Thanks Consumer Reports for ground beef sensationalism

[Faster horses]

Too bad they got so much wrong and only one thing right in this article.
=====================================================

Consumer Reports study explores 'superbugs' in
ground beef
By Krissa Welshans
Published on: Aug 24, 2015
feedstuffs.com
A newly released Consumer Reports' study suggests that conventionally raised U.S. ground beef is twice
as likely to contain superbugs as sustainable beef. Meat industry stakeholders, on the other hand, are
touting the study's confirmation that pathogenic bacteria is rarely found in meat.
For the study, Consumer Reports tested 300 packages—a total of 458 pounds—from 103 grocery, bigbox,
and natural food stores in 26 cities across the country. Additionally, the study tested several different
varieties of ground beef, including conventionally raised, grass-fed, and organic.
Samples for five common types of bacteria found on beef were tested—clostridium perfringens, E. coli
(including O157 and six other toxin-producing strains), enterococcus, salmonella, and staphylococcus
aureus. Results from the study showed 18% of the beef samples from conventionally raised cows
contained "dangerous superbugs" resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics used to treat illness in
humans compared with just 9% of beef from samples that were "sustainably" produced.
NAMI, however, said the bacteria identified in the Consumer Reports testing are types that rarely cause
foodborne illness. Bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, and generic E. coli are
commonly found in the environment and are not considered pathogenic bacteria.
"The real headline here is the bacteria that Consumer Reports doesn't report finding in their testing --
Shiga toxin-producing E. coli and Salmonella – which are the foodborne bacteria of greatest public health
concern in beef," North American Meat Institute vice president of scientific affairs Betsy Booren, Ph.D.
said in response to the findings.
Bacteria occur naturally on all raw food products from beef to blueberries so finding certain types on some
foods in a grocery store is not surprising and should not be concerning, Booren said.
"As an industry, our number one priority is producing the safest meat and poultry possible and this is done
by focusing attention on bacteria which are most likely to make people sick, particularly Shiga toxinproducing
E. coli and Salmonella. It is telling that Consumer Reports did not highlight finding these
bacteria on products they tested, which is a strong indication of the overall safety of beef," she said.
NAMI pointed out that U.S. meat companies produce billions of pounds of ground beef annually, which is
routinely sampled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in
meat plants for E. coli O157:H7. FSIS data shows that E. coli O157:H7 occurs at a rate of less than one
tenth of 1% in ground beef products, NAMI noted.
Other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli have been found by USDA in just 15 of raw ground beef components
so far this year. Any product that tests positive does not enter the marketplace. FSIS has also tested for
Salmonella in recent years with a positive rate of less than 1% in 2015. In addition to FSIS tests for these
pathogens, NAMI said the industry regularly tests for them independently to ensure a safe product is
being produced.
Antibiotic resistance findings alarmist and misleading
NAMI said that while the study's results make clear the safety of beef, Consumer Reports' claims about
antibiotic resistance and its prevalence in products from different production methods is far less clear.
"Antibiotic resistance is common in nature—it has been found in permafrost that has been untouched by
humans and animals," the group noted. "It's presence in bacteria is expected. What is most important to
know is whether certain pathogenic bacteria are resistant to certain types of antibiotics, but Consumer
Reports has not specified this information in the materials shared with the industry."
According to NAMI, the Food and Drug Administration has said that it is inaccurate and alarmist to define
bacteria resistant to one, or even a few, antimicrobials as "superbugs" if these same bacteria are still
treatable by other commonly used antibiotics. This is especially misleading when speaking of bacteria that
do not cause foodborne disease and have natural resistances, such as Enterococcus.
"Just because a bacterium is resistant to one, two or even three antibiotics doesn't necessarily make it a
superbug," Dr. Booren explained. "Superbugs are bacteria that are no longer treatable with antibiotics.
The important aspect to look at isn't the resistance itself, but whether that resistance is a public health
danger."
NAMI referenced a National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System Report that found about 80% of
human Salmonella isolates are not resistant to any of the tested antibiotics, a finding that has not
changed in the past 10 years. Additionally, resistance to ceftriaxone, azithromycin and quinolones, three
important drugs used to treat human Salmonella isolates, remains below 3%. Salmonella multi-drug
resistance (resistance to three or more classes of antibiotics) in human, cattle and chicken isolates has
not changed (at about 10%) in the last decade, NAMI said.
Both Consumer Reports and NAMI agreed that consumers should cook all ground beef, whether
conventional, organic or grass fed to 160 degrees Fahrenheit. NAMI said any bacteria, antibiotic resistant
or not, are killed when cooked to the recommended temperature.
"Consumers are urged to use a meat thermometer to confirm doneness and properly store products
before and after cooking since bacteria can multiply at temperatures above 40 degrees," NAMI said.

