Food – Animal Food

Foto_123/stock.adobe.com

Did You Know?

• Livestock eaten by people pass on Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins from industry that pollute the general environment. While this rarely causes outright poisoning, these toxins combine with other toxins from other sources to the detriment of human health. This is particularly relevant to the U.S., which has the highest consumption of animal protein the world.
• In 2018, 2/3 of the antibiotic drugs sold in the U.S. were used for livestock. Almost all of this is to prevent disease caused by unsanitary conditions in animal raising facilities, or to add weight gain. This wanton drug abuse is contributing to increased resistance of pathogens to the point where antibiotics are loosing their ability to cure human diseases.
• Other questionable use of drugs in livestock production includes the use of hormones for increased weight gain and milk production, caffeine, antidepressants, heart medications, the hallucinogenic drug ketamine, and the main ingredient in Tylenol.
• Organic and pasture-raised animals often have more balanced diets, contain less fat and the right kinds of fat, and are generally raised more humanely.  But finding out how livestock is raised can be confusing. Look for the labels discussed at the end of this article.

Animal Food

You Are What They Eat

In 2013, the U.S. consumed 10% of the world’s animal protein, and only 1% of the world’s population consumed more animal food per capita than America.1  In 2018, America consumed 93 billion eggs, 34 million head of cattle, 110 million pigs, and 7.7 billion chickens.2  There were 9.4 million milk cows in the U.S. that year, producing about 26 billion gallons of milk, enough to fill Lake Austin 4 times!3

Given our diet and culture, particular care must be taken to avoid the toxins and dangers inherent in the production of meat, fish, and dairy products.

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins

Since the end of W.W.II, the production of synthetic chemicals and their use has overwhelmed the environment.  Over 86,000 commercial chemicals are manufactured or processed by U.S. industries.  However, even hazardous chemicals that are no longer produced can linger in the environment for generations.

Some of the most dangerous chemicals, both on the market and banned, are labeled Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs) or Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).  They can take decades or centuries to fully biodegrade, and often bioaccumulate in the environment, including the food and water that people ingest.  These toxins tend to build up in body fat of animals.  Humans and other carnivores at the top of the food chain that eat animal food accumulate these toxins since they eat food contaminated with them.

Organochlorine pesticides such as DDT and aldrin, Teflon™-like perfluorocarbons (PFCs), brominated fire retardants (such as PBDE), dioxins from combustion and chlorine production, and banned polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) often sequester themselves in animal food.  Most of this would not have occurred before the 1940s, but is a sad fact of life today.  These chemicals are so pervasive in the environment that their presence can be detected in virtually every mammal on the earth, no matter how remote the location.

The graphs in this story detail PBTs from two studies found in various types of food.  The first is for flame retardants.  The second is for other PBTs: organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, and PCBs.  These graphs attempt to estimate the annual toxins consumed in the average U.S. diet.  These different chemicals can cause different levels of harm.  The majority of dietary exposure from most of these chemicals comes from animal food.  (Since the 2010 study reflected in the second chart, endosulfans were banned in the U.S.)

While none of these chemicals exceed a threshold of harm for an individual chemical, they can interact with each other to cause health problems for which they are not tested.  In addition to bioaccumulating in the body, they can cause harm by interacting with other chemical exposures unrelated to food (e.g., toxins in air, building materials).

It is concerning that while DDT and aldrin were banned in the U.S. decades ago, their residues continue to appear in food, either in imported products from countries still using these pesticides, or from domestic pesticide applications from long ago that still have not completely degraded.  Still, environmental regulation does improve such exposures dramatically.  A Swedish study of human breast milk showed a decline of 98% in the organochlorine pesticide DDT since it was banned in that region in the 1970s.4

Other toxics and adulterants in animal food can be avoided or limited by buying products where the animals are raised in a natural environment.  However, it may be difficult for people to limit PBTs from eating meat and dairy without avoiding their consumption.

