Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Food labeling: Meat and poultry, I

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Food labeling: Meat and poultry, I
  • Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:36:01 -0600


very instructive.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net
--------------

Food labeling: Meat and poultry, I

Charles Stuart Platkin
The Diet Detective
Published August 15 2006
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/features/scn-sa-platkin2aug15,0,781930.colum
n?coll=stam-features-headlines

Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part series on labeling for meat
and poultry. The first is on claims that tell us what is not added. The
second column covers claims about the rearing of livestock and
healthfulness of the foods we eat.



I was passing the meat counter in the supermarket the other day, and the
butcher was telling one of the customers, with pride, that the market had
just started selling chickens that were free-range and had not been given
any hormones. Well, that sounded great. Having confidence in the foods
we're about to consume is important. But what do free-range, hormone-free
and all those other terms really mean when it comes to meat and poultry?
Here's a guide, as the first of a two-part series.

No antibiotics

What it implies: That no antibiotics (drugs used to kill or inhibit the
growth of bacteria in people and animals) were used in raising the animal.

What it means: There are basically two methods for using antibiotics in
raising animals. The first is called "subtherapeutic," meaning that low
levels of antibiotics are mixed with the feed, even if the animals are not
sick. This is supposed to promote animal growth and prevent disease. In
fact, according to Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., an environmental scientist at the
nonprofit research group Consumers Union, up to 70 percent of all
antibiotics have been estimated to go into the daily feeding of animals in
this country. "Some antibiotics are fed to cattle to alter the balance of
bacteria in the stomach or rumen in order to favor the presence of bacteria
that assist in the digestion of corn and improve animal efficiency," says
Karen Killinger-Mann, Ph.D., a consumer food-safety specialist at
Washington State University.

The other reason antibiotics ("therapeutic") are used in raising animals is
if the animals are sick. Normally, if one animal in the herd gets sick, the
entire herd is treated as a prophylactic measure. Organic farmers, however,
can treat only that one animal and must remove it from organic production,
says Rangan.

While the phrases "no antibiotics administered" and "raised without
antibiotics" are allowed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits the
labeling of any meat product with the term "antibiotic free." The term "no
antibiotics added" may be used on labels for meat or poultry products if
sufficient documentation is provided by the producer to the agency
demonstrating that the animals were raised without antibiotics. There is
also a question about whether poultry treated with other antimicrobials,
such as ionophores (antibiotics used in animals but not in humans), could
still be labeled "no antibiotics added."

Verification: None. The USDA is technically responsible, but there is no
system currently in place to check the validity of such claims - so while
the labels are specific and, therefore, somewhat meaningful, without
verification these general claims provide assurance only up to a point.

The real story: Rangan says that the legally allowable amounts of
antibiotic residues in meat are not the primary concern in terms of harm to
our health. But the fact that farmers are boosting animal growth by giving
them these "low levels" of antibiotics all the time may be contributing to
an increase in the number of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics,
which is a serious public health problem. Some strains of the bacteria
salmonella, campylobacter and E.coli 0157:h7 are already resistant to
several types of antibiotics - which means that if humans contract
infections of these resistant strains, typical antibiotics will be less
likely to cure them.



No hormones

What it implies: No growth hormones (chemicals used to increase the size of
the animal) were used in raising the animal.

What it means: Pork or poultry: The USDA does not allow hormones in pork or
poultry production. Therefore, the claim "no hormones added" cannot be used
on the label unless it is followed by a statement that says, "Federal
regulations prohibit the use of hormones." However, those regulations are
not always followed. Consumers should not pay extra for pork or poultry
products, including eggs, boasting this claim.

Beef: The term "no hormones administered" indicates that the animal was not
given any added hormones over the course of its lifetime. It may be
approved for use on the labels of beef products with sufficient
documentation provided to the USDA by the producer.

Verification: None. Companies that make and market products labeled "no
hormones" are the only organizations responsible for adhering to the claim.
They are accountable to the USDA's standards for the "no hormones" label,
but there is no system in place to verify the claims.

The real story: Cattle that are not rushed to grow using hormones are often
raised on pastures and live low-stress lives. As a result of their superb
nutrition and lack of stress, they are healthier. When you choose products
from pastured animals, you are eating the food that nature intended.
However, the "no hormones" claim does not guarantee that the cattle were
raised in a pasture.




No additives

What it implies: That the animal had not been given any of the
approximately 2,800 substances termed "food additives" (natural or
artificial), including salt, sugar and corn syrup, which are by far the
most widely used additives in this country, according to the USDA.

What it means: "Food additive" is defined by the Food and Drug
Administration as any substance used to provide a technical effect in
foods. Additives are used for flavor and appeal, food preparation and
processing, freshness and safety. They include agents such as coloring,
preservatives and flavorings (including salt). "No additives" means that
the cut of meat or poultry itself has not been enhanced with any natural or
artificial ingredients. It has nothing to do with how the animals were
raised or what they ate, including antibiotics or anything else.

Verification: None. The USDA and FDA share authority over the approval of
additives in meat and poultry, but there is no standard guidance or
verification for manufacturers using the "no additives" label. And even
though the agencies may take action if meat or poultry is misbranded, since
there is no formal definition, it would be difficult to enforce. This means
that there is no official word on determining standards for foods without
additives. To view commonly used meat and poultry additives and terms,
check out
www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Additives_in_Meat_&_Poultry_Products/index.asp


The real story: According to Rangan, even if the claim is truthful, it is
not meaningful, because most people think it has to do with how the animals
were raised.




No chemicals added

What it implies: That the animal was raised and produced without
antibiotics, additives or pesticides.

What it means: Unfortunately, no one has really decided. You might be
surprised to learn that "no chemicals added" is not a term regulated by the
USDA, and no government body has proposed a solid definition. However, the
USDA does prohibit the use of the term "chemical-free" on both meat and
poultry.

Verification: None.

The real story: Since there's no government definition, this label doesn't
really help you at all. Antibiotics, pesticides and additives are not
legally classified as chemicals; so, presumably, they could be added by a
manufacturer using this label. According to Rangan, when the label or
producer defines what they mean by "no chemicals" - for example, listing no
antibiotics, no pesticides, no hormones - at least there is some level of
clarity. But merely stating "no chemicals" on a label is meaningless
because the term chemical doesn't mean anything.

*

Charles Stuart Platkin is a nutrition and public health advocate, author of
the best seller "Breaking the Pattern," "Breaking the FAT Pattern" and
"Lighten Up," and founder of Integrated Wellness Solutions. Sign up for the
free The Diet Detective newsletter at www.thedietdetective.com.





  • [Livingontheland] Food labeling: Meat and poultry, I, TradingPostPaul, 08/22/2006

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page