 

[Faster horses]

And here is a follow-up:


Our beef with shoddy, sensationalist, suspect science (commentary)
By Feedstuffs Foodlink
By Liz Casellimechael

*Liz Caselli-Mechael is director of issues management for the International Food Information Council Foundation. A full version of this article was posted at http://www.foodinsight.org/consumer-reports-ground-meat-organic-safe.


YOU'VE probably already seen the latest headline grab from Consumer Reports claiming that your ground beef is, inevitably, going to kill you.

If you remember nothing else from this media frenzy, remember this: (1) our meat supply is safe and tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, (2) safe food handling procedures, like washing your hands and cooking your meat, are what you need to keep your family safe and (3) safe food handling procedures are needed for both organic and conventionally produced meat; microbes don't care how your food was produced.

After digging in to the report, here are a number of things Consumer Reports got wrong (and one they got right).

What they got wrong

* Myth: There are safety differences between grass-fed or organic meat and conventional meat.

Fact: Uncooked meat isn't safe to eat, regardless of how it was raised, and there is no difference in safety between burgers from organic and conventionally raised animals.

First, no beef, whether organic or conventional, is safe to eat unless it is has been cooked to the proper internal temperature. Consumer Reports doesn't dispute this.

The report also shows that ALL samples tested (organic, grass-fed and conventional) contained "bacteria that signified fecal contamination." So, the data show what scientists already knew to be true: All uncooked beef (no matter the production method) can contain bacteria, and some of that bacteria could be harmful.

Even when everything is properly cooked, there is no difference in safety between organic and conventionally raised meat.

Dr. Mike Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, explains: "There is no definitive scientific evidence to indicate that organic beef is safer than conventionally raised beef. However, there have been many insinuations, based on indirect evidence or superficial studies, that organic beef is safest.

"The presence and number of bacteria found in ground beef is largely reflective of the conditions under which beef is processed, not on the conditions by which cattle are grown. In the 1980s, it was not uncommon to have bacterial counts in ground beef of more than a million cells per gram, whereas today's ground beef typically has less than 1,000 to 10,000 bacteria per gram. This is largely because beef processing conditions have markedly improved over the years, in part by including many innovative food safety interventions at processing facilities," Doyle added.

"Most bacteria present in raw ground beef are not harmful to human health," he said, but emphasized that Escherichia coli O157:H7 and salmonella "are harmful and can occasionally be found in raw ground beef, whether conventionally grown or organically grown. This is why it is important to cook ground beef to at least 160 degrees F before it's eaten."

So, be sure to cook all ground beef to 160 degrees F — every time.

Myth: "Superbugs" in conventionally raised meat are making food unsafe.

Fact: The Food & Drug Administration and farmers are addressing antibiotic resistance through stewardship, and proper food handling keeps your family safe when eating meat from either organic or conventionally raised animals.

The report makes sweeping statements about the presence of so-called "superbugs" in conventionally raised meat without providing any citation. Consumer Reports also does not define superbug — a word that has too often been used to incite unnecessary fear among readers. In fact, FDA has spoken out against similar reports that used this term.

"We believe that it is inaccurate and alarmist to define bacteria resistant to one, or even a few, antimicrobials as 'superbugs' if these same bacteria are still treatable by other commonly used antibiotics. This is especially misleading when speaking of bacteria that do not cause foodborne disease," FDA reported.

So, regardless how Consumer Reports defines superbugs, should you worry about them in your meat? The short answer is no. Following the four steps of safe food handling — clean, separate, cook and chill — will keep you and your family safe from any potential pathogens in food.

Farmers practicing antibiotic stewardship also protect us from potential antibiotic-resistant organisms. By working with veterinarians and other trained professionals, many producers are decreasing antibiotic use to the lowest levels necessary while still humanely treating illness among their animals.

Also, FDA has provided guidance on phasing out "medically important" antibiotics from food-producing animals, including cattle, meaning that many producers are voluntarily stopping the use of animal antibiotics that are also used to treat common human illnesses. This means less opportunity for antibiotic-resistant strains to develop.

* Myth: Antibiotics are just a way to cheaply "fatten up" cattle.

Fact: Antibiotics are critical tools for animal health, and all farmers have an ethical responsibility to use them when needed.