Antibiotics Resistance (AR)

About 2 million Americans a year develop Hospital-Acquired Infections, resulting in about 99,000 deaths.  The vast majority of these were linked to antibiotic-resistant (AR) bacteria.7   About 35,000 of these infections result in fatalities, with many more deaths from complications resulting from antibiotic resistance.8

Most animals raised for meat or milk in the U.S. are located in “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” (CAFOs).  The purpose of these quasi-industrial facilities is to harvest as much meat or dairy product per animal as possible, even if this means keeping them in cruel conditions.

CAFOs allow almost no natural light and insufficient amounts of fresh air to promote health in densely packed conditions.  Sewage treatment is difficult and usually primitive.  Since these conditions promote disease, antibiotics are often mixed with the feed to control illness.  In some animals such as cattle, these drugs also promote faster weight gain.

About 66% of the 20.3 million pounds of antibiotics used in the U.S. in 2018 were used in livestock, and 95% of animal drugs were consumed in feed and water, implying that most of this was for non-therapeutic use.9  Because of this drug abuse, dangerous bacteria that cause disease are becoming resistant to antibiotics that cure animal and human disease.  Mutated bacteria that survive low dosages pass this trait on to their progeny.  This has reached the point where “superbug” bacteria (that are resistant to some or all antibiotics that are available today) are pervasive.

• Antibiotic resistant bacteria are present on many meat products sold to customers, who can be exposed before cooking or by improper cooking.

• If the AR germs infect a person, they can then spread to a non-infected person.

• The AR resistant traits do not confine themselves to the original pathogen.  Different species of bacteria can trade AR genes between each other, making antibiotics less effective in treating other diseases.

• AR bacteria can be spread to workers at CAFOs.

• AR bacteria are also in sewage.  Since CAFOs handle their manure by spreading it on land as fertilizer, people can be exposed to the pathogens through the food grown with it.  The AR genes from the original bacteria can also spread to bacteria in the soil, as well as bacteria in water bodies through run-off and groundwater seepage.

Public professionals have been expressing alarm for decades that at some point, all existing antibiotics, at one time considered miracle drugs, may be rendered ineffective due to pathogenic resistance.  If public health is dealt this major setback, millions more people around the world will die annually from formerly curable diseases.

To give some tangible outline of this concern, the Environmental Working Group has analyzed antibiotic resistant bacteria in meat samples gathered by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for several years.  From a review of 2015 data, the organization determined that 79% of ground turkey, 71% of pork chops, 62% of ground beef, and 35% of chicken parts were resistant to at least one antibiotic.10  It further found that 1 in 5 strains of salmonella were AR for amoxicillin, the most commonly used children’s antibiotic.

Another alarming study from Pennsylvania showed that AR MRSA (associated with “flesh-eating bacteria” symptoms) was elevated near farm fields that were spreading manure from swine CAFOs.11  Still other studies showed that MRSA had been found in wind aerosols 150 meters from their areas of origin, and in soil as far away as 300 meters.12

Non-Antibiotic Growth Promoters

Weight-Gain Hormones – Slow-releasing hormone-pellets are implanted in the ears of cattle to encourage more growth during the fattening process. These include natural hormones estradiol-17, progesterone, and testosterone, and the synthetic hormones melengestrol acetate, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol.

The first hormone added to U.S. beef was diethylstilbestrol (DES) in 1954.13  Other hormone additives were approved beginning two years later.  DES had previously been used for human medical purposes in pregnant women, prescribed as a drug to reduce the incidence of miscarriage.  It was banned for human use in the U.S. in 1971 because of the carcinogenic effect it had on the daughters of women who used it.  However, DES continued to be used as a growth promoter in livestock until 1979.  Still, the practice of hormone treatment remains widespread using the 6 other approved drugs.  It is estimated that at least 2/3 of U.S. beef is raised with hormones.14  Concurrent use of more than one hormone at a time is allowed by federal regulators.

Scientifically, there is no dispute between proponents and opponents of adding these substances to cattle that they add to the level ingested in beef.  The argument centers around the dose.  Proponents will defend the practice by saying that hormone implants will only add a minute quantity.  One advocate estimated beef hormones at 14 parts per trillion for 1.1 pounds of meat, while human hormones such as estrogen can be in adults at 136,000 parts per trillion in men and 513,000 parts per trillion in women per day.15

This theory, however, has been challenged.  At least two scientific studies have linked harm to male fertility from increased beef consumption.

