Currently browsing posts about: Beef

A reader sent me this e-mailed announcement from the Kentucky Public Health Association. 

The announcement features “hot off the press” research.

• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Contribution of beef to key nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy in pregnant and lactating women: NHANES 2011-2018 Analysis. Pregnant & lactating women who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, iron, zinc.  [Funding: This research was funded by the Beef Checkoff].
• Christifano DN, et al. The role of fresh beef intake and Mediterranean Diet adherence during pregnancy in maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnant women who eat about 1.5 oz. of beef/day as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern are less likely to develop maternal anemia, compared to those who have lower intake of beef. Additionally, pregnant women who eat more beef have higher intakes of nutrients critical for maternal & child health, including protein, iron, zinc, choline, B vitamins. [Funding: This research was partly funded by Beef Checkoff]
• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Beef consumption is associated with higher intakes and adequacy of key nutrients in older adults age 60+ year: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2000-2018 Analysis. Older adults who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, vitamin B12, iron. [Funding: This work was supported by The Beef Checkoff].

More Information

For more information, visit The Kentucky Beef Council and Beef It’s What’s For Dinner.
For infographics and nutrition handouts, click here.
To join our monthly health professional newsletter, register here.

COMMENT

This advertisement from the Kentucky Beef Council was sent to members of the Kentucky Public Health Association.  It does not say who sponsored the hot new research [I had to look it up].

The partnership raises several questions:

• Is the Kentucky Beef Council a sponsor of the Association?  If so, at what level? (Its annual report does not list sponsors.  Neither does its website, although it does list sponsorship categories for its annual meetings).
• Do members of the Kentucky Public Health Association believe that their association’s apparent endorsement of beef is a good idea?
• Are Kentucky public health nutritionists talking to their clients about the role of beef in health and environmental sustainability?
• If so, what are they saying?

The benefit of this kind of sponsorship/partnership to the Kentucky Beef Council is obvious.

But it raises serious questions about the integrity of the Kentucky Public Health Association.

I hope KPHA members are discussing this issue with the Association’s leadership.

Thanks to Hugh Joseph for this one: Running for the Ribeye.

Team Beef was created in 2009 by the national beef checkoff program, the marketing and research group that requires beef producers and importers to pay a $1-per-head on animals they market. The stated goal is to “promote beef’s health benefits and showcase people leading active and healthy lifestyles fueled by lean beef,” according to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board website. There are more than 20 teams across the country, each independently run by the respective state’s beef board.

…“Team Beef is a collection of runners and athletes … that believe in beef as a powerful protein to fuel their training and their everyday lives,” said Kentucky rancher Joe Lowe, in a promotional video that includes him cheersing his wife Cassie with beef jerky.

…Some states require that team members go through an online, self-guided course called Masters of Beef Advocacy that trains them on how to speak knowledgeably about environmental sustainability, beef nutrition, animal welfare, and beef safety.

Comment

This is a great way to advertise beef, to associate beef with sports, and to deflect attention from the role of beef production in climate change, antibiotic overuse, and pollution of soil, air, and water.  The checkoff program is a partnership with the USDA.  Extremist Republicans want to get rid of checkoff programs (see Project 2025 agenda).  So do I (politics does indeed make strange bedfellows).

Jim Krieger, of Healthy Food America forwarded this request for research proposals (RFP) from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Senior Director of Human Nutrition Research.,

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease… As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a preproposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project. Pre-proposals must meet the submission deadline and follow the guidelines in the RFP to be considered. Principal Investigators may submit more than one pre-proposal. Please share this RFP with interested colleagues

PRE-PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY Wednesday April 3, 2024 at 11:59pm MT.

Submit a Pre-Proposal here to join our RFP email list and get information about new research funding opportunities.

Comment: This is how industry funded research begins.  The RFP is not open-ended; it is not asking you to find out whether beef has benefits.  If you want this funding, you had best come up with a research plan highly likely to demonstrate the benefits of beef in nourishing and optimizing health—otherwise, it won’t be funded. This is the USDA-sponsored Beef Checkoff at work.

Here’s your chance!

