Red Meat: Kills?

[Mike]

Tuesday, March 24, 2009


(AP) CHICAGO — The largest study of its kind finds that older Americans who eat large amounts of red meat and processed meats face a greater risk of death from heart disease and cancer.

The federal study of more than half a million men and women bolsters prior evidence of the health risks of diets laden with red meat like hamburger and processed meats like hot dogs, bacon and cold cuts.

Calling the increased risk modest, lead author Rashmi Sinha of the National Cancer Institute said the findings support the advice of several health groups to limit red and processed meat intake to decrease cancer risk.

The findings appear in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.

Over 10 years, eating the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger daily gave men in the study a 22 percent higher risk of dying of cancer and a 27 percent higher risk of dying of heart disease. That's compared to those who ate the least red meat, just 5 ounces per week.

Women who ate large amounts of red meat had a 20 percent higher risk of dying of cancer and a 50 percent higher risk of dying of heart disease than women who ate less.

For processed meats, the increased risks for large quantities were slightly lower overall than for red meat. The researchers compared deaths in the people with the highest intakes to deaths in people with the lowest to calculate the increased risk.

People whose diets contained more white meat like chicken and fish had lower risks of death.

The researchers surveyed more than 545,000 people, ages 50 to 71 years old, on their eating habits, then followed them for 10 years. There were more than 70,000 deaths during that time.

Study subjects were recruited from AARP members, a group that's healthier than other similarly aged Americans. That means the findings may not apply to all groups, Sinha said. The study relied on people's memory of what they ate, which can be faulty.

In the analysis, the researchers took into account other risk factors such as smoking, family history of cancer and high body mass index.

In an accompanying editorial, Barry Popkin, director of the Interdisciplinary Obesity Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote that reducing meat intake would have benefits beyond improved health.

Livestock increase greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming, he wrote, and nations should reevaluate farm subsidies that distort prices and encourage meat-based diets.

"We've promoted a diet that has added excessively to global warming," Popkin said in an interview.

Successfully shifting away from red meat can be as easy as increasing fruits and vegetables in the diet, said Elisabetta Politi of the Duke Diet and Fitness Center in Durham, N.C.

"I'm not saying everybody should turn into vegetarians," Politi said. "Meat should be a supporting actor on the plate, not the main character."

The National Pork Board and National Cattlemen's Beef Association questioned the findings.

Dietitian Ceci Snyder said in a statement for the pork board that the study "attempts to indict all red meat consumption by looking at extremes in meat consumption, as opposed to what most Americans eat."

Lean meat as part of a balanced diet can prevent chronic disease, along with exercise and avoiding smoking, said Shalene McNeill, dietitian for the beef group.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I dont waste time reading stuff,those damned carrot eaters post,they are about as crooked as a rattle snake in a cactus patch,listen to them and bout the only thing that will get you aged is carrots and maryjoewanna,many old geezers around here in their eighties still ranchin,eat meat ever day..................good luck

 

[Kato]

Take heart everyone! :heart: This story is all over the news here too.

Check this out, and pay very close attention to the comments posted by readers.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090323/red_meat_090323/20090323?hub=Health

Of course there's the usual vegan comments, but other than that, there's a whole lot of common sense to be found out there. 8) 8) 8)

 

[mrj]

What a farce! We also hear that too much anger makes us ill and shortens our lives. There sure was a lot of that expressed by the anti-meat people writing comments. Thanks for posting the story. It appears from quick scanning, to be one of the more honest ones out about the 'report'.

A few comments from CBB: "Several third-party scientists reviewed this study and found, as with past studies, the reorted change in relative risk is a comparison between the extremes--those consuming the most and the least amounts of red meat. Overall, the study doesn't address the effect of eating meat (of various types) when consumed at recommended intake levels, in a balanced diet with appropriate levels of fruits, vegetables, fiber, etc. combined with maintenance of ideal body weight and adequate exercise."

* Epidemiologic research provides information about the distribution and determinants of disease for further study, but does NOT establish cause and effect.

* The science is clear about the important steps we all can take to help decrease ristk: Avoid smoking, use alcohol responsibly, eat a balanced diet, by physically active, maintain a healthy weight and eat a nutrient-rich, balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-and nonfat dairy and lean meats.

