Cannibalistic Cows
Micah Bittner
June 10th, 2012
Professor Norton
DeVry University

Cannibalistic Cows
America’s diet is in a great dilemma. Just ask anyone where their food comes from, and they will usually say that it comes from the grocery store. However, one might ask where the food in the grocery store comes from. To gain a better understanding of the issues facing American’s eating habits and where its food comes from, Michael Pollen researches these questions in his book, The Omnivores Dilemma. Through his research, he notes that the 100 million head of cattle breed for food are living on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (C.A.F.O.) are fed slaughtered cow parts. As a nation, we need to educate consumers on the dangers of consuming corn fed beef, begin pushing for agri-business policy change from the top down, and partake in the benefits of eating healthier meat; if these changes are not implemented soon healthcare rates will soar, along with e Coli and outbreaks of other diseases associated with processing infected beef.
The main problems with eating corn fed beef are the dangerous health risks and hidden costs that are passed down to the public. Associated with these problems are the government policies that prevent change. Continuing to ignore these problems will result in increased obesity, heart disease, and other ailments; as well as economic troubles for those in agriculture, business, and consumers. However, if we properly educate people on nutrition, change the way the agriculture and ranching industry treat cattle, and buy grass fed beef, the problems created from corn fed beef can be avoided and resolved. First, we will look at the dangerous health risks when eating corn fed beef. “Calories are calories…protein is protein,” as stated by Michael Pollen in his book, The Omnivores Dilemma, when discussing the industrial logic many factory farms associate with feeding cattle corn and rendered cow parts (Pollan, 2006, p.75). This is true at a molecular level; however, there are unwanted substances in corn fed beef. For example, there is an increased amount of saturated fat. “A growing body of research suggests that many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with corn-fed beef” (Pollan p. 75). Adding in additional substances to the cows corn diet, such as remnant cow parts, has led to e-coli out breaks in humans and continued to spread mad cow disease. One such victim of e-coli poisoning was Kevin Kowalcyk at the age of two. He ingested e-coli O157 H7 in a contaminated hamburger he ate in 2001; which developed into hemolytic-uremic syndrome, a disorder that usually occurs when an infection in the digestive system produces toxic substances that destroy red blood cells, causing kidney injury, resulting in his death twelve days later. Unfortunately the beef was not recalled until 16 days after his death. This was probably due to the fact that cattle at CAFO’s spend all their time held up in concentrated pens standing in their own feces. If the cattle are not cleaned properly during the slaughter process, these feces will end up in the beef produces and lead to health issues. Humans have seen an increased rate of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. In fact, the FDA has banned feeding cattle slaughtered cow meat, but approved the following: slaughtered cow blood and fat, feather meal, chicken litter to include chicken feces, ground chicken, fish, and pig. Researchers and scientists are concerned that using the waste products of other animals to assist in the feeding of cattle will lead to other diseases that could end up in the food we eat. Hidden costs are the second problem. Money is an important topic with today’s economic struggles in society; however, there are added costs in feeding cattle corn. To raise the corn farmers have to pay for the fertilizer, corn seed, and government subsidiaries as the cost of corn decreases leading to increased consumer cost. Transporting the new crop to processing plants and feed yards adds more dollars to the cost of the beef. According to Jo Robinson, an investigative journalist and "New York Times" best-selling author, 6o% of all the corn grown in America is to feed cattle (Robinson, 2011). Next, the corn is processed into flakes, like cereal, in order for the cow to digest it. This processing costs money that is passed down to the consumer. When feeding corn to cattle the customers also have to pay for the antibiotics that the cattle must take to medicate the lining of their digestive system and prevent premature death when eating the corn flake-cow part mixture. This leads to increased labor and maintenance costs, as the cattle living at the CAFO must be closely monitored until they are ready for slaughtering. Each step adds more to the cost of purchasing beef but is hidden from the consumer. Government policies are another problem that continues to turn cows into cannibals. Kevin Kowalcyk’s mother, Barbara, fights to get a law giving the USDA the power to shut down operations that repeatedly produce contaminated meat; known as Kevin’s Law in honor of his death. The fight began in 2001, but has yet to be passed. Unfortunately other policies protecting the corn-fed cattle industry have passed during the past ten years. A Colorado Law gives cattle companies the power to prosecute any individual or company, within the state of Colorado, which speaks against how their beef has been produced. Kevin’s mother has been the recipient of such prosecution. Since we have taken a closer look at the problems with eating corn fed beef, we can begin to look at each solution. The first is to educate people on proper nutrition. Programs like the Food Pyramid, My Pyramid, and the DASH diet educate us about eating foods out of each major food group and the daily recommended serving amounts. Broadening this basic education with the knowledge about the essential nutrients people need to sustain life would allow them to make wiser choices about the beef they consume. Comparing the components of corn fed beef to grass fed beef shows that the later has a lower amount of saturated fat, and a higher amount of omega three fatty acids, thus equating to a product with a higher nutritional value. The Nutrition Journal confirmed these facts in their 2010 review of corn fed versus grass fed beef. Consumers with the nutritional knowledge would be more equipped to choose between the two based on facts. Increasing the consumer’s nutritional knowledge equals better food choices resulting in healthier diets. In educating consumers about nutrition, they