Science Medicine Journal -- found that the top twenty percent of red meat consumers had a 20 percent higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than those who consumed lower amounts.

According to the American Cancer Society, "researchers aren't certain what it is about red meat that might influence cancer risk. The iron and fat it contains may be culprits. For processed meat, the salt, smoke residue, and nitrates and nitrites used as preservatives may play a role."

I would also add the fact that meat-centric diets tend to be low in fiber -- a crucial weapon in reducing one's risk of many cancers, especially colorectal.

In any case, if you choose to consume red and processed meats, it is highly recommened you limit consumption to no more than two servings (a total of six ounces) a week.

Numbers Game: A Case for White Meats

An eight-year-long National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health study that followed 500,000 adults ages 50 - 71 -- and was recently published in the Public Library of Science Medicine Journal -- found that the top twenty percent of red meat consumers had a ____ percent higher risk of developing colorectal cancer than those who consumed lower amounts.

a) 5
b) 9
c) 14
d) 20

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Sunday for the answer!

Say What?: The 4,886 Calorie Challenge

The Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo, TX is home of the "Free" 72 Oz. Steak Challenge.

To become a winner, simply eat a 72 ounce (that's four and a half pounds!) top sirloin steak, shrimp cocktail appetizer, baked potato, salad, and dinner roll in 60 minutes or less.

The "incentives" include getting your name on a list of champions, having your $72.00 bill refunded, and receiving a T-shirt, mug, and certificate.

Amazingly, 8,000 people have successfully consumed 4,886 calories, 140.4 grams of fat (216% of a day 's worth), 51.1 grams of saturated fat (255% of the daily maximum limit), and 4,882 milligrams of sodium (203% of the daily limit) in under one hour.

The accompanying photo illustrates all components of the challenge!

You "Ask", I Answer: Vegetarianism

You should not avoid red meat completely, it might hurt your health.

-- "Vedo" (via the blog)
Location Unknown

Not true.

While red meat is by no means junk food (it is a good source of vitamins B12 and B6 as well as iron, zinc, and protein), certain cuts can be very high in artery-clogging and bad-cholesterol-raising saturated fat.

A statement like "avoiding red meat might hurt your health" is entirely inaccurate.

If fish and poultry are your only sources of animal protein, for example, you are not missing out on any nutrients present in red meat.

Aditionally, well-planned vegetarian diets provide complete and balanced nutrition, with no need for supplementation.

Even though animal proteins are considered "complete" in that they contain all nine essential amino acids, soy protein is a complete plant protein.

As for the others? It's all about complementing. It turns out that the amino acids missing in grains are present in nuts. Thereby, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich provides all essential amino acids.

Vegetarianism is not dangerous, unhealthy or risky.

Many times, actually, vegetarian diets (that include all food groups and are not just a medley of pizza, French fries, ice cream, and soy chicken nuggets) end up being healthier than those of omnivores'.

The reason? Vegetarian diets tend to be higher in fiber and phytonutrients while clocking in lower amounts of saturated fat.