* American Dietic Assoc. (ADA) spokesperson, Lona Sandon, R.D. stated "it is important that people understand that they do not need to give up eating red meat, but should pa a little closer attentio to how much they eat. Many people, particularly wormen, come up short on the nutrients that red meat has to offer."

* Nutrition third-party networks are being mobilized with messages and links to respond to online articles. (related to this flawed study, IMO)

It does seem to much of this type of 'news' is used as propaganda for one agenda or another, particularly useful to those determined to end all use of animals for any productive use such as food, those determined to end all productive use of land which does not benefit only those working to "save the environment" and other schemes to make easy money by taking it away from those who work so hard, physically, and mentally, to provide sustenance for citizens of this world.

We can only hope some of the mainstream media so eager to promote the scare mongering will heed the science backed, factual, common sense information being given to them by our Beef Checkoff and NCBA leaders.

mrj

 

[burnt]

Take heart everyone! :heart: This story is all over the news here too.

Check this out, and pay very close attention to the comments posted by readers.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090323/red_meat_090323/20090323?hub=Health

Of course there's the usual vegan comments, but other than that, there's a whole lot of common sense to be found out there. 8) 8) 8)

I like this entry the best -

"Rob Alberta
I'm going to celebrate this study by consuming an entire cow."

 

[RobertMac]

Does anyone have a clue why beef demand isn't increasing?
Wish we had an organization to put some pro-beef propaganda out there!?!?! How did mankind ever survive before grain farming and processed food.

 

[mrj]

Poor RobertMac!

He fails to see, understand, or approve the diligent work of the Beef Checkoff to show people sound, science based reasons for eating beef as a valuable nutrient component of a balanced diet.

Surely, RM, you have heard the so called 'experts' telling people that beef is bad for health, the earth and anything else with which they can demonize it???

When the Checkoff leaders have to be accurate and honest and has only a minimal income, plus having people in our own industry working against them, they cannot adequately compete with those working diligently and dishonestly to end all use of animals for food. There are encouraging advances, but everyone needs to work harder to help the cause for beef rather than complain and help set it back.

Could it be that the government gyrations with the economy has something to do with people not rushing out to buy all the beef they want????


mrj

 

[RobertMac]

mrj, you should save your righteous indignation for the politically correct, animal-rights vegetarians behind this study. NO ONE ON THIS BOARD IS A BIGGER SUPPORTER OF THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF BEEF THAN I AM!!!!! I'm way out in front of you and your ineffective CBB...in fact, the CBB agrees with this biased,joke of a study. CBB promotes only a LEAN 3OZ. SERVING. What is that saying to the public...AVOID FAT AND EAT LESS BEEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, they have limited funds, but who wants to give MORE money to an ineffective organization...that's liberal federal government thinking! CBB doesn't have to give money to NCBA to re-invent the wheel every time they want to make a policy statement...utilize research that is already out there to debunk the negative propaganda and present a positive image for the great nutritional value of beef.

You and the CBB are the ones ignorant of the dietary problems in this country. Your post shows you to be blatantly ignorant or just plain stupid!!!

 

[graybull]

A REAL Beef Champion

As both posters and beef organizations struggle to counter the biased media's coverage.........a REAL beef champion......(with NO direct beef industry connection).......steps up to educate and inform. Too darn bad the beef industry dismisses his type and instead parrots our government's VERY WRONG "eat a balanced diet" message.

Very interesting to me that some outside the beef business believe in our product more strongly than most in the beef business.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

While you're at it......IF you want the truth.....check out how the National Institute of Cancer.......the very same organization who set up this farce study......goes on to try and convince you to eat soy.

http://www.newsmax.com/health/soy_breast_cancer_early/2009/03/25/195781.html

Yes.....most of the media and institutions (including many of our governmental institutions, organizations and departments) have an anti-meat (especially red meat) agenda.....

When will folks from the beef industry quit blindly using these very institutions (USDA, ADA, AMA, and on and on) to tell consumers to moderate their consumption of beef?

Educate yourself....

