U.S. Sen. Cory Booker speaking with attendees at the 2019 California Democratic Party State Convention at the George R. Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, California on June 1. Gage Skidmore / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0
New Jersey senator and presidential hopeful Cory Booker put forth the Farm System Reform Act of 2019, in recognition of the environmental impact of industrial agriculture, which would put a stop to any new factory farms, as The Hill reported.
<p>The bill will reform the agriculture system by breaking up monopolistic practices in the industry and holding large corporate farms accountable for the environmental impacts of their practices, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474685-booker-proposes-moratorium-on-expanding-large-factory-farms" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p>
<p>The proposal takes particular aim at <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming" rel="noopener noreferrer">factory farms</a>, or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are notorious for their detrimental environmental impacts, as well as the inhumane treatment of animals. Not only would the bill ban any new CAFOs, but it requires phasing existing ones out by 2040, according to the <a href="https://whistleblower.org/blog/senate-bill-to-overhaul-concentrated-animal-feeding-operations/" target="_blank">Government Accountability Project</a>. The bill will allocate $100 billion over a decade to entice farmers who want to transition out of running CAFOs.</p>
<p>CAFOs are known to generate an enormous amount of manure and waste, which frequently contaminates nearby <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/groundwater" rel="noopener noreferrer">groundwater</a>. They are also known to give farmers little freedom to change since farmers are often handcuffed by binding contracts with large corporations. The Department of Agriculture defines a CAFO as having 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 125,000 chickens or 82,000 laying hens, as <a href="https://modernfarmer.com/2019/12/cory-booker-announces-legislation-to-scale-back-factory-farms/" target="_blank">Modern Farmer</a> reported. </p>
<p>Sen. Cory Booker's proposal aims to hold corporations responsible for pollution and other harm caused by their factory farm suppliers, even though the factory farms are independently owned and in a contract with the large corporations, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474685-booker-proposes-moratorium-on-expanding-large-factory-farms" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p>
<p>"Our independent family farmers and ranchers are continuing to be squeezed by large, multinational corporations that, because of their buying power and size, run roughshod over the marketplace. We need to fix the broken system – that means protecting family farmers and ranchers and holding corporate integrators responsible for the harm they are causing," said Booker, in a <a href="https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1036" target="_blank">statement</a> put out by his office. "Large factory farms are harmful to rural communities, public health, and the environment and we must immediately begin to transition to a more sustainable and humane system."</p>
<p>Booker's <a href="https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1036" target="_blank">statement</a> cited data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention that found large CAFOs produce as much as 1.4 billion tons of waste each year, but don't need to maintain a waste treatment facility. Their steady dramatic increase in numbers recently put rural communities at risk of severe environmental hazards and threatens the viability of family farms.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the crowded conditions of livestock means antibiotics have been overused, leading to the spread of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/antibiotic-resistance" rel="noopener noreferrer">antibiotic resistant bacteria</a>. That phenomenon pushed the American Public Health Association to urge federal, state and local governments as well as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" rel="noopener noreferrer">public health</a> agencies to impose a moratorium on all new and expanding CAFOs last month, according to Booker's <a href="https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1036" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p>
<p>"Senator Booker's Farm System Reform Act pushes back on the concentration of animal production and the devastating impact that has had on our rural communities," said Randy Dugger, Indiana Farmers Union Vice President, in a <a href="https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1036" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Independent family farmers deserve an opportunity to be prosperous again. By providing fairness and transparency in the market, along with a significant investment to help those trapped in a broken system to get out, this bill can make a huge difference."</p>
<p>The bill also calls for restoring country-of-origin labeling for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/beef" rel="noopener noreferrer">beef</a> and pork and expand to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dairy" rel="noopener noreferrer">dairy</a> products. It would tighten labeling regulations so consumers know where meat was grown, slaughtered and processed, which would stop the Department of Agriculture from labeling imported meat as "Product of USA." Currently, meat grown, slaughtered and processed in Brazil, but packaged in the USA can be labeled as Product of USA, as <a href="https://modernfarmer.com/2019/12/cory-booker-announces-legislation-to-scale-back-factory-farms/" target="_blank">Modern Farmer</a> reported. </p>
<p>"I have seen first-hand how hard it is to challenge the multinational corporations who control the meat industry," said Mike Callicrate, a Kansas rancher in a <a href="https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1036" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Farmers and ranchers need a marketplace that compensates them fairly and Senator Booker's Farm System Reform Act is a big step in the right direction. Things like country of origin labeling on meat, updates to the Packers and Stockyards Act, and resources to get folks out of a system that is bankrupting them will make a big difference."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Factory Farms Pollute the Environment and Poison Drinking Water ... ›
- Latest Agriculture Emissions Data Show Rise of Factory Farms ... ›
- If Factory Farm Conditions Are Unhealthy for Animals, They're Bad ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
World Must Reach 'Peak Meat' by 2030 to Fight Climate Crisis, Scientists Say
13 December 2019
Climate
A group of scientists is warning that livestock production must not expand after 2030 for the world to stave off ecological disaster.
A <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30245-1/fulltext" target="_blank">letter</a> published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/home" target="_blank">Lancet Planetary Health</a>, signed by more than 50 leading scientists in the field, calls for meat production to peak by 2030, after which governments need firm commitments to stop expanding livestock production, to reduce the most resource-intensive livestock production, and to start "replacing livestock with foods that simultaneously minimize environmental burdens and maximize public health benefits—mainly pulses (including beans, peas, and lentils), grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds."