Two examples of  beef-industry attempted influence:

I.  Science teachers

This one comes from Wired: Inside the Beef Industry’s Campaign to Influence Kids

Big Beef is wooing science teachers with webinars and lesson plans in an attempt to change kids’ perceptions of the industry.

A beef industry group is running a campaign to influence science teachers and other educators in the US. Over the past eight years, the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA) has produced industry-backed lesson plans, learning resources, in-person events, and webinars as part of a program to boost the cattle industry’s reputation.

What is the AFBFA?

The AFBFA is a contractor to Beef Checkoff, a US-wide program in which beef producers and importers pay a per-animal fee that funds programs to boost beef demand in the US and abroad. In 2024, Beef Checkoff has approximately $42 million to disperse across its initiatives, and a funding request reveals that the AFBFA’s campaign for 2024 is projected to cost $800,000. The allocation of Beef Checkoff funding to programs like this is approved by members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and the Federation of State Beef Councils, two groups that represent the cattle industry in the US.

What does this program teach?

One lesson plan provided as part of the program directs students to beef industry resources to help devise a school menu. In another lesson plan students are directed to create a presentation for a conservation agency regarding the introduction of cattle into their ecological preserve. A worksheet aimed at younger students has them practice their sums by adding up the acreage of cow pastures. Another worksheet based around a bingo game aimed at 8- to 11-year-olds asks teachers to “remind students that lean beef is a nutritions source of protein that can be incorporated in daily meals.”

As for the answer to my question yesterday about whether this kind of training works:

According to survey data included in these documents, educators who attended at least one of the AFBFA’s programs were 8 percent more likely to trust positive statements about the beef industry. Some 82 percent of educators who participated in a program had a positive perception of how cattle are raised, and 85 percent believed that the beef industry is “very important” to society.

Again, this is a USDA-sponsored checkoff program.  The US Dietary Guidelines on beef call for it to be lean and unprocessed.  The checkoff does not.

II.  Public health professionals

I received this e-mailed message from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

I am a member of the Kentucky Public Health Association and so receive their email newsletters. The Beef Council promotion is fairly new. It is interesting to watch an industry PR campaign with health professionals happen in real time. I’ve also just realized that I don’t believe the Association has policies around sponsorships, something I had not worried about until the past few months.

She forwarded two messages sent to her from the Kentucky Public Health Association.  These are announcements from the Kentucky Beef Council: “Happy Nationl Nutrition Month,” and “Fueling Tween and Teens with Strong Minds and Bodies.”

The second is labeled as an advertisement; the first is not.

Both encourage visits to the Beef Nutrition Education Hub to get free continuing education credits and other resources.

Both say:

Thank you to our 38,000 Kentucky Beef Farmers! Fun Fact: Kentucky is the largest beef-producing state East of the Mississippi River

This email was sent on behalf of KY Beef Council and the content within shall be attributed to the sponsor. This email shall not indicate an endorsement on behalf of KPHA.

Copyright © 2023  Kentucky Public Health Association

Comment:  The Kentucky Beef Checkoff at work!   Regardless of the Kentucky Public Health Association’s protestations, these messages give the appearance of endorsement.  It should not be doing this.

Let’s do two at once—studies funded by gthe beef industry.

I.  BEEF AND MUSCLES

I learned about this one from a headline in Food Navigator — Europe’s daily newsletter: Muscle protein synthesis more successful with beef than plant-based protein in older people, study finds

One look at the headline and I wanted to know: Who paid for this?

The study:  Higher Muscle Protein Synthesis Rates Following Ingestion of an Omnivorous Meal Compared with an Isocaloric and Isonitrogenous Vegan Meal in Healthy, Older Adults.  Journal of Nutrition.  2023. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.11.004.

Purpose: Plant-derived proteins are considered to have fewer anabolic properties when compared with animal-derived proteins…So far, no study has compared the anabolic response following ingestion of an omnivorous compared with a vegan meal.

Methods: In a randomized, counter-balanced, cross-over design, 16 older (65–85 y) adults (8 males, 8 females) underwent 2 test days. On one day, participants consumed a whole-food omnivorous meal containing beef as the primary source of protein (0.45 g protein/kg body mass; MEAT). On the other day, participants consumed an isonitrogenous and isocaloric whole-food vegan meal (PLANT).

