Fight to curtail antibiotics in animal feed

Sabin Russell, Chronicle Medical Writer

Monday, January 28, 2008

Consumer advocates have been campaigning for years to curb the use of antibiotics in agriculture, citing studies that show that 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are administered in low doses – not to treat disease, but to promote the growth of pigs, sheep, chicken and cattle.

Low doses of antibiotics in animal feeds have been shown to boost the speed of food-to-muscle conversion by 5 percent, and can prevent the spread of disease in the tight quarters of modern factory farms.

But as early as 1963, British researchers tied the emergence of drug-resistant strains of salmonella in humans to antibiotics fed to cattle. Among the drugs routinely found in animal feed are erythromycin, penicillin and streptomycin. Critics warn that the use of antibiotics in feed at low dosages helps to breed resistant bacteria in the gut of farm animals – threatening the future of these drugs for use in animals or humans. (more…)

January 28, 2008

Bill aims to put more farm-fresh foods on school lunch menus

By JENNIFER LANGSTON
P-I REPORTER

Kia Kozun knew that lugging 40-pound boxes of vegetables single-handedly from a Sequim farm to a friend’s bistro wasn’t entirely sustainable.

· For more on the farm-to-school issue, read our special report “Farmed Out”.

The outreach manager for Nash’s Organic Produce wanted to sell to school cafeterias. For five months, she borrowed a certified kitchen to shred cabbage and wash dirty lettuce.

Because of insurance and liability standards, the payments flowed through a maze of regional and national distributors, who all took a cut.

“No one says kids shouldn’t have healthy food in schools, but what we’re up against is a really huge industrial food system,” said Kozun, who recently took a break from those time-sucking efforts to supply a school district five miles away. (more…)

This is a great article from www.nytimes.com

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

By MARK BITTMAN

A SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible. (more…)

Even in Winter, Eat Local – It’s Delicious

One of the keys to eating a healthy diet is eating regionally and seasonally as much as possible. The best choice is most often the one closest to home. Eating food from within your “100-mile foodshed will be the most nutritious and flavorful because it is picked closer to its peak. We can all shop and cook in ways that reflect a more local/regional, thoughtful approach, where we think in terms of eating food that has a sense of place rather than just about what’s available in our local grocery stores. Too often we buy globally. Produce, like strawberries, can come from Chile and be grown with cancer causing herbicides and pesticides. From an environmental standpoint, eating locally often means food with a smaller “carbon foot-print,” food that’s healthier and of course more delicious. If we all ate locally, global warming would be diminished, local communities would be strengthened and perhaps our children might even prefer fresh vegetables over “tater tots.” (more…)

Editorial Observer www.nytimes.com

Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out

By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the way for the eventual sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, saying, in effect, that consumers face no health risks from them. The next day, the Department of Agriculture asked farmers to keep their cloned animals off the market until consumers have time to get over their anticloning prejudice. That is one prejudice I plan to hold on to. I will not be eating cloned meat.

The reason has nothing to do with my personal health or safety. I think the clearest way to understand the problem with cloning is to consider a broader question: Who benefits from it? Proponents will say that the consumer does, because we will get higher quality, more consistent foods from cloned animals. But the real beneficiaries are the nation’s large meatpacking companies — the kind that would like it best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets. Anyone who really cares about food — its different tastes, textures and delights — is more interested in diversity than uniformity. (more…)