<p><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"></a>The scientists warn that a coordinated effort from the world's governments to identify and reduce the largest sources of emissions is needed to reduce the risk of global temperatures exceeding the "safe" limit of 1.5-2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/world/peak-meat-2030-lancet-intl-scli-scn/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>"The reduction we need means we need deep transformation in every sector," said Helen Harwatt, an environmental social scientist at Harvard Law School and lead author of the letter, to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/world/peak-meat-2030-lancet-intl-scli-scn/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "To reduce to 1.5 C, we need to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. We're suggesting agriculture transitions to optimal systems, and that's plant-based."</p><p>In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, it's important to cut back on methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that cattle and sheep notoriously emit during digestion. </p><p> Furthermore, carbon-capturing forests are destroyed to create room for livestock and to grow grains for intensively raised animals, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. More than 80 percent of farmland is used to raise livestock, but it produces just 18 percent of calories. </p><p>Researchers have found that the best way to store large amounts of carbon is to reduce <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat">meat</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dairy" rel="noopener noreferrer">dairy</a> intake and for people to shift to a plant-based diet so land is returned to forest, according to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>"If the livestock sector were to continue with business as usual, this sector alone would account for 49 percent of the emissions budget for 1.5°C by 2030, requiring other sectors to reduce emissions beyond a realistic or planned level," the scientists wrote in their <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30245-1/fulltext" target="_blank">letter</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30245-1/fulltext" target="_blank">letter</a> notes that decreasing livestock production will reduce the carbon footprint left by animal husbandry. The UN estimates that raising animals for meat accounts for nearly 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is twice as much as the fashion industry, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-must-hit-peak-meat-by-2030-to-avoid-climate-change-crisis-scientists-say/" target="_blank">CBS News</a>. </p>
<p>"Ruminant meat is 10 to 100 times more damaging to the climate than plant-based food," said Pete Smith, at the University of Aberdeen, UK, a senior author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on land use and climate change, to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "As a planet, we need to transition away from a dependence on livestock, just as we need to transition away from fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of hitting the goals of the Paris climate agreement. Livestock numbers need to peak very soon and thereafter decline substantially."</p>
<p>The scientists also pointed out that the land being used to raise cattle is needed to fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>. A growing body of research has found that trees are one of the best weapons we have to capture excess carbon. A <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76?hwshib2=authn%3A1562396078%3A20190704%3Ac3ad5971-c185-4942-9acd-92aa24c51c06%3A0%3A0%3A0%3AS1lvoYPtq07c7tMzRommqA%3D%3D" target="_blank">study</a> published in July found that planting 500 billion trees, which we have the space to do if we reduce land used for livestock, can remove nearly two-thirds of the CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-planting-trees-2639092782.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Food demand is expected to increase massively as our population expands toward 10 billion," said professor Matthew Betts at Oregon State University and another author of the letter, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/12/peak-meat-climate-crisis-livestock-meat-dairy">The Guardian</a> reported. "Reducing human demand for resource-intensive animal protein would considerably slow the rate of global forest loss, with huge benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services, in addition to carbon storage."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Anne-Sophie Brändlin
October 16 marks World Food Day this year, a day celebrated every year by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
World Food Day is a call to make healthy and sustainable diets affordable and accessible for everyone, while nurturing the planet at the same time.
<p>But how can this be achieved?</p><p>One way, according to a new study, would be to introduce different ways for countries across the world to adapt their diets.</p><p>Researchers at the U.S. based Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future looked at diets in 140 countries across the world and measured the ecological impact of their food production in order to identify ways to mitigate climate change.</p><p>The study, called <a href="https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-09/country-specific-dietary-shifts-mitigate-climate-and-water-crises.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crise</em><em>s</em></a> found that an important first step would be to shift Europe and the United States away from a diet heavy in meat and dairy.</p><p>But study co-author, Martin Bloem, notes that the solutions needed are not one-size-fits-all.</p><p>"The situation for poorer countries is not the same as for high-income countries and the solutions for high-income countries are much more straight-forward," Bloem said.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/world-food-day-how-changes-in-our-diet-can-help-mitigate-climate-change/a-50796472" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5OTYzNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTY5MjM1NH0.t8i2qDgacEVw-iTHCYMxos1MzJITHNt3-rhzqFyZfX4/img.jpg?width=980" id="4cfbc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c739bf4332c8f07bfef8e5495a2ca32f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Why Meat and Dairy Are Bad for the Climate
<p>Livestock are responsible for almost 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/" target="_blank">FAO</a>.</p><p>Cattle is the biggest culprit. Raised for both beef and milk, cows represent about 65 percent of the livestock sector's emissions, followed by pork (9 percent), buffalo milk (8 percent), and poultry and eggs (8 percent).</p><p>A byproduct of cow digestion is methane (CH4) and accounts for the majority of livestock emissions. The greenhouse gas is estimated to be at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.</p><p>But livestock production is also responsible for other greenhouse gas emissions, such as nitrous oxide (N20) and carbon dioxide (CO2), mainly through the production of their feed, which often involves large applications of nitrogen-based fertilizers.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5OTYzOC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTIxNTgyOX0.8F1SHHSaID2I5npqGimiUuE48Gm07i4YFeYXefmCcUY/img.png?width=980" id="d7c92" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a607bc1060e3439bbc0d90f560485117" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />The Opposite Approach to Combat Hunger?
<p>But with over 800 million people still going hungry every day, impact on the climate cannot be the only guide for what people eat, the study points out.</p><p>Animal source foods, specifically milk and eggs, are in fact a valuable source of protein and nutrients like calcium, which are especially important for young children and pregnant women.</p><p><em>Read more: </em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-struggling-to-eradicate-malnutrition-in-children/a-49294026" target="_blank">Pakistan struggling to eradicate malnutrition in children</a></p><p>"Some countries, such as Indonesia, India and most of the African countries may actually need to dramatically increase their greenhouse gas emissions and water use, because they have to combat hunger and stunting," Bloem said.</p><p>In these countries, there is still a 40 percent rate of stunting, a side effect of undernutrition that results in lower than average growth in children.</p><p>Stunting also has a major, long-term impact on the cognitive abilities of the children.</p><p>"It's irreversible by the age of two, so stunting has huge implications for the human capital in those countries. That's why it's very critical that we prevent stunting and we need animal source foods for that," Bloem said. "We cannot keep that out of the equation when talking about climate protection." </p><p>Another solution, according to Bloem, would be to fortify certain products, like cereal. This would help reduce the need to get nutrients through animal products. It's a practice already in use in many developed countries, but so far hasn't been applied in many poorer countries.</p>Fish Could Make All the Difference
<p>Diets in which protein came predominantly from low food chain animals – such as small fish and mollusks – were found to have nearly as low of an environmental impact as a vegan diet.</p><p>"Small fish are really critical for poor people, particularly in Africa and Asia, as that's one of the main sources for protein and calcium, because the milk intake is very low in those countries," Bloem said.</p><p>"But 80% of all the fish produced nowadays actually comes from Asia and is imported in Europe and the US. And the feed for some of these bigger fish we import are actually those smaller fish, which means the poorer people have no more access to this vital source of protein and calcium." </p><p>Researchers also determined that a diet that reduced animal food consumption by two-thirds – termed by study authors as going "two-thirds vegan" – generally had a lower climate and water footprint than vegetarian diets that included eggs and diary, but not fish.</p>Where You Get Your Food From Matters