One of these studies, conducted in 2007, showed an association between high meat consumption in mothers and infertility in their adult sons.16  The men whose mothers ate beef 7 times or more per week had sperm concentrations 24% lower than than men whose mothers ate less beef, and the rate of subfertility was 3 times higher than than men whose mothers ate less beef (18% vs. 6%).  The authors concluded the possible cause was associated with added hormones.

In 2014, another study showed increased consumption of processed meat was associated with decreased sperm count, again possibly linked to growth hormones.17

Still other studies show effects to the environment as well as consumers.18 Fish downstream of run-off of cattle manure (near animal raising facilities and on farms where manure is used as fertilizer) have been affected by hormones.  Male fish are demasculated, while females are defeminized.

The European Union has banned U.S. meat raised with these additives since 1989.  In its own research, it has called out estrogen as a proven carcinogen, and inferred that the other 5 hormones used in the U.S. could also cause cancer.  The EU is also concerned about endocrinal, developmental, immunological, genetic, and neurotoxic harm caused by these substances, particularly to children.19  Among the concerns of the researchers was that hormone implants could be inserted in the wrong part of the animal.  This would result in the drugs being processed into ground meat and exposing them to people at very high doses.

Artwork by John Dolley

Bovine Growth Hormone – Unlike hormones administered to cattle to promote weight and meat gain, bovine growth hormone (BGH) is a genetically engineered substance injected into cows to induce more milk production.  It can increase the yield per cow, but at a cost to both animal and human health.

BGH can cause harm to people that consume cow’s milk.  It increases the chance of mastitis (inflamed udders), lameness, infertility, and digestive disorders in cows.20  Increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis and other infections increases the possibility of antibiotic resistance that can affect humans.21

BGH is also associated with an increase in the hormone Insulin Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1).  Though evidence is not conclusive, some studies have associated increases in IGF-1 with increased incidence of breast, colon, gastrointestinal, ovarian, and prostate cancer.22

Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, and New Zealand all prohibit the use of BGH.

Unlike most other genetically engineered foods in the U.S., the public has generally rejected milk from BGH-treated cows.  Campaigns by environmental and organic-food advocates, as well as labeling by BGH-free dairy producers, have created a toxic marketplace (no pun intended) for dairy produced with this hormone.  In 2002, 22% of cows in the U.S. were treated with BGH.  By 2014, it had fallen to 15%.23

Other Growth Promoters – U.S. pork producers do not use antibiotics as growth promoters.  However, they rely on other drugs such as ractopamine.  During the last few weeks of the “finishing” process, where hogs (as well as other livestock) are fattened before slaughter, hog feed is laced with the drug.  It causes them to gain more muscle (and saleable meat) instead of fat.

But it can also contribute to heart problems, hyperactivity, broken limbs, injury, lameness, and increased death in pigs.  People ingesting excessive amounts of it through animal food can experience asthma-like symptoms, heart palpitations, and anxiety.  By 2010, China had claimed there were 1,700 illnesses attributed to ractopramine between 1998 and 2010 from pork imported from the U.S.24  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was forced to create a certification program proving that pork exported to China and Russia was free of ractopamine because of their governments’ health concerns.25  More than 160 countries have banned its use in livestock,  but it is perfectly legal to use in pork sold in the U.S.26

Zilmax, another chemical used to place weight on cattle late in finishing, has been shown to cause greatly increased feedlot death rates and lameness in the animals.  Hoofs have been observed literally falling apart.  While the drug fell out of favor with some beef producers due to these health effects, it is still marketed.

Top: Vedaant Sethia/Shutterstock.com Bottom: al7/Shutterstock.com

Other Chemicals in Animal Food Production

In addition to PBTs, conventional antibiotics that can cause antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and growth promoters, are a host of lesser known toxins and drugs that are used in animal raising.  A 2018 Consumer Reports analysis of USDA data from meat samples identified: traces of the hallucinogen ketamine; the anti-inflammatory drug phenylbutazone (so powerful it is banned for human consumption but used on horses); the antibiotic chloramphenicol (that can cause life-threatening aplastic anemia); and nitroimidazoles (an antifungal medication that is a probable carcinogen).27

A 2012 study authored by researchers at Arizona State University and Johns Hopkins University detected 32 drugs or ingredients found in personal care products in the feather meal of chickens, which is used both as a crop fertilizer and as feed for animals (including chickens).28  While many of these were antibiotics and would be (to some extent) expected, there were also signs of chemicals that would surprise the average reader.