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462

 

[mrj]

OK, who has positive points here???? Kato, thanks for the link to honest story with many sensible comments.

Haymaker hides his head in the sand.

mrj vents, then presents info from CBB which SHOWS FLAWS of the study, conrary to RobertMac's FALSE claim of AGREEING with the study!

BTW, RobertMac, beef demand was up during Feb, '09, and given the work of CBB and others in getting retailers to feature middle meats, which are more difficult to move than the popular steaks and other premium cuts, there is real hope for that to continue.

Also, RobertMac, CBB supports 5 t0 7 ounces per day rather than the 3 you claim, and is working hard to get government to admit that beef is actually under consumed and many people are not getting enough. They also strongly promote the relatively recently VERIFIED increased nutrient benefits of beef to the people and agencies and health professionals in charge of making the decisions on what is recommended. That work IS effective, but slow to achieve through no fault of CBB leaders. CBB operates from a perspective of science based, verifiable information as being the more successful way to correct past mis-information about beef as opposed to confrontational, overly agressive actions which sometimes cause embarrassent when they do not hold up over time.

Yes, you do proclaim yourself the champion of nutrients in beef rather frequently.......but you often let your hatred for NCBA cloud your points into obscurity, and your claims may get ahead of sound science at times, IMO.

Graybull, thanks so much for that Eades link. I've been long interested in their work, but hadn't taken time to look them up on internet. I, too am quite suspicious of health claims for soy based foods.

I'm still working on Taubes' book. Many may be surprised to know that Taubes was a featured, and very well accepted speaker at the NCBA convention last Feb. I believe he is working with CBB, or they with him, whichever.

Again, CBB and the beef industry will be best served in both the near term and over time, by using the best of SCIENCE VERIFIED nutrition information to promote beef, as I've stated very often.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Poor RobertMac!

He fails to see, understand, or approve the diligent work of the Beef Checkoff to show people sound, science based reasons for eating beef as a valuable nutrient component of a balanced diet.

Surely, RM, you have heard the so called 'experts' telling people that beef is bad for health, the earth and anything else with which they can demonize it???

When the Checkoff leaders have to be accurate and honest and has only a minimal income, plus having people in our own industry working against them, they cannot adequately compete with those working diligently and dishonestly to end all use of animals for food. There are encouraging advances, but everyone needs to work harder to help the cause for beef rather than complain and help set it back.

Could it be that the government gyrations with the economy has something to do with people not rushing out to buy all the beef they want????


mrj

mrj, how "sound" is the science that allows the USDA to preclude any company from testing more than they do on food?

The "sound science" jargon is nothing more than a religion that government knows truth and is the only one with access to it. Whatever they say goes and there can be no evidence gathered to contradict what they have dictated.

"Sound Science" as used by the USDA is nothing more than a false religion.

The NCBA is in trouble more for what they do not do or accomplish than the accomplishments or the things you claim they do.

Their biggest substitute, chicken, is controlled by Tyson who also basically runs the NCBA and the American Meat Institute. You support your substitutes as much as you support beef.

 

[mrj]

Well, Tex, that was quite a rant! Lots of opinions, mighty few facts, tho.

Sound science was not invented by USDA, nor does USDA own the concept.

Sound science is the basis of much of the improvements in every aspect of our lives from medical advancements to mechanical wonders to computer technology, isn't it? No one owns it. Many profit from it, many benefit from it, and a few are only able to use it as an epithet!

What/where is your evidence ofyou claims that no one other than USDA is allowed to test any food? Or that it is used as a religion, false or any other version?

Which division of NCBA do you reference? The CBB material I reference is from work done for that organization by the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA, which is not the issues division. The work is done on a cost recovery only basis and does not affect the work of the Policy/issues division.

Those are interesting charges re. Tyson, AMI, or anyone else other than the dues paying members "controlling" NCBA. Have you attended any meetings? I have. I haven't seen anyone cowering in fear if a packer rep. happens to walk by.

Please tell us exactly how NCBA is supporting "substitutes as much as you support beef".

BTW, what sort of "trouble" do you claim NCBA to be in? What did they fail to accomplish, in your opinion? BTW, they are growing extremely fast the past couple of years, and continuing to do so today!