<p>Researchers also found that local production wasn't always the best way to go from a climate perspective.</p><p>The production of one pound (0.45 kilograms) of beef in Paraguay, for instance, contributes nearly 17 times more greenhouse gases than one pound of beef produced in Denmark. Often, this disparity came from deforestation to create grazing land, according to the study.</p><p>"So a food's country of origin can have enormous consequences for the climate," Bloem said.</p><p>"In Europe the soil is much more fertile, for instance, which makes the production there more efficient. So trade could actually be good for the climate if food is produced in places where the climate impact is the lowest," Bloem said, adding that this is the case even when emissions from transportation are factored in.</p><p>The study concludes that middle- and low-income countries need to be guided and supported by developed countries to avoid environmental mistakes the planet is already paying for. </p><p>"It needs to be a close collaboration between developed and developing countries. It's a joint problem. We are all in this together," Bloem said.</p><p>Another way industrialized countries could reduce their impact on the climate is <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/fighting-climate-change-by-tackling-food-waste/a-48384916" target="_blank">reducing food waste</a> — one-third of all food produced worldwide ends up in the bin, with Europeans on average throwing away 95 kilograms (209 lbs) of food per person, per year. In low-income African countries south of the Sahara, it's only 6 kilograms (13 lbs).</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTk5OTY0OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODE4NDE2Mn0.uQPcuPUg8AcuSSDvgd87IJOJRFtn6bLm_MBs7P4yJJQ/img.png?width=980" id="3a3ed" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d80706920d88c1ee328e8b9ea51cb4d9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Context Is Key
<p>But despite the findings, one key conclusion of the report is that there aren't always straight-forward answers, according to Bloem.</p><p>"That's why we conducted analyses in all these different countries so that you can see what the most optimal way is for each individual country – but also the entire world to deal with diets and health criteria, as well as climate and sustainability," he said.</p><p>In the end, the study came up with nine plant-forward diets, ranging from no red meat to pescatarian (a vegetarian diet that includes seafood), lacto-ovo vegetarian (a vegetarian diet that includes dairy and eggs), to vegan, which are to be presented to policymakers in each country.</p><p>At the same time, the study urges people in the Western world to do more. </p><p>Baby boomers in the developed world, for instance, on average spend less than 10% of their income on food, while the same generation in countries like Nigeria, Kenya or Bangladesh spends 50 to 60% of their income on food, according to Bloem.</p><p>"For us in the Western world, we can pay more for our food so that we can pay for the unintended consequences."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Going Vegan Is the Best Thing You Can Do for the Planet, New ... ›
- 6 Pressing Questions About Beef and Climate Change, Answered ... ›
- Shift to Vegetarian Diets Is Needed to Save the World, Climate ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Controversial Study Dismisses Public Health Risks of Meat Consumption
01 October 2019
Health + Wellness
Pexels
It has long been a public health truism that limiting meat consumption is better for your body. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Cancer Research Fund both say red or processed meat can cause cancer, as Reuters noted. But a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine Tuesday argued that this might not be the case.
<p>"Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease," Bradley Johnson, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada and a co-leader of the study, said, as Reuters reported.</p>
<div id="c2d74" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OG8V011576661385"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1178776713171480576" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Free in Annals today: Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From t… https://t.co/jbUJwPuPhm</div> — Annals of Int Med (@Annals of Int Med)<a href="https://twitter.com/AnnalsofIM/statuses/1178776713171480576">1569877243.0</a></blockquote></div><p>To reach this conclusion, a team of 14 researchers in seven countries spent three years reviewing studies of the link between the consumption of red or processed meat and heart disease or cancer, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR1rxtOebw4ApvB0Yp326JrJsfn2Pv1emvMo-Al9FxSrSOgpHD0wdglEQao" target="_blank">The New York Times explained</a>.</p><p>Their three reviews of the evidence covered randomized trials of 54,000 people and observational studies covering millions, according to The New York Times and Reuters. They concluded that the randomized trials showed no statistically significant link between meat consumption and diabetes, heart disease or cancer. The observational studies showed "a very small reduction in risk" for those who ate less red or processed meat, but observational studies are a weaker form of evidence than random trials, as The New York Times explained:</p><blockquote>At the heart of the debate is a dispute over nutritional research itself, and whether it's possible to ascertain the effects of just one component of the diet. The gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, in which one group of participants is assigned one drug or diet, and another is assigned a different intervention or a placebo.<br><br>But asking people to stick to a diet assigned by a flip of a coin, and to stay with it long enough to know if it affects the risk for heart attack or cancer, is nearly impossible.<br><br>The alternative is an observational study: Investigators ask people what they eat and look for links to health. But it can be hard to know what people really are eating, and people who eat a lot of meat are different in many other ways from those who eat little or none.</blockquote><p>The researchers concluded that adults could continue to consume red and processed meat at their current levels.</p><p>Many public health experts pushed back against the new findings.</p><p>"From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence," Dr. Frank Hu and colleagues at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health wrote on the <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/" target="_blank">school's website</a>.</p>
<div id="dd100" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0BDZYF1576661385"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1178789558520909824" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">A closer look at the science behind those new "guidelines" on red and processed meat. https://t.co/TxCZSnVA8Y</div> — The Nutrition Source (@The Nutrition Source)<a href="https://twitter.com/HSPHnutrition/statuses/1178789558520909824">1569880306.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Because of the difficulty of conducting randomized trials for a variety of public health issues, they argued in part that dismissing high-quality observational studies as weak evidence would make it difficult to support things like the benefits of exercise or the harm caused by air pollution.</p><p>University of Reading nutrition and food science professor Gunter Kuhnle agreed that it was wrong to dismiss the observational evidence entirely.</p><p>"The data clearly shows that the while the association between meat and cancer does not have to be addressed urgently, it should not be ignored," he told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "Small dietary changes can mitigate the effect of red and processed meat on cancer risk, for example a high-fibre diet."</p><p>The Harvard response also faulted the study for setting aside a major problem with meat consumption: its impact on the planet. Meat and dairy account for about 14.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, The New York Times pointed out. A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cut-beef-consumption-help-environment--2639232980.html" target="_self">recent study</a> found that people in the U.S. should cut their beef consumption by 40 percent in order to feed a growing world population without exhausting the earth's resources.</p><p>"This is a missed opportunity because <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a> and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual health," the Harvard nutritionists wrote.</p><p>But others who agreed with the new study's findings on the personal health level acknowledged that there were other reasons to cut down on red and processed meats.</p><p>Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain's Quadram Institute of bioscience, told Reuters he hoped the study would "discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that 'bacon is killing us'," but he also said that eating less meat could have health and other benefits.</p><p>"There are (also) strong environmental and ethical arguments for reducing meat consumption in the modern world," he said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Even 'Moderate' Consumption of Red and Processed Meat ... ›
- Cut Beef Consumption in Half to Help Save the Earth, Says New Study ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Meat-eaters put a lot of faith in USDA inspection facilities, which are often overwhelmed by an endless flow of animals ready for slaughter to meet our seemingly endless demand for meat.
