NCBA Dietician Says "...eat fish"

[Econ101]

MRJ, please tell me what this means:

"A 3.5 ounce serving of grass-finished beef contains less than ONE TENTH of a gram of omega 3's and grain fed beef contains about TWO THIRDS the amount that grain fed beef has."

Maybe you just misstyped it.

Yes, I did mis-type. it should be "grain fed beef contains about two thirds the amount of omega 3's that GRASS fed beef has".

That doesn't square with what RobertMac posted. I will check that out, but definitely not today!

The facts definitely do support the Ms. Youngs' contention that neither grass, nor grain fed beef is as good a source of omega 3's as is salmon. She also is very emphatic about stressing the superiority of beef in other nutrients where it outshines most other proteins.

Remember, the lady is a trained dietitician, and as such, would not be telling people to choose other than the BEST source of such an important fatty acid.

For RM, she definitely IS supportive of grass fed beef.......just not into saying things about it that are not true!

BTW, some of that grass fed beef "information" I've been reading from the links has too much bias that is not necessarily factual.

Certainly some do, at the least, imply that 'other' beef is fed grain their entire lives. Fact, an awful lot of the commercial beef is fed grain about one fourth, to possibly one third of their life. Grain is not the only feed, either. I will check with someone on common ratios' of hay/grass/forages to grain before I comment further.

MRJ

I just saw a headline (one of the scrolled messages on the bottom of the screen) out on the BBC that the fish oil so highly touted may not have all the health properties claimed. Didn't catch the whole story, however.

I still don't see why the NCBA health nutritionist does not support ALL cattle instead of seemingly ones that the packers control. It might have been a reporter thing, MRJ, but at least the NCBA could put out a policy statement on it.

Soapweed, was that in your NCBA policy questionaire?

 

[mrj]

MRJ, please tell me what this means:

"A 3.5 ounce serving of grass-finished beef contains less than ONE TENTH of a gram of omega 3's and grain fed beef contains about TWO THIRDS the amount that grain fed beef has."

Maybe you just misstyped it.

Yes, I did mis-type. it should be "grain fed beef contains about two thirds the amount of omega 3's that GRASS fed beef has".

That doesn't square with what RobertMac posted. I will check that out, but definitely not today!

The facts definitely do support the Ms. Youngs' contention that neither grass, nor grain fed beef is as good a source of omega 3's as is salmon. She also is very emphatic about stressing the superiority of beef in other nutrients where it outshines most other proteins.

Remember, the lady is a trained dietitician, and as such, would not be telling people to choose other than the BEST source of such an important fatty acid.

For RM, she definitely IS supportive of grass fed beef.......just not into saying things about it that are not true!

BTW, some of that grass fed beef "information" I've been reading from the links has too much bias that is not necessarily factual.

Certainly some do, at the least, imply that 'other' beef is fed grain their entire lives. Fact, an awful lot of the commercial beef is fed grain about one fourth, to possibly one third of their life. Grain is not the only feed, either. I will check with someone on common ratios' of hay/grass/forages to grain before I comment further.

MRJ

I just saw a headline (one of the scrolled messages on the bottom of the screen) out on the BBC that the fish oil so highly touted may not have all the health properties claimed. Didn't catch the whole story, however.

I still don't see why the NCBA health nutritionist does not support ALL cattle instead of seemingly ones that the packers control. It might have been a reporter thing, MRJ, but at least the NCBA could put out a policy statement on it.

Soapweed, was that in your NCBA policy questionaire?

Econ, now you have me confused! What on earth makes you feel that "the NCBA health nutritionist does not support ALL cattle"?

What makes you feel she, or anyone else at NCBA only supports "cattle that packers control"?

Obviously, NCBA supports and promotes the cattle that all the cattle producer and cattle feeder members own and CONTROL.

We can, and many of us do, market our cattle in many different places. Certainly not all our cattle go through the major packers.