Chicken is a tough competitor for beef because it is so inexpensive to raise, it always tastes the same, or has little to no taste other than the sauces drenching it, and is generally in a heat and eat form.

The beef checkoff has developed many successful new beef products which CAN compete with chicken in all areas excepting cost. And it has made leaps in getting out the facts showing beef is superior in nutrition to that inexpensive chicken.

It is frustrating that so many people like yourself in our industry either do not know, or will not admit that the Beef Checkoff has made this business better for producers. Unfortunately, that often is due to your zeal to bash NCBA because that is the only real way to promote your opposing agenda or competing organization, whichever the case may be.

It is your checkoff, for goodness sake! Work honestly to improve it if you believe you have better ideas. The governance of the Beef Checkoff is from all major beef organizations in most states, and certainly at the CBB level. It is NOT controlled by NCBA.

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

She doesn't get it guys, never will.

 

[Tex]

Well, Tex, that was quite a rant! Lots of opinions, mighty few facts, tho.

Sound science was not invented by USDA, nor does USDA own the concept.

Sound science is the basis of much of the improvements in every aspect of our lives from medical advancements to mechanical wonders to computer technology, isn't it? No one owns it. Many profit from it, many benefit from it, and a few are only able to use it as an epithet!

What/where is your evidence ofyou claims that no one other than USDA is allowed to test any food? Or that it is used as a religion, false or any other version?

Which division of NCBA do you reference? The CBB material I reference is from work done for that organization by the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA, which is not the issues division. The work is done on a cost recovery only basis and does not affect the work of the Policy/issues division.

Those are interesting charges re. Tyson, AMI, or anyone else other than the dues paying members "controlling" NCBA. Have you attended any meetings? I have. I haven't seen anyone cowering in fear if a packer rep. happens to walk by.

Please tell us exactly how NCBA is supporting "substitutes as much as you support beef".

BTW, what sort of "trouble" do you claim NCBA to be in? What did they fail to accomplish, in your opinion? BTW, they are growing extremely fast the past couple of years, and continuing to do so today!

Chicken is a tough competitor for beef because it is so inexpensive to raise, it always tastes the same, or has little to no taste other than the sauces drenching it, and is generally in a heat and eat form.

The beef checkoff has developed many successful new beef products which CAN compete with chicken in all areas excepting cost. And it has made leaps in getting out the facts showing beef is superior in nutrition to that inexpensive chicken.

It is frustrating that so many people like yourself in our industry either do not know, or will not admit that the Beef Checkoff has made this business better for producers. Unfortunately, that often is due to your zeal to bash NCBA because that is the only real way to promote your opposing agenda or competing organization, whichever the case may be.

It is your checkoff, for goodness sake! Work honestly to improve it if you believe you have better ideas. The governance of the Beef Checkoff is from all major beef organizations in most states, and certainly at the CBB level. It is NOT controlled by NCBA.

mrj

Whoa, whoa, whoa, mrj.

Did the USDA allow Creekstone to test? Yes or no.

Does the USDA control bse testing and the "sound science" behind it or not(which, by the way was backed by the courts)?

NCBA or CBB? Who cares? I like the concept of the beef checkoff. I don't like the idea of the packers having so much control of it. They don't take on their competitors and substitutes, chicken and pork, because of it. Can you refute it?

By the way, I support many of the the beef checkoff's efforts. I just don't think, because of the above, that they have been that successful.

Oh, the smoked brisket I cooked and put in the freezer and heated up was SOOOOO delicious and tender. I have a few tips for you if you don't want to watch your brisket for the many hours it takes to cook on the grill (I like doing it anyway). It makes smoking a brisket EASY!

Yeah, Sandhusker, I know she will never "get it". She is too invested to see the whole picture other than cheerleading. Go, team, go!

 

[Sandhusker]

It's only a matter of time until the new administration makes changes to USDA and NCBA gets in line with the new policies. And then some people will have to eat crow because previous "Sound Science" will be uncovered as money talks pure and simple.

What leads you to believe that money doesn't talk in the Obama adminstration? They're continueing the sell out called NAIS.