<p>Cutting back on meat has tremendous <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cut-beef-consumption-help-environment--2639232980.html" target="_self">benefits for the environment</a>. And, it may keep you safe from food-borne illnesses when there's a slip-up at a processing plant like the one that happened recently in Chino, CA.</p>
<div id="c6041" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0GZWR01576661502"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1153379430766653440" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#NowReading - Cut beef consumption in half to help save the earth, says new study https://t.co/7ZMc557NNT via… https://t.co/Rm7NaPdY8Q</div> — World Resources Inst (@World Resources Inst)<a href="https://twitter.com/WorldResources/statuses/1153379430766653440">1563822059.0</a></blockquote></div><p>American Beef Packers Inc., recalled nearly 25,000 pounds of raw beef that are not safe to eat last weekend, according to a <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-089-2019-release" target="_blank">statement</a> from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.<br></p><p>Inspectors at the facility pulled a possibly contaminated carcass off of the production line and took a few samples for testing. While they were waiting for the results to come back, the questionable carcass was released into the production line where it was butchered into various cuts and ground meat mix, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/05/health/beef-recall-aug-31-wellness-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. </p><p>The wholesale distributor sent the questionable meats out to various places in California and Oregon, according to the USDA.</p>
<p>Anyone in those states who buys beef should look for establishment number "EST. 34741" inside the USDA mark of inspection, the USDA said.</p>
<p>While there are no confirmed cases of illnesses due to this batch of meat, the USDA is concerned that some of it is in the fridges and freezers of people in California and Oregon. The Food Safety and Inspection Service urges people who have bought beef recently <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/8ac77cc3-2f87-428d-b88e-0d82e09fa20e/089-2019-Labels.pdf?MOD=AJPERES" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">to check</a> the label for EST. 34741 and, if it is found, either throw it away or return it to the store where it was bought, according to its <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-089-2019-release" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, another massive recall was underway when Tyson recalled nearly 40,000 pounds of its Weaver chicken patties after some consumers found pieces of rubber in their meal, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyson-foods-recall/tyson-recalls-nearly-40000-pounds-of-weaver-chicken-patties-idUSKCN1V61PL" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. </p>
<p>In that instance, the USDA labeled the recall as Class 1, the strictest classification of recall where the product may cause serious harm or death. The USDA classification rubric says of a Class 1 recall, "This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death."</p>
<p>Tyson, the country's largest meat processor, did not say how many customers found rubber in their food. Nor did it disclose how the rubber from the machines used for processing slipped into the patties, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyson-foods-recall/tyson-recalls-nearly-40000-pounds-of-weaver-chicken-patties-idUSKCN1V61PL" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>That recall followed one just a few months earlier of 12-million pounds of frozen ready-to-eat chicken strips, which may have been contaminated. </p>
<div id="13367" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="THDI3Y1576661502"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1114179958237204481" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">One more reason to leave out buying burgers for you summer BBQ.
https://t.co/PwKWagOQNP</div> — Ecogreenlabs (@Ecogreenlabs)<a href="https://twitter.com/ecogreenlabs/statuses/1114179958237204481">1554476177.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Soft, Purple Plastic' Found in Beef Patties Leads to Recall of 20,000 ... ›
- Tyson, Perdue Recall More Than 120,000 Pounds of Chicken ... ›
- Tyson Foods Recalls Nearly 70,000 Pounds of Chicken Strips After ... ›
- Tyson Foods Recalls Almost 200,000 Pounds of Chicken Fritters ... ›
- Tyson Recalls Almost 12 Million Pounds of Chicken Strips After 3 ... ›
- Nearly 43,000 Pounds of Ground Beef Recalled Over E. Coli Fears - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Impossible Foods
- More restaurant chains are turning to faux-meat options.
- But experts say just because it's not meat, doesn't mean it's significantly healthier.
- In general, diets lower in meat can be healthier. But faux-meat products can have high sodium levels.
Burger King has the Impossible Whopper. Carl's Jr. has their Beyond Famous Star. KFC even introduced a plant-based chicken-like product — and sold out in 5 hours.
<p>It seems, either for the sake of following a trend or for the purpose of offering alternatives to more diverse consumers, many fast-food brands are hopping on the train of plant-based meats. Grocery stores are even seeing an influx of meat-like, plant-based options on their shelves.</p><p>The bet on faux meat is paying off for companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, two of the larger purveyors of these plant-based products. Some economic forecasters predict these companies will be bringing in well over <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/alternative-meat-to-become-140-billion-industry-barclays-says.html" target="_blank">$100 billion</a> in just about a decade. Even <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tyson-challenges-beyond-meat-with-plant-based-product-2019-6" target="_blank">Tyson Foods</a> thinks they can turn their <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption" rel="noopener noreferrer">non-meat foods</a> into big business.</p><p>But for all the hype and glam of these meat alternatives, there's a very real reason companies are trying to encourage consumers to replace their beefy burgers with green ones: Research suggests they're healthier, in the long run, for both humans and the planet.</p><p>Can these plant-based foods deliver the promise of healthier, longer lives, a smaller footprint, and big, delicious flavor? We asked experts to weigh in for us.</p><h2>Meat vs. plant: Which is better for longer lives?</h2><p>Many large-scale, comprehensive studies have looked at the question of who lives longer: people who eat predominately plants, or people who eat an omnivore diet with meat.</p><p>And the results have been pretty one-sided.</p><p>For example, one <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/" target="_blank">study</a> of more than 73,000 individuals found that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegetarian" rel="noopener noreferrer">vegetarian diets</a> were linked to lower rates of premature death. Plus, death because of certain medical conditions — like cardiovascular disease and kidney disease — were lower in vegetarians compared to nonvegetarians.</p><p>The study's authors also noted that, "Associations in men were larger and more often significant than were those in women," which suggests men who eat a vegetarian or plant-based diet may see even more benefit than women who shun meat and animal products.</p><p>More recently, a study found that people who eat vegetarian and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegan" rel="noopener noreferrer">vegan</a> diets have a lower incidence of all types of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923" target="_blank">cancer</a>. Meat, on the other hand, is commonly linked to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507972/" target="_blank">increased rates</a> of cancer.</p><p>"Processed meats are clear class-one carcinogens, along the same level as cigarettes, as determined by the World Health Organization," said <a href="https://mdmercy.com/centers-of-excellence/additional-centers/primary-care-physicians/find-a-primary-care-doctor/primary-care-doctors/dana-simpler-md?sc_lang=en" target="_blank">Dr. Dana Simpler</a>, primary care practitioner at Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore.</p><p>Plus, research confirms that people who eat a plant-based diet have a lower risk for <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6307547/" target="_blank">hypertension</a>, diabetes, and heart disease. Plant-based eating may also help with weight loss, and people with some chronic diseases, like <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479237" target="_blank">rheumatoid arthritis</a>, may see improvements in symptoms by following a plant-based diet.