Food Politics

Nice piece. Hopefully the term “natural” will be cleared up as time goes by and people get more and more frustrated.

Shouldn’t the animals’ natural diets be taken into consideration as well? Are grain fed cows natural?

I think the best thing would be to simply ban the use of the word “natural” on any food or food product. Much simpler than trying to define it for commercial purposes. A quick look at the ingredient list should tell the tale of a packaged product.

I think poultry is the most confusing area. Lots of stores like Whole Foods carry “natural” poultry which they present as superior to “conventional” because is isn’t raised with use of hormones or antibiotics–and yet, it states right on the wrapper (in tiny print) that “federal regulations forbid the use of hormones or antibiotics in poultry” (paraphrased). Yet people willingly pay more for these birds thinking that they are somehow specially raised. When you question the staff, you sometimes can determine that they are using smaller suppliers or than the birds are allowed outside, but not always. WF has a new rating system for animal treatment, but so far, most of their stock is only in the #1 category–which has minimal benefit for the animals over conventional practices.

By the way, just what does “minimally processed” mean? Anyone? I find that I have to pay a lot more just to get a turkey that hasn’t been injected with salt and sugar, although both wrappers declare “minimally processed” and often both declare “all natural”. When I see pictures of the typical commercial turkey in a poultry catalog, it leaves me stunned. Hint: the poor thing is barely recognizable as a turkey–or even as a BIRD. I long ago became a vegetarian, but my family begs me to do a “traditional” Thanksgiving, so every year I go on this quest for a more “natural” turkey. Yes, I’ve paid up to $100 for a wild bird, but the family didn’t like it. I’m thinking of raising my own, but I am afraid I would not be able to do what is necessary in the end.

Cornucopia Institute, a consumer watchdog group about food/organics, just did a report about consumer confusion over natural vs. organic in the cereal aisle. I found it very interesting. (I’m not affiliated with them, just a fan of their work.)

http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-cereal/

Anthro, I’ve seen those labels before and I bet every three months I am looking for confirmation for something I already know to be true: Federal regulations DO NOT prohibit the use of antibiotics in poultry.

I don’t know who is making these labels.

In reality, poultry was the original livestock for which antibiotics were discovered to promote growth. Antibiotics are still used as a sub-therapeutic feed additive to this end.

Here is the USDA on the subject of “Chicken from Farm to Table”: (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Chicken_from_Farm_To_Table/index.asp#6)

“Antibiotics may be used to prevent disease and increase feed efficiency.”

What becomes even more frustrating is when larger brands buy up the smaller (once trusted) brands. Then slowly change the ingredients, keep the same packages and rely on consumers loyalty to the product to keep the sales going. Unknowingly a lot has changed, the consumer doesn’t know.

@Michael

Thanks for the link! Notice the next paragraph:

“Antibiotics may be used to prevent disease and increase feed efficiency. A “withdrawal” period is required from the time antibiotics are administered before the bird can be slaughtered. This ensures that no residues are present in the bird’s system. FSIS randomly samples poultry at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this monitoring program have shown a very low percentage of residue violations.”

I agree that the labels are misleading, but on the other hand I don’t have serious objections to antibiotics used for treating disease (even though much of the disease is caused by crowding and other stressful conditions) for the sake of the animals. Nor am I particularly worried about substances that are withdrawn–in terms of human health effects anyway. I AM opposed to the horrific effects of factory farming on animals so would oppose many of these practices on those grounds.

I am looking for more information on the labeling in question and how that gets a pass–if that’s the case, which it seems to be. I’ll look around the link you gave a little more. Thanks again for contributing to a deeper understanding of this issue. Another reason to continue with my basic vegetarian diet I think.

You might be interested in another issues beyond the presence of antibiotic residues in commerce (which does happen, try as they might).

Feeding livestock low levels of antibiotics to promote grow and prevent but not treat disease drives the growth of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. The bugs that don’t have resistance plasmids are partially killed off, leaving less competition for the resistant bugs. These multiply and pass off resistance plasmids to any other bug that wants them. What you’re left with is an increased amount of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

This has been understood for decades, and the medical field has tried to limit antibiotic use in humans to stave off “superbugs”. On the other hand, industry veterinarians and drug companies resist curbing subtherapeutic usage of human-class antibiotics in livestock.

FDA estimates about 80% of antibiotics sold in the US are for livestock. Not all of them are human-class antibiotics, but a very sizable portion are (such as tetracycline and penicillins). Bacteria can be crafty, and some of the resistance traits work against multiple antibiotics within the same family of drugs.

The end result is poultry litter and swine waste that contains antibiotic-resistant pathogens. This ends up endangering farmworkers and farm neighbors, and contaminating meat purchased by consumers.

Dairy cows are not fed antibiotics just to be clear. I keep seeing websites saying that milk is “full of antibiotics” There are severe financial penalties for any farmer who accidentally treated a sick cow and then shipped the milk before it is fully clear of residue. The penalty is to pay for a Compartment (one half of a tractor trailer load of milk) out of your own little farmer pocketbook. With trailers carryiing between 55,000 to 75,000 pounds of milk this is several thousand dollars. If it happens again, the farmer will likely be kicked out of his or her cooperative. The unsung heroes are the dairy scientists who developed easy on-farm testing of milk with test-kits. The farmer can treat a sick cow and then test the milk to determine when it is residue free, to supplement label instructions. As we all try to improve ourselves, farmers are also taking seminars and webinars on better antibiotics management related to proper withholding times for dairy cows that may be sold for beef. All of this leads to better animal welfare as a sick cow can be treated, milk dumped until residue-free, and then the cow can be returned to a productive life in the herd. On organic farms, the cow can be treated, but then must be ejected from the herd.