 

[hypocritexposer]

:shock:

 

[mrj]

Reader, I'm very curious as to what you mean, specifically, with your statement that "NCBA gets in line with the new policies". Which policies? How has NCBA out of line? Who will "have to eat crow"?

Most of all, which "previous "Sound Science" will be uncovered as money talks"????

Yes, Tex, USDA did deny Creekstone proposal for a reason. The accepted or available testing was/is not conducive to private use, as evidenced, IMO, by the failure of some government expert conducted tests which had to be sent to England to get the results, with the English commenting to the effect that it was a very difficult and complicated sample to test and it was no surprise that results were inconclusive in previous tests.

At that time, was there an infallibly accurate test for BSE? To force, which this would have done, testing of all beef for BSE with no test available which had a high percentage of reliability would have been a foolish decision.

Does USDA have the responsibilty for any testing of animals? Of course. Who determines which states are TB free, or Brucellosis free, for example.

Re. NCBA and CBB, there is a legal difference and some people try to confuse that fact to attack the membership policy organization, NCBA.

NCBA does NOT control the Beef Checkoff. The Federation Division, which is really the group of state Beef Councils (controlling ONLY the state half of checkoff dollars) is comprised of people who are members of virtually ALL cattle/beef organizations, not just NCBA members , is losely affiliated with, but financially separate from the Policy/membership division and their voting is separated, with members only voting on policy issues, and only Federation REPRESENTATIVES voting on checkoff questions. Federation reps decide which projects on the national level they will support with their STATE dollars. The two divisions work together on some projects and contracts, with time of staff accounted for in fifteen minute increments and assigned to the proper association division, thus NO checkoff dollars support NCBA policy issues or lobbying.

CBB (controlling national half of the Beef Checkoff dollars) is a totally separate organization, comprised of representatives from each state, usually chosen by state cattle organization members, and confirmed by USDA. These directors are limited to two three year terms. They control the national half of the beef checkoff dollar and decide which projects they will fund.

Exactly how do you believe the packers control the beef checkoff? How many of the people at the state level even know a packer??? Do you honestly believe Joe Sixpack out on the ranch is intimidated by packers??? There are more of those guys and gals in control of the checkoff than you may be willing to admit!

The fact that beef checkoff does not "take on competitors and substitutes" has more to do with the fact that the Beef Checkoff is mandated by law and has to follow laws, rules and regulations. One of which precludes attacking other commodities with anything other than the facts of differences in nutrient values....which the checkoff has done very well, thank you!

BTW, the beef briskets I cook seem to disappear quite rapidly and with many compliments to the cook!

So far as "gettin it", some of you are too busy trying to "get" NCBA to see the good done by that organization, and for sure you would never admit to it anyway.

I don't need to be a cheerleader.......just trying to keep some of those who would mis-inform others a little bit honest.

mrj

 

[RobertMac]

mrj, you claim NCBA and CBB to be producer organizations...are there more producers today than in 1985? Has beef made gains in market share since 1985?

As for packer control...5 packers kill over 90% of fed cattle...that's control!!! They have bought out and shut down their competition...and do their best to limit new competitors from entering the market place. By default, a hand full of packers control the industry.

If you are actually reading Taubes' book, you should realize how stupid CBB and NCBA where in how the dealt with Dr. Atkins. Go to pages 461-573...that's where he references his notes and his bibliography. The research is there...CBB doesn't have to commission NCBA to verify each of those research studies before they can use the information to debunk propaganda reports like this one. No one read that book come away with the idea that meat is harmful and processed carbohydrate foods aren't harmful.

Obesity is the root cause of our health problems...the American people are being fattened on carbohydrates just like the beef industry fattens cattle on carbohydrates. To blame meat for our health problems is beyond ridiculous...we need an organization to stand up on the behalf of producers and say so!!!!!

Reader, you kid yourself...this administration is full of politically correct, anti-meat bureaucrats. They will do little or nothing to help meat producers. Just like everything else with Obama, substance doesn't follow rhetoric.

 

[Tex]

Reader, I'm very curious as to what you mean, specifically, with your statement that "NCBA gets in line with the new policies". Which policies? How has NCBA out of line? Who will "have to eat crow"?