</p><p>"Unlike a meat-based diet, which has been shown in several studies to be associated with different diseases, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease, a plant-based diet has a number of benefits, including lower body weight, decreased risk of cancer, and a reduction in risk of death from ischemic heart disease — a restriction in blood supply to tissues, causing shortage of oxygen," <a href="https://drmicrobiome.com/" target="_blank">Mahmoud Ghannoum</a>, PhD, author of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Total-Gut-Balance-Healthier-Mycobiome/dp/1682683680" target="_blank">Total Gut Balance</a>," told Healthline.</p><p>"Another <a href="https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S246826671830135X" target="_blank">study</a> published in 2018 involving more than 15,000 adults over 25 years found that animal foods high in protein and fat, such as lamb, beef, pork, and chicken were associated with a higher risk for premature death, while plant foods including vegetables, nuts, peanut butter, and whole-grain breads were associated with a lower risk for premature death," said Cyrus Khambatta, PhD, co-founder of <a href="https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/" target="_blank">Mastering Diabetes</a> and co-author of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Diabetes-Revolutionary-Permanently-Prediabetes-ebook/dp/B07TRJJHN2" target="_blank">Mastering Diabetes</a>."</p><p>Despite these findings, a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6307547/" target="_blank">report</a> out earlier this year points to a systemic problem within the American dietary mindset: Many know a move from meat to plants would be healthier for nearly everyone, but few are heeding the message.</p><p>"We must ask ourselves why this is the case, given the numerous advantages and health benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet," the researchers wrote.</p><p>That, it seems, is the challenge for dietitians and doctors alike.</p><h2>So, should you swap?</h2><p>When it comes down to the matter of nutrition, the Beyond Burger, Impossible Burger, and other plant-based meat-like alternatives just aren't that much different than their meaty twins — at least in terms of numbers.</p><p>"Since a meat-based diet poses a number of health risks, the perception is that consuming a meat-like alternative is a healthy swap. In this regard, eating plant-based meat is quite safe and makes sense," Ghannoum said. "However, these meat alternatives are processed food, and like other processed foods are not as healthy as eating fresh vegetables."</p><p>Salt and fat are a particular concern because many manufacturers add these ingredients for the sake of flavor. The addition of oils, for flavor and moisture, makes many of these not ideal for someone with diabetes or heart disease, Simpler says.</p><p>"The Beyond Burger has just as much saturated fat as meat," said <a href="http://www.wholesomeendeavors.com/" target="_blank">Hannah Koschak</a>, RD, CD. "However, the Beyond Burger has 3 grams of fiber, which is beneficial."</p><p>But in the benefit column for the fake meats is the absence of a particular type of fat, Koschak says. "Meat has naturally occurring trans fats, which should be avoided as much as possible. However, imitation meat does not have trans fats."</p><p>Simpler added, "Also, soy protein isolates are so highly processed that they mimic the effects of animal protein in the body. So, it is important to pay attention to ingredients and avoid products with a lot of oil or soy protein isolates.</p><p>"What's more, some of these plant-based patties have more sodium than ground beef, which is naturally lower in sodium. An ounce of ground beef has about <a href="https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2" target="_blank">20 milligrams of sodium</a>, or about 70 milligrams for a 3-ounce cooked patty. A Beyond Burger has nearly <a href="https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/" target="_blank">400 milligrams</a>. High sodium intake is a risk factor for heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases that are a leading cause of death in America.</p><p>So when it comes to the reason many people make the swap from meat — for their health — the switch from ground beef patties to plant-based look-a-likes does have more benefits than drawbacks, Koschak says. But it's not the real switch to plant-based eating that many health advocates have been pitching for decades.</p><p>"No, it is not more nutritious by any means. However, health-wise, they are a better option than meat," she said.</p><h2>The bottom line</h2><p>The experts Healthline spoke with agreed that any move toward a plant-based diet is a move in the right direction.</p><p>"These meat-like alternatives represent a short-term step towards eating less animal foods, but may not be a good long-term strategy to reduce the risk for future health complications," Khambatta said.</p><p>But ultimately, the goal for anyone looking to extend their lifespan and reduce their risk of diet-related health complications is to move entirely to a diet focused on unprocessed plants.</p><p>However, the occasional faux-meat burger gets a thumbs up from these experts, as the look-a-like meats have some flaws but are, as a whole, still healthier than the real thing.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/will-impossible-whopper-over-beef-help-you-live-longer#The-bottom-line" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- The Beef With the GMO Impossible Burger - EcoWatch ›
- Burger King's 'Impossible' Whopper Has No Beef — Does This Make ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
This map highlights by geographic region the leading underlying driver of food loss and waste. WRI analysis based on FAO (2011) and HLPE (2014)
The UN set a global goal to cut food loss and waste in half by 2030. Alarming figures show just how big of a challenge remains.
<p>Nearly a third of all food produced in the world goes uneaten each year — an amount that costs the global economy $940 billion and emits 8 percent of planet-warming greenhouse gases. At the same time, 1 in 9 people is undernourished.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/10-step-plan-world-cut-food-loss-and-waste-half-2030" target="_blank">World Resources Institute</a>.</em><br/></p>
<p>A massive challenge requires massive action. A <a href="https://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-food-loss-and-waste-setting-global-action-agenda" target="_blank">new report</a> by the World Resources Institute‚ and produced with support from The Rockefeller Foundation, and in partnership with United Nations Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Iowa State University, The University of Maryland's Ed Snider Center, The Consortium for Innovation in Postharvest Loss and Food Waste Reduction, Wageningen University and Research, and WRAP — lays out a Global Action Agenda to overcome the world's food loss and waste problem.</p><p>Simply put, this Global Action Agenda calls on governments, companies, farmers, consumers, and everyone in between to play their role in a three-pronged approach:</p><ul><li><strong>Target-Measure-Act</strong>: Set food loss and waste reduction targets, measure to identify hotspots of food loss and waste and to monitor progress over time, and take action on the hotspots.</li><li><strong>"To do" list:</strong> Pursue a short to-do list we've identified per player in the food supply chain as "no regret" first steps toward taking action.</li><li><strong>10 scaling interventions</strong>: Collaborate in 10 areas to ramp up deployment of Target-Measure-Act and the "to do" list.</li></ul>
10 Ways to Scale Action
<p>To accelerate momentum, here are 10 interventions that can rapidly spur deployment of a Target Measure Act approach and actor-specific actions.</p><h4>1. Develop national strategies for food loss and waste reduction.</h4><p>Only a handful of nations have established strategies to reduce food loss and waste, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Ethiopia. National strategies help align public policies, private sector actions, farmer practices and consumer behavior toward a shared goal, so it's critical that more nations create strategies to halve food loss and waste.</p><h4>2. Create national public-private partnerships.</h4><p>Reducing food loss and waste requires action across the entire food supply chain as well as supportive public policies. No single institution can drive a 50% economy-wide reduction on its own. Public-private partnerships have an emerging track record, having launched in countries like the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. In the UK, the Courtauld Commitment has been signed by 53 retailers, who have committed to measure and reduce food waste. If such partnerships emerged in the following countries, then 20 of the world's largest agriculture exporters would be covered, representing 45 percent of the world's population: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, India, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Thailand and Turkey.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTA2Njc3MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzYyNjE4NH0.eaYxIQ1_k7f_D1SHkwAxiROgiMaIXGIwVdKebSZIY9M/img.jpg?width=980" id="746fe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c7addb2691c121e91fc0e202fa5f22a1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Thailand farmer rows boat laden with fruit and vegetables to market.