Econ, if NCBA put out a "policy statement" for every time a reporter mis-quoted, or mis-represented a comment or quote from a staffer or leader of the organization, there wouldn't be time to do the valuable policy work of the association!

Such mis-representations and mis-quotes are just a fact of life. The staff, including Ms. Young and many others, give talks to LOTS of groups, and interviews for many media sources. Obviously, the people present get the full message, and truly, most reporters are fair and honest and the proper messages get in front of millions of the people we target for positive "eat beef" messages each and every year. As I was typing this, I heard Sam Elliot extolling the great health benefits of the nutrients many people are not aware exist in beef.

Re. that blip you saw on TV, I've heard that story for quite some time. I believe research and health professionals are really in the beginnings of study of the separate fatty acids As often is the case, research sometimes changes what was first believed about such minute substances which are so desperately necessary to good health in humans. Some of that research looks extremely good for the beef industry Our Beef Checkoff is participating, and will be using it to the fullest, WHEN IT IS VERIFIED!

There are Policy Resolutions from the Nutrition and Health Committeecalling for nutrition labeling which adequately informs consumers of the important nutritive qualities of beef and to distinguish between the various types and levels of fats and other nutritive properties of beef.

Another from the same committee calls for USDA, 1. to frequently update and disseminate factual information from research on the nutrient composition of the various beef cuts, including data on the actual content of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and essential nutrients in cooked beef cuts.
2. to encourage government agencies and health organizations to disseminate information on the actual nutrient content of beef, showing that numerous cuts of beef can be part of recommended lowfat and other modified diets.
3. to encourage govt. agencies and health orgs. to recognize and point out, in their info programs, the role of beef and other meats in sound nutrition education programs.
4. to encourage NCBA and other industry orgs. to continue to effectively work with health professionals and other nutrition info sources, including new media, members of food industries, in order to gain wider awareness of beef's actual nutrient density and its important role in providing ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS in control diets. (this is research with people participating by eating specific amounts of specific foods, then measuring effects thereof, which has NOT been done much, but often is "estimated" with results not favorable to beef)
5. to encourage continued research in public institutions on nutrition, diet, and health relationships.
6. to support legislation requiring govt. agencies to submit proposed diet guidance to USDA for review and approval prior to its release.

I believe these points are in response to learning that much of what has been accepted as "gospel" in the health industries re. foods people customarily eat, and effect on health of their diet, was based not on research, but on something akin to computer models, which seem more like guessing to many people. THere has been very little 'real life' research.

Maybe people with a little common sense know and understand much of this cause and effect stuff, however, for govt agencies to recommend diets, people now are wanting well designed living research projects using plenty of real people and measuring the effects via blood testing, and more.

BTW, the work of Ms. Young is for the CBB and/or the Federation div. of NCBA and is NOT part of the Policy/Membership/Dues payer div.

The Policy div does state policies via resolutions SUPPORTIVE OF efforts by the Checkoff groups.

MRJ

 

[RobertMac]

Another from the same committee calls for USDA, 1. to frequently update and disseminate factual information from research on the nutrient composition of the various beef cuts, including data on the actual content of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and essential nutrients in cooked beef cuts.
2. to encourage government agencies and health organizations to disseminate information on the actual nutrient content of beef, showing that numerous cuts of beef can be part of recommended lowfat and other modified diets. 3. to encourage govt. agencies and health orgs. to recognize and point out, in their info programs, the role of beef and other meats in sound nutrition education programs.
4. to encourage NCBA and other industry orgs. to continue to effectively work with health professionals and other nutrition info sources, including new media, members of food industries, in order to gain wider awareness of beef's actual nutrient density and its important role in providing ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS in control diets. (this is research with people participating by eating specific amounts of specific foods, then measuring effects thereof, which has NOT been done much, but often is "estimated" with results not favorable to beef)
5. to encourage continued research in public institutions on nutrition, diet, and health relationships.
6. to support legislation requiring govt. agencies to submit proposed diet guidance to USDA for review and approval prior to its release.