Most of all, which "previous "Sound Science" will be uncovered as money talks"????

Yes, Tex, USDA did deny Creekstone proposal for a reason. The accepted or available testing was/is not conducive to private use, as evidenced, IMO, by the failure of some government expert conducted tests which had to be sent to England to get the results, with the English commenting to the effect that it was a very difficult and complicated sample to test and it was no surprise that results were inconclusive in previous tests.

At that time, was there an infallibly accurate test for BSE? To force, which this would have done, testing of all beef for BSE with no test available which had a high percentage of reliability would have been a foolish decision.

Does USDA have the responsibilty for any testing of animals? Of course. Who determines which states are TB free, or Brucellosis free, for example.

Re. NCBA and CBB, there is a legal difference and some people try to confuse that fact to attack the membership policy organization, NCBA.

NCBA does NOT control the Beef Checkoff. The Federation Division, which is really the group of state Beef Councils (controlling ONLY the state half of checkoff dollars) is comprised of people who are members of virtually ALL cattle/beef organizations, not just NCBA members , is losely affiliated with, but financially separate from the Policy/membership division and their voting is separated, with members only voting on policy issues, and only Federation REPRESENTATIVES voting on checkoff questions. Federation reps decide which projects on the national level they will support with their STATE dollars. The two divisions work together on some projects and contracts, with time of staff accounted for in fifteen minute increments and assigned to the proper association division, thus NO checkoff dollars support NCBA policy issues or lobbying.

CBB (controlling national half of the Beef Checkoff dollars) is a totally separate organization, comprised of representatives from each state, usually chosen by state cattle organization members, and confirmed by USDA. These directors are limited to two three year terms. They control the national half of the beef checkoff dollar and decide which projects they will fund.

Exactly how do you believe the packers control the beef checkoff? How many of the people at the state level even know a packer??? Do you honestly believe Joe Sixpack out on the ranch is intimidated by packers??? There are more of those guys and gals in control of the checkoff than you may be willing to admit!

The fact that beef checkoff does not "take on competitors and substitutes" has more to do with the fact that the Beef Checkoff is mandated by law and has to follow laws, rules and regulations. One of which precludes attacking other commodities with anything other than the facts of differences in nutrient values....which the checkoff has done very well, thank you!

BTW, the beef briskets I cook seem to disappear quite rapidly and with many compliments to the cook!

So far as "gettin it", some of you are too busy trying to "get" NCBA to see the good done by that organization, and for sure you would never admit to it anyway.

I don't need to be a cheerleader.......just trying to keep some of those who would mis-inform others a little bit honest.

mrj

mrj: "Yes, Tex, USDA did deny Creekstone proposal for a reason. The accepted or available testing was/is not conducive to private use, as evidenced, IMO, by the failure of some government expert conducted tests which had to be sent to England to get the results, with the English commenting to the effect that it was a very difficult and complicated sample to test and it was no surprise that results were inconclusive in previous tests.

At that time, was there an infallibly accurate test for BSE? To force, which this would have done, testing of all beef for BSE with no test available which had a high percentage of reliability would have been a foolish decision."

I am glad you finally admit the USDA does not have the ability to do sound science and instead practices political science.

The USDA should not be the ones who determine who can practice "sound science" based on this alone. Putting incompetent people (or corrupt people) in charge is one of the worst things you can do in government.

It is too bad many in the NCBA can not tell the difference.

I hope the people making this decision are held accountable if there are ANY casualties due to this infiltration of business interests over the public interest. They need to lose all their assets and their taxpayer funded retirements. We will only get accountability if we require it.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I looked at who he appointed to Deputy Secretary at USDA, who he appointed at FDA, the new Food Safety Working Group. He appointed the wrong people to kowtow to big pharma and big food industry.

But you are right, money talks regardless of the (D) or (R) behind a politician's name.

Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head Would be a Terrible Idea

* Organic Consumers Association, November 12, 2008
Straight to the Source

TAKE ACTION TO STOP VILSACK'S CONFIRMATION

* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=200...

* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s
The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.

*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.