|
|
I have to admit it—I love to eat meat. There
is nothing I enjoy more than to cook a T-bone, over an open
flame on the grill. Before I began to appreciate the
importance of dieting and health, I did not worry about the
fat content of the meat nor did I pay attention to how the
meat was raised or produced.
As I began to research nutrition and health,
I started to change my own eating habits. By watching what I
ate, I lost weight without a major change to my
lifestyle. Not only did I shed pounds, my LDL (bad)
cholesterol reduced as did my total
cholesterol. Additionally, I was also able to raise my HDL
(good) cholesterol just by watching what I was eating. I
focused on eating nutrient-dense, low calorie foods such as
fresh fruits and vegetables. I avoided fast foods and
processed foods high in calories with little nutritional
value. I continued to grill my steak, but the meat I cooked
was from animals that were allowed to graze on the grasses
of the Dakotas such as the buffalo and wild game.
There are many health benefits of eating the
meat of animals that are allowed to graze on the natural
grasses. The meat from grass fed animals has less fat and
fewer in calories than grain fed animals. In fact, a six
ounce steak from a grass fed animal can have up to 100 fewer
calories than a six ounce steak from an animal whose diet
was mostly grain.
Additionally, the amount of omega-3 fat in
the meat of grass fed animals is higher as is the amount of
vitamin E and other phytonutrients. It is when livestock are
sent to the feed lot to be fed a grain based diet that we
see omega-3 fat and other nutrients drastically reduce in
the meat product.
Unfortunately, much of what is produced in
this country comes from the feedlot.The food industry is
succeeding in this manner only because it is relatively
inexpensive to fatten the cattle with government subsidized
grain.They are also able to produce massive amounts of the
product year round.
The price for this cheap food comes at the
expense of our health, however. For example, when cattle are
confined in a feedlot, infectious disease can easily
spread. In order to counter this, low dose antibiotics are
mixed in the feed. What has emerged from this indiscriminant
use of antibiotics to control bacteria are organisms that
are resistant to common drugs such as penicillin. Nearly 70
percent of all antibiotics made in the United States are
used in the cattle industry. Antibiotics are not only used
to control disease, they have also been shown to fatten up
the livestock before they are sent to slaughter.
Animal waste in the feedlot is another
problem. Thousands of cattle are confined in such a way that
they are literally living and eating out of their own
toilet. When they are sent to slaughter, cleaning the manure
off of them can be difficult. A common bacterium known as E.
coli is found in the manure, and can contaminate the
meat during the slaughtering process. This bacteria has
become acid resistant, meaning that the bacteria can survive
in an acidic environment such as our own stomach.
Livestock that are able to roam the
grasslands live in a cleaner environment and have a much
lower risk of contracting diseases that in turn are
responsible for contaminating the meat during processing.
There is also growing concern among the
public over “Mad Cow Disease”. One theory regarding how
cattle contract Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy) is the practice of feeding cattle
“by-product” feed which include animal tissue from other
cattle. To put it is simply, the industry turned herbivores
(plant eaters) into carnivores (meat eaters). This risk of
BSE is eliminated in cattle raised on the plains of the
Dakota’s as they are only fed pasture grasses and hay.
Farmers and ranchers are beginning to
understand how important it is for their cattle to eat the
native grasses. Their herds are healthier as a result of
living in a stress free environment such as the Dakota
grasslands. Because the herds are smaller and the open
pasture is cleaner than the feedlot, animals that graze on
the natural grasses do not depend on hormones or
antibiotics. By allowing their livestock to live in their
natural environment, their product is loaded with essential
nutrients important for optimal health.
|
|
Study
examines antibiotic use in animals, drug
resistance in humans.
by
Shari Roan, Times Staff Writer
April 24, 2006
AVOIDING the use of antibiotics in food animals
appears to reduce drug resistance in humans,
according to a study published online last week
in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The study involved the use of antibiotics called
fluoroquinolones in Australian poultry.
Australia restricts use of the antibiotics in
animal husbandry because the practice is thought
to contribute to drug resistance in people who
contract bacterial infections from eating
contaminated food. One such infection,
Campylobacter, is a leading cause of food-borne
illness in industrialized countries.
The study, by researchers at the Australian
National University, examined 585 Australians
who had Campylobacter infections. Only 2% of
these were resistant to the drug ciprofloxacin,
a type of fluoroquinolone. Countries that allow
fluoroquinolone use in poultry have resistance
rates in humans as high as 29%.
After years of debate, the Food and Drug
Administration last year banned use of one
fluoroquinolone drug in poultry to try to reduce
drug resistance in the United States.
"This is a very important study," says Dr.
Edward Septimus, an infectious diseases
specialist in Billings, Mont. "We've been saying
that we have to reduce antibiotic overuse in
humans. We also have to remove it from animals."
|
|