WRI / Flickr
<h4><br>3. Launch a "10x20x30" supply chain initiative.</h4><p>Food losses often occur during production and, especially in low-income countries, during handling and storage. Launching a private sector campaign where at least 10 of the largest food and agriculture companies commit to act and engage their 20 largest suppliers to do the same by 2030 (hence, 10x20x30) could have a big impact. This approach leverages the relative market concentration and power of a few companies to catalyze change across the supply chain and geographies. This intervention follows a model set by retail-giant Tesco, which has secured the commitment of 27 of its major suppliers to set targets, measure progress and act.</p><h4>4. Reduce smallholder losses.</h4><p>If we're to halve food losses, efforts to assist smallholders with productivity and efficiency need a big boost---especially in reaching smallholders in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, regions that lose an estimated 26% of their food during harvesting, handling and storage. Approaches include training farmers in reducing losses, creating access to markets for smallholders and improving storage solutions. For example, as part of The Rockefeller Foundation's YieldWise initiative, farmers growing tomatoes in Nigeria were trained in improved agronomic practices and access to aggregation centers, which reduced transport time to market. Following these interventions, losses were reduced by 54%.</p><h4>5. Launch a "decade of storage solutions."</h4><p>What if the 2020s became a decade of making food storage technologies ubiquitous, affordable and climate-friendly? Doing so would tackle a huge hotspot of food loss and waste in low-income countries, helping ensure more food makes it safely to market. Innovations in solar-powered coolers and "lease-to-own" financing arrangements for villages can help.</p><h4>6. Shift consumer social norms.</h4><p>Behavioral science tells us that increased knowledge of an issue alone does not necessarily translate into changed behavior. What successful initiatives like the UK's 'Love Food, Hate Waste' campaign have shown is that you must give people information and make it easy for them to change their behavior. That's why 'Love Food, Hate Waste' ran advertisements to raise awareness and worked with retailers to get rid of offers such as 'buy one get one free' that encourage over-buying as well as to print food storage information on food packaging, making it easier for people to waste less food. What's needed is for norms in high-income countries and cities everywhere to shift so that wasting food becomes unacceptable.</p><h4>7. Go after emissions reductions.</h4><p>Reducing food loss and waste is an underappreciated greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. By tackling food loss and waste from emissions-intensive <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/beef" target="_self">beef</a>, dairy and rice, these food sectors can reduce their impact on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate</a>. Another strategy is for countries to add food loss and waste reduction to their national climate plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). To date, fewer than a dozen countries have included food loss and waste reduction in their NDCs.</p><h4>8. Scale up financing.</h4><p>Many of the promising solutions to reduce food loss and waste need an influx in financing to take off. In 2016, The Rockefeller Foundation launched the $130 million YieldWise initiative to tackle food losses in Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania, and food waste in North America and Europe. In 2019, the World Bank launched a $300 million Sustainable Development Bond focused on food loss and waste reduction. More of such investments are needed by a wider suite of financiers, ranging from grants and blended finance to venture capital and commercial investments.</p><h4>9. Overcome the data deficit.</h4><p>Without more and better data to understand the scale and scope of the food loss and waste challenge, we risk not being able to identify hotspots, hone reduction strategies and monitor progress. Over the next five years, the world needs a concentrated push to measure the quantity of food loss and waste in a more consistent way so that data is comparable.</p><h4>10. Advance the research agenda.</h4><p>Public and private research institutions have an important role, helping answer questions that will allow the world to refine strategies for reducing food loss and waste. These are questions like: Which solutions are showing the best return on investment? What technologies are most promising? What can behavioral science tell us about how to shift social norms when it comes to food waste? And what types of infrastructure do farmers in low-income countries need to reduce on-farm and near-farm losses? </p>There Are Enormous Benefits to Reducing Food Loss and Waste
<p>Successfully halving food loss and waste would bring enormous benefits. It would close the gap between food needed in 2050 and food available in 2010 by more than 20 percent. It would avoid the need to convert an area the size of Argentina into agricultural land. And it would lower greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 gigatons per year by 2050, an amount more than the current energy and industry related emissions of Japan.</p><p>The size of the prize is huge. So, too, must be the action to seize it.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Food Waste Set to Increase by 33 Percent Within 10 Years - EcoWatch ›
- How to Make a Change for Stop Food Waste Day - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Drug-Resistant Salmonella Linked to Overuse of Antibiotics in Cattle Farming
23 August 2019
Health + Wellness
Salmonella bacteria, a common cause of foodborne disease, invade an immune cell.
National Institude of Allergy and Infectious Disease
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned Thursday of a drug-resistant strain of salmonella newport linked to the overuse of antibiotics in cattle farming.