MRJ, this initiative is defeated before it gets started because you concede that fat is unhealthy by trying to show how beef fits into a low fat diet. Secondly, many or most of the nutritional benefits from beef (vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids) are IN THE FAT! Consumers associate red meat and butter with 'bad' fat because the edible(grain) oil industry had to demonize animal fats to be able to sell their garbage. If CBB is going to do research, differentiate animal fats from vegetable oils. Nature is on our side because our genes developed consuming animal fats...vegetable oils are a new(genetically unknown to our bodies) part of our diet and there increases in our diet parallels the increase in our countries health problems. Have you noticed how the food industry is backing off of trans-fats...solid vegetable oils (margarine, Crisco) are over 50% trans-fats. They were sold to the public(and the government) as being more healthy than butter, but the opposite is true...they are responsible for many of our health problems.

I also found some info from some N.Z. research that pasture raised and finished lamb had AS MUCH omega-3 as salmon! You do understand that omega-3 is derived from chlorophyll?

 

[cedardell]

You are all arguing over nothing. The statement taken out of context is not true. The only fish that will raise the omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids are cold water fish that have been eating phytoplanktin found in the cold water sea. Any other fish will not due. Due to global warming the phytoplanktin is dying off leaving the valued fish species and some bird species in pearil. The best hope to raise the omega 3 and 6 fatty acids is through improved grain varietys. We are now producing a gmo soybean variety from which we can extract them intact so that they will be available in the oil and not destroyed in the processing. When these beans are widly accepted the market for Alaska Wild Salmon will plumet and we can all enjoy eating our beef in good conscience.

 

[Tommy]

Scientists engineer omega-3 pigs
From correspondents in Washington
27mar06

US scientists said today they had genetically engineered pigs that make beneficial fatty acids and may one day serve as a healthier source of pork chops or bacon.

The pigs produced omega-3 fatty acids, compounds that have been shown to improve cardiac function and reduce the risk of heart disease in people.
The only way now for humans to get omega-3s is through taking dietary supplement pills or by eating certain fish. Some fish, however, may have high levels of toxic mercury.

Seeking another source of omega-3s, researchers transferred a worm gene called fat-1 into pig cells in a laboratory. They used cloning technology to create embryonic cells that were implanted into the womb of a normal pig.

The gene produced an enzyme that converted the less desirable omega-6 fatty acids that the pigs naturally produced into omega-3s, the researchers wrote in the journal Nature Biotechnology.









Tissue from the piglets that were born at the University of Missouri-Columbia had high levels of omega-3s and less omega-6, the researchers said. The total amount of fat was the same as in normal pigs.

The omega-3 pigs "could represent an alternative source as well as be an ideal model for studying cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders" that also may be impacted by boosting the healthy fat, said Dr Yifan Dai, a University of Pittsburgh scientist who transferred the worm gene into the pig cells.

Too much omega-6 is considered a chief contributor to high rates of obesity and heart disease, the leading killer of Americans. Experts encourage higher consumption of omega-3.

Pregnant women are told omega-3s are important for foetal development but are warned to limit consumption of fish that may be high in mercury, which can harm a foetus.

"In this case, we think our pigs will help a lot," Dr Dai said.

Whether meat from the omega-3 pigs or other genetically altered animals will ever reach Americans' dinner plates is uncertain. Regulators have been debating for years if milk or meat from cloned animals is safe to consume, and some industry experts wonder if consumers would embrace it.

Dr Dai said the genetically altered pigs appeared healthy and looked the same as normal pigs.

Researchers will further study the impact of the extra omega-3.

The pig researchers used the same technology that one member of the team, Dr Jing Kang of Massachusetts General Hospital, had previously used to produce mice that make omega-3s. Other scientists are trying to make fish, chickens and cows rich in omega-3s.