I do think though that a program like this brings the benefit of peer pressure. Dairy farmers are very keen to “look over the neighbour’s fence” and learn from each other. A well subscribed program could build momentum on the animal welfare front, enhancing already good practices and encouraging the few bad apples to rethink their ways.

<p>By: Terry D. Etherton, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition and Head of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Pennsylvania State University</p> <p>Sustainable i ……

There are legitimate rationale for consumers to select grass fed beef. That the animal was not confined to a feedlot is truthful and sufficient — the consumer can use their own research and judgement as to whether this is an important factor to their buying decision. I only object to the grass fed suppliers and self appointed food police contaminating the discussion with unsubstantiated, faulty and irrellivant information. I would equally object to grain finishers making similar unsubstantiated claims about thier product. Nutritionally, grass fed vs. corn finished is a wash. Food safety, — I dont believe there is any compelling evidence of any significant grass fed advantage. Environmentally — both have their tradeoffs. Humane treatment — your opinion is as good as mine but I believe the inhumane allegations about cornfed are vastly overstated.

I would not refuse grass fed and I have had both. I personally just see no justification in preferring it or paying any premium for it. And I certainly would object to any regulatory or other method to impose it as the only choice available to consumers.

Last I checked, the only significant GM failure was in South Africa. The EU on the other hand, is the official exporter of BSE, creater of bovine neonatal pancytopenia, and home to a host of other problems the US has avoided and/or eradicated. If our system is “riddled with failures”, it’s only because we actually have a GM sample size large enough to also have successes. Your system is not superior because you allowed a total of 2 crops through, and are claiming a 100% success rate. If anything, we get credit because we allowed the testing that gave you the data to eventually approve those.

We now know that the study Food Inc referenced did not even measure the O157:H7 levels but based its findings on some flawed assumptions that behavior of other strains of e-coli could serve as a proxy for measuring presence of O157:H7. Studies have found the O157:H7 strain in grass fed animals as well as wildlife that never eat grain, at levels equivalent to feedlot sheddings. In fact, the CDC found that the genetic signature of the e-coli O157:H7 that contaminated the spinach a while back matched that of e-coli shed by nearby grass fed cattle, not the grain-fed feedlot cattle as the media initially speculated, and was likely spread by feral swine in the area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in Food Inc., the body of science is pointing to diet not being the only or even a determinant causal or contributing factor for the presence of O157:H7 in the gut or manure and other sheddings. Much of this work was completed before Food Inc. and would have been available to Pollan.

Poising the world for profits, how can they sleep at night?