• Caffeine is intentionally given to chickens by feeding them coffee pulp and tea powder.  It is used as stimulant to keep chickens up at night so that they will eat and gain more weight.

• Acetaminophen, the main ingredient in the pain medication Tylenol, is given to young chickens to quell fevers from reactions to vaccinations that are administered to combat the diseased environment in CAFOs.  It is also used later in their growth to alleviate pain in their legs brought on by genetics and lack of vitamin D (because CAFOs have no sunlight) that can make it difficult for the birds to walk.  Stanching the pain keeps the birds walking and eating.

• Diphenhydramine, the active antihistamine ingredient in Benadryl, is used to combat respiratory problems brought on by noxious air in CAFOs.

• Fluoxetine (a.k.a. Prozac), an antidepressant, is used in China to keep chickens calm in a CAFO-stressed environment.  Less stress produces more tender meat.

• Parasiticides are commonly used in CAFOs to fight infestations often caused by the unsanitary conditions.  However, due to the dose, length and time of exposure, and metabolism, not all of these show up in the animal’s body at the time of slaughter.  The study also discovered thiabendazole (used on nematode worms), which is a reproductive and developmental toxin, as well as an organ toxicant in sufficient quantities.

• The study also identified norgestimate, a synthetic hormone found in birth control pills, and dehydronifedipine and digoxin, both used as heart disease medications.

Unhealthy Fat Content

Conventional livestock raised in CAFOs are almost always fed grain to increase slaughter weight, and often to enhance the flavor.  But consuming large percentages of grain is not part of these animals’ evolution.

This has a particularly large impact on cows.  Large percentages of grain in cows’ diets not only damages their health, but increases fat content that adversely impacts human consumers.  A human diet with too much fat contributes to ailments such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.

Grain-fed animals also often contain the wrong kind of fat.  Certain types (such as Omega-3 and Omega-6 polyunsaturated, low-cholesterol fats) are actually beneficial to people.  Omega-3 fats have been proven to lower heart disease; in some studies, they have also been effective in improving fetal brain development and reducing dementia.29

Another important consideration is that grain-fed animals have a higher ratio of Omega-6 fats to Omega-3 fats.  A ratio of 1 to 1 is considered optimum for health, but the American diet today can be as high as 10 to 1.  Higher ratios have been associated with increased heart disease.30

Beef and Dairy: Grass-fed beef and dairy cows prove to be low in fat.  But interestingly, both organic beef and dairy products also contain higher levels of beneficial Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats.31  These foods also contain lower ratios of Omega-6 to Omega-3.32  Omega-3 in grass-fed beef has been shown to be 160% higher than in conventional beef.33  Some studies also show grass-fed cows produce lower levels of unhealthy high-cholesterol (saturated) fat.34

Grass-fed beef is higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a nutrient shown to reduce cancer risk.35 Grass-fed meat  has also shown higher levels of beta-carotene, Vitamin E, B-vitamins riboflavin and thiamine, and higher levels of calcium, magnesium, and potassium.36

Health-conscious consumers of beef should be careful to distinguish between labels.  Grass-fed is usually designated by the terms “Select,” “Lean,” and “Very Lean.”

As of this time, there is no U.S. government approved definition or certification program to determine such things as whether grass-fed cattle have been raised on open pasture, what percentage of their food is grass (and what percentage of non-grass food is genetically engineered or organic), or whether they have been given antibiotics and hormones.  Conversely, cows certified organic are not required to be grazed more than 120 days a year, and grain can be supplemented even on these days.

The best way to obtain beef and cow’s milk that is both organic and grass-fed is to shop for food with labels that certify both qualities.  (See table on page 39.)