<p>The strain sickened 255 people in 32 states between June 2018 and March 2019, leading to 60 hospitalizations and two deaths, the agency wrote in its <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6833a1.htm?s_cid=mm6833a1_w" target="_blank">Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report</a>. And the strain is still making people sick, lead report author and CDC epidemiologist Dr. Ian Plumb told <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/22/health/drug-resistant-salmonella-cdc-warning/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p>
<div id="19865" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ZAG1KL1576661573"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1164591825346342914" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New @CDCMMWR: Learn about #Salmonella Newport infections in the US that are resistant to some common #antibiotics a… https://t.co/nBYacDhQLO</div> — CDC (@CDC)<a href="https://twitter.com/CDCgov/statuses/1164591825346342914">1566495302.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"We are continuing to see cases occurring among patients," Plumb told CNN in an email. "The antibiotic resistance pattern of this strain is alarming because the primary oral antibiotics used to treat patients with this type of salmonella infection may not work."</p><p>Plumb told <a href="https://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/salmonella-news-775/cdc-warns-of-drug-resistant-salmonella-in-beef-cheese-749591.html" target="_blank">HealthDay Reporter</a> that the two patients who died had other illnesses as well, but that the drug-resistant salmonella did contribute to their deaths.</p><p>The strain has shown decreased susceptibility to azithromycin and does not respond at all to ciprofloxacin, the report said. Both are commonly used to treat the disease, and, before 2017, fewer than 0.5 percent of salmonella strains found in U.S. patients were resistant to azithromycin.</p><p>The outbreak has been linked to the consumption of U.S. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/beef" target="_self">beef</a> and Mexican soft cheese, leading investigators to believe the strain is present in cows in both countries, CNN reported.</p><p>"The resistant strains developed in animals, and those strains can then be transmitted to humans," Plumb told HealthDay Reporter.</p>
<p>Dr. Marc Siegel, a professor of medicine at the New York University Langone Medical Center who was not involved with the study, told HealthDay Reporter that the best way to prevent drug-resistant infections like this is to change farming practices.</p><p>"Salmonella is a very common bacteria in livestock, and the problem is that we're overusing antibiotics to try to control this problem," Siegel said. He said that farmers also gave antibiotics to cattle to increase their size.</p><p>He said that better human treatments were not the solution, since most of the time the infection needs no treatment at all.</p><p>"It's really a change in farming practices that are needed—to stop giving these animals antibiotics," he said.</p><p>The CDC also stated that avoiding giving cattle unnecessary antibiotics, especially those also used to treat humans, would help prevent the spread of drug-resistant salmonella.</p><p>In the meantime, the CDC recommended that people protect themselves by avoiding soft cheese made with unpasteurized milk and using thermometers to make sure beef is cooked to the proper temperature: 145 degrees Fahrenheit for steaks and roasts and 160 degrees Fahrenheit for ground beef.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Goldsmiths
In a bid to fight the climate crisis, one London university is taking beef off the menu at all campus eateries.
<p>Goldsmiths, University of London <a href="https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/carbon-neutral-plan/" target="_blank">announced the beef ban Monday</a> as part of a series of steps designed to help the institution, which has declared a climate emergency, go carbon neutral by 2025. Other measures include an extra 10 pence charge for bottled water and single-use <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastic</a> cups and the installation of more solar panels on its campus in Southeast London.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Goldsmiths’ new Warden Professor Frances Corner has announced an ambitious drive for the College to be carbon neutral by 2025. <br><br>The plan includes the removal of all beef products from campus outlets and a 10p levy on plastic bottles <a href="https://t.co/sYRHZ0gxxa">https://t.co/sYRHZ0gxxa</a></p>— Goldsmiths (@GoldsmithsUoL) <a href="https://twitter.com/GoldsmithsUoL/status/1160804482780975105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><p>"Declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words," Goldsmiths' new Warden Prof. Frances Corner said in a statement. "I truly believe we face a defining moment in global history and Goldsmiths now stands shoulder to shoulder with other organisations willing to call the alarm and take urgent action to cut carbon use."</p><p>Goldsmiths' announcement comes about a week <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegetarian-climate-change-2639648388.html" target="_self">after a draft report</a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended a global shift towards <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegetarian" target="_self">vegetarian</a> diets in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture" target="_self">Agriculture</a> and other land use practices contribute almost 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while cattle and rice fields are responsible for half of all <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> emissions, the report found. Another <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cut-beef-consumption-help-environment--2639232980.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">study released last month</a> calculated that beef consumption had to fall in order for Earth's current resources to be able to feed the 10 billion people expected to be living on this planet in 30 years. Europeans would have to eat 22 percent less beef for everyone else to have enough food, the study found.</p>
<p>At least one Goldsmiths student is ready to give up campus burgers for the planet.</p><p>"I think it's a really positive move—Goldsmiths is recognising its own power and accountability in being more environmentally conscious," 20-year-old psychology student Isabelle Gosse told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/12/goldsmiths-bans-beef-from-university-cafes-to-tackle-climate-crisis" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "Banning the sale of beef meat on campus, phasing out single-use plastics and the other pledges that the new warden has made highlights the current climate emergency that the world is facing."</p><p>The Goldsmiths Students' Union also supports the decision, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-university-bans-burgers-to-help-save-the-planet_uk_5d517416e4b0fd2733f3746f" target="_blank">HuffPost reported</a>.</p><p>The beef ban will go into effect at the start of the coming academic year. The school will also switch to a 100 percent <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> supplier as soon as its current contract ends, according to The Guardian. Further, its endowment fund will cease investments in companies that earn more than 10 percent of their revenue from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction starting December 2019.</p><p>"It's encouraging to see an institution like Goldsmiths not simply declaring a climate emergency, but acting on it," <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a> UK Climate Emergency Campaigner Rosie Rogers told The Guardian. "From energy use, to food sales and plastic pollution—all universities and organisations with campus sites can make changes across their facilities that are better for our planet. We call on others to urgently follow suit, and to include cutting all ties from fossil fuel funding in their climate emergency response."</p><p>Goldsmiths currently emits around 3.7 million kilograms (approximately 8.2 million pounds) of carbon per year, according to figures released by the university. That number is down nearly 10 percent from what it was three years ago, Goldsmiths said.</p><p>But for Goldsmiths Students' Union President Joe Leam it's still too high.</p><p>"It is clear our university has a huge carbon footprint," he wrote in a blog quoted by HuffPost. "The promise to have ended this by 2030 at the latest, with the hope of doing so by 2025, is one which is needed. Whilst this plan/action is only the beginning, and much work is yet to be done, it is fantastic to see Goldsmiths taking responsibility and responding to its impact on the climate."</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
The world's population will hit 10 billion in just 30 years and all of those people need to eat. To feed that many humans with the resources Earth has, we will have to cut down the amount of beef we eat, according to a new report by the World Resources Institute.