Consumer Reports claims that antibiotics are used as "the most cost-efficient way to fatten up cattle." Not only is this a warped view of animal health and medicine, but it's an insult to the veterinarians around the country and the world who work every day to prioritize food safety and animal welfare. Animals used in food production should be able to live as free from pain, suffering and sickness as possible.

Experts such as Dr. H. Morgan Scott of Texas A&M University and others agree that the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals is the moral and ethical thing to do. Healthy animals mean a safe, affordable and abundant food supply.

As highlighted by the International Food Information Council Foundation's FACTS (Food Advocates Communicating Through Science) earlier this year, many opponents of antibiotics try to paint a picture that farmers of traditionally raised animals somehow are unethical or uncaring about how their animals are raised. In reality, even organic farmers are allowed to use antibiotics.

Will Gilmer, a dairy farmer in Alabama, explained, "When antibiotics are deemed medically necessary to treat a sick animal, farmers and ranchers, both conventional and organic, have an ethical responsibility to treat them. To balance their responsibility to the animal's health and the requirements of organic labeling, most organic producers either market treated animals as conventionally raised or sell them to a producer who is not in the organic or similar program."

* Myth: Buying up raw meat and testing it in a non-transparent environment is "science."

Fact: Science is not sensationalist. It's the use of accepted methodologies like systematic review and randomized-controlled trials. It's taking clear and valid study approaches. It's using transparency in data, analysis and conclusions. It's also peer reviewed so readers can see if the methodologies hold water.

Consumer Reports doesn't include citations or references for any of its assumptions or categorizations. It doesn't use peer-reviewed methodology, and it provides no sharing of raw data that would allow for an independent review of the findings. It doesn't show its criteria for bacterial contamination or for categorizing different types of meat production.

Consumer Reports shows its real intent in the way it blurs the line among science, economics, ethics and activist groups. This is all about polarization and pitting farmers against each other, not about making the food system safer. While it won't grab the attention of sensationalist social media, the way you can improve food safety is by practicing and teaching safe food handling.

What they got right

* Fact: There are risks from undercooking or handling raw meat. Use a food thermometer, and wash your hands!

Microbes don't care how your food was produced. Both organic and conventionally produced foods can be contaminated with dangerous pathogens. E. coli, salmonella and listeria don't discriminate. In fact, some research has even shown higher rates of microbial contamination on organic foods than conventionally produced foods, which is all the more reason to brush up on your safe food handling skills, no matter what type of foods you buy.

There are four simple steps to help keep your family's food safe: clean, separate, cook and chill. Check out the "Consumer's Guide to Safe Food Handling" infographic (http://www.foodinsight.org/blogs/consumers-guide-safe-food-handling ), and remember, these tips apply to ALL foods, no matter the production method.

Volume:87 Issue:d3

 

[John SD]

Here's another recent discussion from NAT http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=576657&mid=4758414#M4758414

IMO, Consumer Reports has become just another liberal rag firing potshots at agriculture. Whatever credibilty they might have once had is shot.

Best solution is for we in agriculture to fight fire with fire and hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts the most. Time for a boycott of Consumer Reports :wink:

 

[Faster horses]

Here's another recent discussion from NAT http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=576657&mid=4758414#M4758414

IMO, Consumer Reports has become just another liberal rag firing potshots at agriculture. Whatever credibilty they might have once had is shot.

Best solution is for we in agriculture to fight fire with fire and hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts the most. Time for a boycott of Consumer Reports :wink:

:agree:
I sent that information to the President of CattleWomen. That organization knows who to get the info to to fight this type of
thing. Plus I think I will put it on my facebook page. Get the word out, folks!!

Following is a good comment on the AgTalk site:
I would be cancelling my subscription if I had one but fortunately I don't. I think we as an industry need to do a better job of taking issues like this head on. Instead of just cancelling subscriptions we need to write letters. I'm not talking about mad, naming calling, terrorizing activist letters like our "competition" would send but instead informative, thought out messages. I don't know if they post letters to the editor or not but even a letter to them may change their thinking and ideas. If you only hear one side of the story many times it is believed to be the truth. If we only talk between ourselves about this issue we are not doing ourselves any good. This is an issue each and everyone of us in the livestock and ag industry as a whole NEED to address any time we get a chance! If we don't stand up for ourselves no one will!!!

 

[mrj]

Thanks for sharing the info, FH. And for passing it on to CattleWomen.

I've not trusted Consumer Reports for a long time, believing them to be one of those 'do good' outfits which charge companies for the reports published.