Pigs and Chickens: There is a conscious effort among a relatively small number of pig and poultry farmers to raise animals on open pasture.  “Pasture-raised” livestock are different than “free-range” animals.  Free-range livestock are often raised in CAFOs, with the only difference that they have access to the outdoors.  Ensuring that they actually go outdoors is not required.

Pastured animals are actually raised on open pasture, with permanent or portable shelters often located near them to provide safety from the elements when necessary.  Unlike cattle, which have 4 stomachs in their digestive tract to consume grass, pigs and poultry are not predominantly grass eaters.  While pigs and chickens can and will eat grass when allowed to forage, in almost all cases in which they are pasture-raised, grass is not their main source of food. 

Sometimes forage crops (e.g., oats, clover, kale) are intentionally raised for grazing.  Cow’s milk, fish oil and meal, and amino acids might intentionally be fed as protein supplements.  Often grain and soy are main staples for pasture-raised pigs and chickens, with forage of grass, seeds, bugs, and worms supplementing this.  There is no prescribed pasture-raised diet, and a pasture-raised diet can vary by farm, climate, and season.

Pasture-raised pigs and poultry are not necessarily certified as organic.  As with beef and cow’s milk, the best way to obtain meat and eggs that are both organic and pasture-raised is to shop for food with labels that certify both qualities.  However, as with grass-fed beef, a better quality diet, exercise, and access to the outdoors generally yields a more nutritious product.

With chicken raised for meat, pasture-raised and organic animals have a higher rate of Omega-3 fats, a lower ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 fats, and increased iron, Vitamin E, and beta-carotene than conventionally raised animals.37

With chicken eggs, pasture-raised and organic animals also have a higher rate of Omega-3 fats and a lower ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 fats, as well as increased levels of Vitamin D and E, beta-carotene, and the antioxidants lutein and zeanthin compared to conventionally raised animals.38

Pasture-raised and organic pork also has a higher rate of Omega-3 fats and a lower ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 fats, as well as increased levels of iron, Vitamin E and polyphenol antioxidants compared to conventionally raised animals.39

Grazed and Confused

Eating Safer Up the Food Chain

Consumers who want to buy safer animal food products are confronted with a number of confusing labels, claims, and advertisements that must be sifted through to find safer products. Food safety analysts at the Environmental Working Group recommend that you look for meat (excluding fish) and dairy products endorsed by at least one of half-a-dozen ratings and organizations. These higher standards include: eliminating or limiting feedlots; a better diet of grass or purer grain; prohibition of hormones, other growth promoters, and antibiotics; and more humane treatment. The table below compares these various standards.

In reading this, consumers should be a bit cautious about the U.S. Department of Agriculture organic standards for beef and pork. The laws and rules have changed. These food products were once governed by “Country of Origin Labeling” laws that required disclosure of where they were produced. But due to law changes resulting from international trade disputes, the U.S. now allows foreign beef and pork, including reputedly organic animal food, to be labeled as produced in the U.S. as long as they are processed in the U.S., even if they are not raised here.

Since inspections are done in another country, it is difficult to be as confident of the “organic” claim unless the product also carries another reliable certification in this chart.

1 Country comparison of animal protein consumption in grams/per capita/day of animal food from “Commodity Balances – Livestock and Fish Primary Equivalent,” U.N Food and Agricultural Organization, FAOSTAT database, for year 2013.  Online at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/BL

2 2019 Agricultural Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2018, Tables 7-12, 7-25, 7-27, 7-61, 8-4, 8-36, 8-37, 8-46.  Total pigs (Table 7-25) adjusted for exports of 12% per Table 7-61 and carcass to live weight conversion of 72%.

3 Ibid., Table 8-4.  Lake Travis comparison derived by dividing total pounds in Table 8.4 by 8.6 to convert to gallons, and comparing gallons to 21,000 acre-feet.

4 Norén, Koidu and Daiva Meironyté  “Certain organochlorine and organobromine contaminants in Swedish human milk in perspective of past 20-30 years,“  Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institutet, Chemosphere 40 (2000) 1111-1123.

5 Schecter, Arnold, et al., “Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Hexabromocyclodecane in Composite U.S. Food Samples,” Environmental Health Perspectives, V. 118, No. 13, March 2010, p. 360.