<p>The report makes several concrete recommendations, including cutting beef consumption. To feed a growing world, Americans will need to eat about 40 percent less beef and Europeans need to cut their consumption by 22 percent. That averages out to a burger and a half per week, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p><br>This calculation is part of a 565-page report that looks at ways humans can optimize production of natural resources to sustain a growing population and navigate agriculture through the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>. Titled <em><a href="https://wrr-food.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Creating a Sustainable Food Future</a></em>, the report released Wednesday identified the gaps in food production and global demand that need to be filled in order to prevent a catastrophe, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>Right now, Americans consume an equivalent of three hamburgers per week, but beef only provides 3 percent of the calories Americans consume while it is responsible for nearly half of the agricultural land and greenhouse gas emissions associated with U.S. diets.</p><p>"This is a huge global challenge," said Tim Searchinger, the report's lead author, as <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/17/how-many-hamburgers-should-i-eat-new-report-suggests-eating-less-beef/1753998001/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=amp&utm_campaign=speakable" target="_blank">USA Today</a> reported. He suggests that consumers should shift from cattle, sheep and goats to chicken, pork and vegetable-based alternatives.</p><p>Providing a healthy diet for a population of 10 billion will require a massive overhaul to farming, which already swallows up 90 percent of all the water humans use and coughs up one-fourth of the annual global emissions that cause global warming. Yet, despite our intensive agriculture, more than 820 million people still experience chronic hunger, according to the UN, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-world-hunger-un-2639209390.html" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported this week.</p><p>"There is a pathway to achieve this but the challenge is even bigger than any of us thought," said Richard Waite of the World Resources Institute and a co-author of the report, as <a href="https://wrr-food.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf" target="_blank">National Geographic</a> reported.</p>
<p><br>While the report has many recommendations for dealing with the world's impending food crisis, the authors suggest that the most impactful way to keep the climate crisis at bay and to feed the world is to simply cut back on ruminant <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption" rel="noopener noreferrer">meat</a>, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. This is especially true as more money flows into the developing world and the demand for food outpaces population growth. The demand for meat and dairy is expected to rise nearly 70 percent, while the global demand for beef, sheep and goat, is expected rise even faster to 88 percent.</p><p>"We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, stop deforestation, [and] cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds," said Waite, as <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a> reported.</p><p>The report says that beef, goat, and sheep farming takes up 20 times more land than farming for beans, chickpeas, and lentils per gram of protein. It also generates 20 times as much greenhouse gas emissions, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/health/beef-environment-resources-report/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>Besides insisting that high-meat consumers move toward more plant-based diets, the report also calls for strategies to reduce the one-third of food that is lost or wasted, use technology to boost crop yields, and improve the management of wild fisheries and aquaculture farms, according to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-feed-the-world-without-destroying-the-planet/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</p>
<p class=""><em>Correction: This post has been updated to correct a typo.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Beef Industry Takes the Biggest Bite Out of Earth's Natural Resources
23 May 2019
Insights + Opinion
A Highland Cattle bull in Scotland chewing hay.
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
<p>A recent move by the American <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/beef">beef</a> industry is no exception. Earlier this month, faced with its involvement in the planet's environmental crisis, the <a href="https://www.usrsb.org" target="_blank">U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Beef</a> put together a voluntary framework to "assess" and "encourage" sustainability and hand out recognition certificates.</p><p>But it's totally inadequate. This framework lacks accountability, transparency and, above all, truth about beef's impacts.</p><p>Agriculture takes up <a href="https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/" target="_blank">more than a third of the world's land surface</a>, uses nearly 75 percent of freshwater resources and contributes up to 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a landmark new report from the <a href="https://www.ipbes.net" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform</a> on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.<br></p><div id="47ad8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="S3BH461576661816"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1119306831849857024" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Infographic by supporter @sjcprojects
#cowspiracy #animalagriculture #environment #goolantbased #vegan https://t.co/K6DUzwiCQF</div> — Cowspiracy (@Cowspiracy)<a href="https://twitter.com/Cowspiracy/statuses/1119306831849857024">1555698519.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>In the agricultural industry, beef production takes the biggest bite out of the planet's natural resources. The <a href="https://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/meat_and_wildlife.html" target="_blank">American beef addiction</a> creates the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 32.3 million cars. Crops grown to feed livestock in the U.S. take up nearly half the landmass of the lower 48 states.</p><p>Grazing cattle destroy vegetation, trample land, damage soils, contaminate waterways with fecal waste and disrupt natural ecosystem processes. And livestock-wildlife conflicts have contributed to the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wildlife_services/index.html" target="_blank">killing of millions of animals</a> every year and have been a key driver in the war against wolves.</p><p>To mitigate damage from this incredibly damaging industry, we need solutions with real teeth. In fact, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0594-0.epdf?referrer_access_token=eb7EMfTkiB4XO_9v8nm4qtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M2ZckU8PFAjFp2beHrcOXhHVPwiboHFjCLaVoEktOYmui1E_WbtCgUiW0GQ_D1Zsf9ikhdqzS9hAlJ2OYj63T9paYkbkbjbwbiMDtAsaaLIStmp4pVAf5k2WAYS1T_ySVFXQamjSmbZZOqgcbZWrei-uyC6A_FVQNeiIMKlcXtpL1l3TMhhDAAQ6xoEU683VobvCaltof2ZDm9A_x8ewm3aE1grEmYGSaX-15gO-mrGHeES5P4KA1gOWLnVn00bkBcDXu1v4909po_iwh_KZ1Z&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com" target="_blank">scientific research</a> shows that the U.S. needs to reduce consumption of beef by 90 percent to meet climate targets.</p><p>Unfortunately the beef industry has long fought environmental protections like <a href="https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule" target="_blank">the Clean Water Rule</a>, which attempts to hold the industry accountable for pollution that threatens drinking water and wildlife habitats.</p><p>The industry has also attempted to strong-arm state and federal policymakers into preventing producers of plant-based foods from using the words "meat" and "milk" on their products. Beef lobbyists have argued against including sustainability in the federal government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans.</p>
<p>Rather than addressing the industry's underhanded approach to environmental policy or acknowledging the fundamental problems with mass-scale beef production, the roundtable has turned to <a href="https://foe.org/50-groups-denounce-roundtable-sustainable-beef-greenwash/" target="_blank">greenwashing</a>.</p><p>Bringing together stakeholders to identify the harms of beef production is a step in the right direction, but this framework is a bit like Big Tobacco releasing advice for safe smoking. It fails to admit that beef is bad for the planet, particularly at current rates of consumption. It also falls short of creating clear steps to address that problem.</p><p>What's worse, the framework is intentionally weak – seeking to appease beef producers instead of working to build trust with consumers by acknowledging hard truths about this destructive industry.</p><p>These weaknesses likely grew from the <a href="https://www.usrsb.org/" target="_blank">roundtable's</a> very makeup. It is composed of beef producers and processors, along with giant corporations like McDonald's, Taco Bell, Walmart and Costco in the retail and food service sector, and public advocates. The members claim to represent 30 percent of the nation's cattle and produce 20 billion pounds of beef.</p><p>That scale of production means the roundtable can also take credit for largely contributing to <a href="https://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/extinction_facts/pdfs/BurgerFactsheet.pdf" target="_blank">544 billion pounds of greenhouses gases</a> and 784 billion pounds of manure per year. Its members also use more than 1 billion acres of land and <a href="https://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/extinction_facts/" target="_blank">30 trillion gallons of water</a>.</p><p>With impacts that big, the public is a stakeholder. <br></p><p>It's time for the roundtable to stop catering to its polluting members. Beef producers need to earn our trust, not claim it. And until they're ready to do so, we must support policies, retailers and producers shifting our food system away from excess meat and dairy and toward more plant-based foods.</p>
<p><em>Jennifer Molidor is a senior food campaigner with the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less