Chews Wise

Surf & Turf: The Good, Bad and Ugly

By now, you've probably heard about or seen the video released by the Humane Society depicting the unspeakably grotesque, not to mention, illegal, inhumane treatment of animals at a slaughterhouse in California. Workers rammed the animals with a fork lift and stun guns to try and get downer cows to stand up and qualify for a meat inspection so they could be slaughtered. This meat was destined for school lunch programs.

This video was shot by an employee working undercover with the humane organization and was so shocking it elicited a comment from the USDA Secretary. Even in the wake of Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, continual scandals about e. coli in meat, repeated embargoes on US meat exports because of inadequate inspections, this type of thing occurs. The USDA is asleep at the wheel - or worse, has put on blinders to avoid the obvious.

Lest we get direly pessimistic, there was faintly encouraging news on the fish front, where more retailers are moving towards certified sustainable fisheries. The Marine Stewardship Council is the recognized certifier in this field. The Economist reports that:

Rupert Howes, the MSC’s chief executive, says that while it took seven years for the first 500 MSC-labelled products to appear, the next 500 took only another nine months.

Today there are 1,123 products with an MSC label around the world. Although consumer recognition remains low today, many wholesale buyers recognise the label, and demand for sustainably sourced fish is growing fast.

Wal-Mart has taken a major step, with one-quarter of its seafood counter now MSC certified (and prompting a mea culpa from one friend of mine). If you include fish Wal-Mart sells that are on the way to certification, that moves up to 50-60 percent. Globally, MSC certified stocks represent only 7 percent of the fish supply, but they are fast increasing -- and more importantly, putting increasing pressure on retailers to move in this direction.

With the USDA losing credibility, might a private regime similar to MSC's have more credibility in the meat market and with consumers? Will private certification schemes fill the humane vacuum? Or will we rely on assurances from the USDA that it will get things right?

- Samuel Fromartz

Fromartz Unplugged

In case you're wondering, we've entered a Net detox program for a couple of weeks this summer. Instead of blogging, we're in the mountains eating good food, reading books, having conversations, running up and down mountain trails and generally enjoying ourselves. We're only at step five of the detox program (and this post put us back a step) so it'll be a couple of more weeks. Believe me, it's great.

Enjoy your summer!

Samuel Fromartz

Should Organic Livestock Have Access to Antibiotics?

By Samuel Fromartz

Hue Karreman, a prominent veterinarian who works with organic dairy farmers in Pennsylvania, has published a highly provocative essay on NewFarm.org arguing that organic livestock farmers should consider the use of antibiotics in rare instances – a practice currently banned by organic regulations.

"In essence, when it comes to an individual animal needing truly prompt, effective treatment for a serious infection on an organic farm, the US organic rule may compromise animal welfare," he writes.

His argument opens up a Pandora's box in organics, since the label for so long has been associated with "antibiotic and hormone-free" production methods. Surveys show those labels are a major reason organic milk is so popular with consumers. It is growing at about 20 percent a year.

While I don't expect the prohibition on antibiotics to change soon, Karreman makes an interesting argument – and one not particularly new. (He made the same point when I was working on my book and I include it in chapter 6.)

The main issue with antibiotics is their overuse, which allows bugs to build up resistance. This renders the drugs impotent in humans as well. But Karreman finds the one-time or rare use of the medicine distinctly different from the regular "sub-therapeutic" use of the drugs in livestock production, which is the main cause of rampant overuse.

One reason these therapies are so popular in conventional farming is that the animals suffer from diseases associated with confinement, or a poor diet. The low-forage diet in feedlot beef production, for example, increases the fat content in the muscle, but it also raises the chance of acidosis - or stomach acidity - which in turn is associated with disease. One way to reduce those diseases is to administer low levels of antibiotics, a common practice.

Ideally, organic animals avoid those pitfalls by grazing an adequate amount of time on fresh grass and avoiding the stress of a high-production regime. (Organic dairy cows, for example, produce less milk than conventional animals).

But what happens when an organic animal gets an infection? Currently, under organic production rules, the farmer is required to treat the animal with approved methods (that include herbal remedies, homeopathy, even acupuncture, all of which can be quite successful). But if the animal does not respond to approved therapies, the animal must be given antibiotics and then removed from the organic farm. They can never return.

Karreman believes this end-result puts farmers in a bind. The animal may suffer if the farmer waits to see whether it can heel without antibiotics, yet, if they administer the drug right away they must sell the animal. "Who is to say what medication will be used and when will it be started in the disease process?" He asks.

The issue this raises, of course, is whether organic milk will be able to maintain its distinct identity in the marketplace if antibiotics are allowed.

And like other parts of the organic regulations, would opening the door to rare use of antibiotics invite more extreme practices, such as the sub-therapeutic use that is so objectionable? If you consider the ways the rules have been bent on issues like grazing, that is not unlikely.

Karreman has been one of the few, if not the only one within the organic industry, to stick his head on this issue and make this proposal. At the very least, he faces an uphill battle.