6 Schecter, Arnold, et al., “Perfluorinated Compounds, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Organochlorine Pesticide Contamination in Composite Food Samples from Dallas, Texas, USA,” Environmental Health Perspectives, V. 118, No. 6, June 2010, p. 800.

7 Guidos, Robert, “Combating Antimicrobial Resistance: Policy Recommendations to Save Lives,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, V. 52, May 1, 2011, pp. S397–S428.

8 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 2019, p. vii.

9 Human use assumes 7 million pounds (2015 figure) from Wallings, David, Better Bacon, Washington, DC: National Resources Defense Council, May 2018.

Animal use assumes 13.3 million pounds from op. cit. 2018 Summary Report On Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals.

10 Undurraga, Dawn, “Supermarket Meat Still Superbugged, Federal Data Show,” Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group, June 28, 2018.

11 Casey, Joan, et al.,“High-density livestock operations, crop field application of manure, and risk of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, Pennsylvania, USA,” JAMA Internal Medicine, November 25, 2013, p. 2.

12 Ibid., p. 8.

13 Raun, A. P. and R. L. Preston, “History of diethylstilbestrol use in cattle,” American Society of Animal Science, 2002.

14 Johnson, Renée, The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R4044, January 9, 2017, p. 2.

15 Loy, Dan, “Understanding Hormone Use in Beef Cattle,” Iowa State University Extension, March 2011.

16 Swan, S.H, et al., “Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy,” Human Reproduction, V. 22, No.6, March 28, 2007, pp. 1497–1502.

17 Afeiche, Myriam, et al., “Meat intake and reproductive parameters among young men,” Epidemiology, V. 25, No. 3, May 2014,  pp. 323–330.

18 Hribar, Carrie, Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities, National Association of Local Boards of Health, Bowling Green OH, 2010. Renner, Rebecca, “Do Cattle Growth Hormones Pose an Environmental Risk?” Environmental Science and Technology, May 1, 2002, pp. 195-197.

19 op. cit., Johnson, Renée, p. 8.

20 “Opposition to the Use of Hormone Growth Promoters in Beef and Dairy Cattle Production,” Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, November 10, 2009.

21 Ibid.

22 Weroha, S. John and Paul Haluska, “IGF System in Cancer,” Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, V. 41, No. 2, June 2012, pp. 335–350.

23 Dairy 2014: Dairy Cattle Management Practices in the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Division, February 2016, p. 209.

Dairy 2002 Part I: Reference of Dairy Health and Management in the United States 2002, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Division, Dec. 2002, p. 23.

24 Rosenberg, Martha, “The Drug Store in American Meat,” Counterpunch, November 28, 2012.

25 Strom, Stephanie, “New Type of Drug-Free Labels for Meat Has U.S.D.A. Blessing,” New York Times, September 4, 2015.

26 op. cit., Rosenberg, Martha.

27 Rabkin Peachman, Rachel, “Are Banned Drugs in Your Meat?” Consumer Reports, November 27, 2018.

28 Love, D.C., et al., “Feather meal: a previously unrecognized route for reentry into the food supply of multiple pharmaceuticals and personal care products,” Environmental Science and Technology,May 15, 2012.

29 Srednicka-Tober, Dominika et al., “Higher PUFA and n-3 PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, α-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic milk,” British Journal of Nutrition, V. 115, p. 1044.

30 Clancy,,Kate, Greener Pastures, Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2006, pp. 24-25.

31 Lentz, Collette, The Nutritional Benefits of Pasture-Raised Animals, Chicago, IL: Food Animal Concerned Trust, May 15, 2018, pp. 20,22. Online at https://foodanimalconcernstrust.org/webinars

op. cit., Srednicka-Tober.

op. cit. Clancy, Kate.

32 Ibid., p. 33.

33 op. cit. Lentz, Collette, p. 33.

34 Ibid., p. 20.

35 op. cit. Lentz, Collette, p. 20.

36 Ibid., p. 20.

37 Ibid., p. 23.

38 Ibid., p. 24.

39 Ibid., p. 25.

Continue to Animal Food’s Environmental Effects ->