I guess it is a blessing that so many people in the USA are so well fed, and live such easy lives that they can spend so much of their time worrying about the quality of food, and especially that they are so certain most people producing that food are out to harm their health with that food!!!! The most minimal brain activity should show the lie in that idea.

People promoting the idea of fearing food have an agenda which includes making money with words the easy way, rather than sound, peer reviewed research to verify their premise, imo. Granted, with so many ways and variations in how cattle are produced, it would take time and time equals money in most cases. It's so much easier and faster to 'research' opinions and pass them off as fact.

The refutations of the story are good, in that they present the facts. Consumers may wonder how the contamination can get on the meat. Having been interested in the work, from research to carrying out recommendations which helped reduce the e coli contamination of ground beef a few years ago (Beef Check Off money was involved, and 'we' convinced various packers to contribute invaluable dollars, too) I learned that those miniscule critters work very hard to continue their 'work'. To the extent that extreme cleaning of premises where meat is processed , adding steam cleaning to the normal procedures, actually drove the bacteria (not sure if that is correct term) into heating systems and re-distributed them into the clean rooms.

I don't know why it is that we humans love to demonize that which we don't know or understand, as in huge packing plants, ranches, commercial feed lots, you name it.....if 'it' does something to supposedly make money, we are suspicious of it, especially if our food is involved.

I doubt many people really want to go back to the day when we had to raise, process, and store all our own food. Just because we didn't have the communication systems back then, does not mean there were no tragic illnesses and death to contaminated foods! And I would venture that the home processing systems from canning to drying took a lot of the nutrients out of our food, compared with modern processing systems. Why can't we just be thankful for the fact that in the USA, we have the safest, most abundant, lowest consumer cost food in the world?

It seems especially insulting that above what it costs producers and processors to provide that food, we now must spend money we can't always afford to convince consumers we are NOT trying to cheat them, or make them sick!

mrj

 

[Faster horses]

Just to clarify, I sent the info to the Montana President of CattleWomen. If you know someone else, please feel free to pass it along, mrj.

You posted some food for thought. Why does our country make mountains out of molehills where our food is concerned?

 

[mrj]

FH, I'm sure MT pres. will have passed it along 'to the top'. It seems to me our state and national CW groups work extremely well together......always have, anyway. They sure do stretch our checkoff $$$$ with the volunteer work. Thanks for your comments. I've not been directly involved for several years, having 'burned out a bit', and just plain feeling age to exent I'm focusing more on easy stuff which doesn't require the physical effort. A grand dau. in law is at SD State Fair right now, which brings back memories of the time spent there in my 'active years' in CW. Really busy times and I always thought had good value for time and money compared to people reached....and still does. Our gal is a 4-H coordinator, so life is lively for her this week!. I would like to go see how it all has changed.......maybe next year!

Re. "mountains of molehills" comment....could it be guilty feelings for our abundance.....after so few of us do the work of production (from conception to the package of all foods) that the multitudes fed so well feel a bit guilty?

Having somewhat foolishly invested in three dozen ears of sweet corn, it took a LOT of effort to process that for the freezer. It was satisfying that along with giving sharing a half dozen ears with neighbors, and eating a few, there were about 8 packages with 3 to 4 cups in each to put in the freezer. Needing to keep a foot at least somewhat elevated while doing that chore is a real challenge in my tiny kitchen. We sure will appreciate it next winter, tho. I'm missing having a grand daughter available. Last year the eldest one, age 24, spent a month helping me after knee replacement and put up lots of corn and yellow squash. She would process bushels of that stuff!! Never say anyone who enjoys so pretty plain and simple, sort of stir fried with a drizzle of cheese over it. /we feared that wouldn't be so good with frozen squash, but frying it and stirring carefully to evaporate the moisture makes it work well, and it doesn't take much butter, either, so is a 'healthful' fried food.

mrj

 

[Faster horses]

I have belonged to CowBelles/ CattleWomen since 1965 and in two states. They are a very worthwhile organization. It's tough to get the younger ladies involved. Seems kids sports keep them from joining.....no time....sad to say...so I worry about the future of
the organization.

Just a little known and less cared about fact :wink: ....the folks that helped us get started in ranching in Wyoming on our own...the
Mrs. was American National CowBelles (at that time) President. She was in DC attending a meeting and was in an elevator with a 'CowBelles' pin on her outfit. Some guys in suits got on the elevator with her and made some uncomplimentary remarks about her being a CowBelle.....so she immediately took up the charge to change the name to 'CattleWomen'. And thus, the name was eventually changed.