would also learn the nutrition or food sources for the beef they eat. Based on where the cattle were raised and exactly what the cattle ate. For example, when we look at the nutritional label on a box of cereal we see the breakdown of each processed product to know its exact contents and the factory the product came from. This should be the same for all products. The new product labels for beef from the FDA and USDA annotate how and what the cattle were raised on is a start. To receive one of these labels the ranchers must show that the beef “came from animals raised on a lifetime diet of 100 percent grasses and forage (except for milk consumed prior to weaning). Animals must have access to pasture during most of the growing season and cannot be fed grain products” (Joachim, 2010, p. 44). These labels should be expanded to mirror those on the cereal box and not just a quick sales sticker. Our second solution of pushing for an industrial change is to get back to the basics of raising cattle. Prior to the popularity of CAFO’s and feeding corn, cattle were raised on grass lands throughout the nation. Lands were renewed by the switching of grazing lands and fertilized by the cattle. Costs were kept down by allowing cattle to eat their natural diet. No additional processing, antibiotics, labor, or concentrated feeding center maintenance was needed to provide the product. Also ranchers knew exactly what type of food their cattle were ingesting. Supply and demand was always met. Using the health standards we have today mixed with the old way of raising cattle would deliver a quality product. Implementing the reversal of raising cattle would also reduce the need to produce excess corn. Farmers would be able to grow for the current demand and stabilize corn crop prices. To assist with the transition, the government’s “New Deal” loan repayment program mentioned in the Omnivores Dilemma would give farmers an economic break (Pollan, 2006, p. 50). Farmers would not need to invest the majority of their income to the purchasing of seed or fertilizer as the excess corn need would be removed. The Midwest would also benefit from the reversal in soil conservation. Currently lands are left barren to allow the soil to recuperate from the growing season. These barren lands would be repopulated with grazing cattle. The grasses that naturally grow in the Midwest are abundant and what the cattle need to eat. In this situation the cattle, land, farmers, ranchers, and environment would win as no resources would be wasted or alteration required. Partaking in the benefits of eating grass fed beef is our final solution to the problems caused by corn fed beef. As mentioned earlier the dangers in eating corn fed beef was an increase for health problems. Grass fed beef has the reverse effect. In her article "The Grass-Fed Revolution," Margot Roosevelt states, “Ground beef and milk from grass-finished cattle also have more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which recent data suggest may help prevent breast cancer, diabetes and other ailments” (Roosevelt, 2006, p. 1). With obesity and heart disease being a national concern, many American have turned back to eating quality, healthy products. By consuming grass fed beef, chronic diseases are treated and risk reduced. The textbook Nutrition, Health, and Wellness states, “Eating a healthy diet is an important factor in preventing chronic diseases such as heart disease and some cancers” (Cherif, 2010, p. 792). Consumer’s health can benefit by choosing to purchase grass fed or grass finished beef. Another benefit to choosing grass fed beef over corn fed beef will be monetary. Cows are naturally herbivores and live on wild grass and other plants that grow in the areas they live. In fact most cattle are fed grass in “cow-calf” operations prior to being sent to feed lots. These natural grasses grow without any assistance from humans; so no added costs for seed, fertilizer, or processing. Grass fed beef is a higher quality product that takes only six more months to mature than corn fed beef. Our nation moves toward a demand for quality, healthy beef shown by an increase in sales for grass fed beef from local farmers and organic grocery stores. The organic grocery stores, such as Whole Foods and Trader Joes, make purchasing grass fed beef a convenience at a similar price as corn fed beef. The monetary benefits will increase as the nutritional education and industry change solutions mature. Urgent action is necessary because of the monetary and health issues our nation currently faces. In fact, "the rise in animal factories over the last 50 years has led to a system that is out of control. Mad cow disease, increased liver abscesses, and the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are just some examples of the damage that comes from unwise and often inhumane approaches to raising food animals. ("Food and agriculture," 2006)"If we don’t act now, we will see an increase in economic troubles for farmers, ranchers, and consumers. We will also see an increase in health problems. Obesity is an epidemic and heart disease is our nation’s number one killer. By implementing the solutions of educating consumers on nutrition, promoting an industrial change for agriculture, and purchasing grass fed beef we can change the future.

References Cherif, A. H., Jedlicka, D. M., Hornick, B. A., Verma, S., Aron, R. D., & Hanna, B. W. (2010), Nutrition, Health, and Wellness An Applied Approach VitalSource eBook For DeVry University. Pearson Learning Solutions p. 792. <vbk:9781256323273#outline(34.3.4)> Daley, C.A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P.S., nader, G. A., & Larson, S. (2010), A review of fatty acid profiles and, antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef, Nutrition journal, 910- 21, doi:10.1186/1475-2891-9-10 Robinson, J. (2011). Sustainable table. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/feed/ Food and agriculture. (2006, Aug 08). Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_ ag`riculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html Joachim, David (2010), Consumer Health Complete, Vol. 51 Issue 5, p44-45, http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmh&AN=504 99855&site=chc-live Pollan, Michael (2006), Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, 1/e for DeVry University. Pearson Learning Solutions p.50 & 75). <vbk:9781256120735#outline(8.3)> Roosevelt, Margot: The Grass-Fed Revolution; Time Magazine, June 2006, link as of 11/9/11 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200759,00.html#ixzz1duMYnRW5