@TJ I like your comment about natural diet for cows. We hear a lot about “grain fed” cows. There are no farms in the US that feed cows only grain. Cows eat a combination of food that is available. Personally, I’m happy with being a grazier. My cows move through different pastures of the farm, except in winter.
Regionally, dairy farmers take advantage of whatever natural resources they have. In the northeast, the silos are full of grass from our grasslands. Some farmers raise corn for corn silage. The first corn silage on my farm was made in 1934, although we are currently going with only grass silage because we have more land now to get grass from. Other farmers might not have the luxury of a big grass land base and thus plant corn to grow bigger volume on smaller pieces of land. In other parts of the country, where land is selling for $15,000/acre farmers maximize yields with corn silage.
I think the important thing is for consumers of different regions to take a look at how the cows of their regions are being fed. Chances are the farmers are making the most efficient use of whatever resources are available in that region. The Northeast is a heavily grass-based milkshed.
In each region, professional cattle nutritionists take whatever inputs are there and then “balance” the rations of the cows. Here in NY, nutritionists may recommend some grain to add energy to the grass based diet. In other areas, if grain is readily available locally, the nutritionist may call for more in the way of long fiber. Some people have masters degrees and beyond in cow nutrition.
And, I appreciate your comment about the natural diet of a cow. I like to see cows treated to a good diet and a cow nutritionist can be a big help in that regard.
Yes, the above does indeed go back to labeling. What might be “natural” food in one setting is not really “natural” for another region. For example, here in NY, natural = our abundant grasslands. In another part of the country, “natural” might be something else totally. Re-regionalization of food processing might be of help for consumers to know what they are eating, if they can actually see a facility that processes products from their region.

Michael, I think we are basically in agreement on the overall dangers of antibiotic overuse and I am well aware of the danger of the bugs developing resistance. I think there’s probably just a slight divergence in our perspective, yours being primarily human health considerations and mine being animal welfare. I’m not a PETA devotee at all, just opposed to the abuses of factory farming to animals and the environment, which ultimately affects us as well.

@NYFarmer

Thanks for the clarification. This is an issue I often argue with my friends who insist on organic milk. I personally know an organic dairy farmer who only treats his cows with homeopathic “rememdies” (water)! Personally, this scares the crap out of me and I haven’t bought organic milk since learning of this. I DO buy milk that comes from a farm less than 50 miles from my city home that I have visited and which uses safe and sustainable methods that give consideration to both cows and people, as well as welcoming visitors. It is a family farm run with modern, science-based methods on a scale that insures sane practices.

I have helped write standards for natural and organic retailers for the word “natural” and i do think it is possible to do. The FDA has shied away from the term, except in the case of flavorings, for which they have a definition and the flavoring industry self-regulates.

The USDA meat defintions are confusing as “natural” refers to no additives, but the meat can still be raised with antibiotics and/or hormones in the feed, so they came up with “naturally raised.” In my opinion, natural meat should not include growth promoters in the feed and less than humane production practices.

I believe that Horizon discontinued their “natural” milk after there was pushback by their consumers and the natural products industry, just for your information.

Consumers like the term “natural” as we all know. There are processed foods that contribute to a healthy diet and companies and retailers trying to do the right thing. Without some sort of regulation, be it the industry or the FDA, the word will continue to be confusing.

GMOs are an important issue to address, but many vegetarian foods rely on soy products that are produced from GMO soy unfortunately. As well, soy is often extracted with synthetic solvents. We do need a way for the consumer to understand these issues so that they can demand alternatives that are more acceptable and not let our food supply be completely dependent on GMO crops.

I appreciate you tackling this topic.

[...] Food politics semantics: the meaning of the word “natural.” [Food Politics] [...]

Makes me wonder about “natural” carnivorous fish, such as salmon. If I were to buy farm-raised salmon, which is actually more expensive than wild salmon where I live for some reason.

[...] Food politics semantics: the meaning of “natural” <<An update on the word “natural” on nutrition and food labels. (Food Politics) [...]

I’m so glad you posted about this. Unfortunately, labeling unnatural products “natural” only confuses consumers even more. I’ve fallen in the trap myself by choosing a product based on it’s so-called health benefits. It seems like a huge marketing scam.

As a 20 plus year participant and supporter of organic, I am always stymied by “natural” – on one hand it is a good starting place for people to move into “organic”, on the other, it has so little real meaning.

I think we may need a new paradigm: is food production destructive to the planet and our health? Is it sustainable in the broadest sense of the word? Too many people equate “health” with “natural” – there is no such equation. Only – the big picture of how food is produced and how we impact the planet as we grow, process, package, eat and discard.

“Organic” is a legal measurement of one type of sustainable production for growing and processing ingredients. Could natural be the same thing? Only if it comes from the same environmental position.

“Organic” came from a commitment to environmental activism; a recognition that farmers and food producers were making part of the mess and that they need to clean up their part of the mess. Stewardship.

So I vote for getting rid of the word “natural” and creating a new descriptor that tells a consumer if the production of the product has added to the mess or helped clean it up.

From my messy kitchen.

[...] Nestle Food Politics Semantics: The Meaning of “Natural” Oh no! USDA Cutting Back on Research. Ketchup is a Vegetable? [...]