Results: MEAT increased plasma essential amino acid concentrations more than PLANT over the 6-h postprandial period (incremental area under curve 87 ± 37 compared with 38 ± 54 mmol·6 h/L, respectively; P-interaction < 0.01). Ingestion of MEAT resulted in ∼47% higher postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates when compared with the ingestion of PLANT (0.052 ± 0.023 and 0.035 ± 0.021 %/h, respectively; paired-samples t test: P = 0.037).

Conclusions:  Ingestion of a whole-food omnivorous meal containing beef results in greater postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates when compared with the ingestion of an isonitrogenous whole-food vegan meal in healthy, older adults.

And now to answer my question:

• Conflict of interest:  [two of the authors] received research grants, consulting fees, speaking honoraria, or a combination of these for research on the impact of exercise and nutrition on muscle metabolism. A full overview on research funding is provided at: https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/l.vanloon. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
• Funding:  This study was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff, Denver, USA, and Vion Food Group, Boxtel, The Netherlands….The funders had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Comment:  The Beef Checkoff is the USDA-sponsored research-and-marketing program which taxes beef producers and uses the funds to promote beef sales.  Maybe the funder had no role as stated, but the checkoff is unlikely to fund research that is not in its best interest.

The meat industry wants everyone to believe that meat is superior to plants, as food, and eating vegan diets is hazardous to health.  Hence, this research.

Something is seriously wrong when it is this easy to guess who paid for a study from its title alone.

II.  BEEF AND  MENTAL HEALTH

Just when I was ready to post that item, I ran across another one.

The study: Meat consumption & positive mental health: A scoping review. Preventive Medicine Reports. Volume 37, January 2024, 102556.

Highlight: “The majority of studies showed no differences between meat consumers and meat abstainers in positive psychological functioning.”

Results: “Eight of the 13 studies demonstrated no differences between the groups on positive psychological functioning, three studies showed mixed results, and two studies showed that compared to meat abstainers, meat consumers had greater self-esteem, ‘positive mental health’, and ‘meaning in life.'”

Conclusion [a positive spin]: “Although a small minority of studies showed that meat consumers had more positive psychological functioning, no studies suggested that meat abstainers did.”

Funding source: This study was in part funded via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

Declaration of competing interest: [The first author] previously received funding from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Comment: This review caught my attention because it found a null result: beef eating has no effect on mental health.  This is unusual for industry-funded studies.  But the article contains a positive spin:  some studies do in fact find benefits of beef eating whereas none find this result from not eating beeef.  Make of this what you will.  I think the Highlight says all you need to know.  Industry funding muddies interpretation of research results.  It’s best to avoid taking it.

I could hardly believe this ad in the New York Times last Friday.

Cattle as a promoter of biodiversity?

My usual question: Who paid for this?

The only clue was the little checkmark and in tiny letters “Funded by beef farmers and ranchers.”

I did the thing with the QR code and went straight to www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com, the website of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, organizations paid for by per-animal levies imposed by USDA-sponsored checkoff programs.

The beef checkoff

acts as a catalyst for change and is designed to stimulate beef sales and consumption through a combination of initiatives including consumer advertising, research, public relations and new-product development.

The ad says:

Almost a third of U.S. land is too rocky or dry to be used for growing food crops.  But cattle can graze on and regenerate that land, naturally protecting open space and conserving precious habitats and ecosystems.

Yes, they can, but participants in the Beef checkoff generally raise cattle in CAFOs (factory feedlots), the antithesis of grazing on and regenerating land.

The beef industry is under siege these days from people who care about health and the environment.

Instead of doing all it can to promote regenerative grazing, it uses public relations to deflect attention from how it really raises cattle.

Butterflies?  Not a chance.

CORRECTION:  Several readers have written to complain that I obviously know nothing about how cattle are raised.  “You idiot,” they say (or imply), “cattle are raised on grass until the last few months of their lives.”  Not only that, says one reader, but their grazing on grass produces ecological miracles (see, for example, this video.)  That, however, still leaves them with months of finishing off on grains in feedlots, somehow not mentioned in the Beef Checkoff ad.  It may be, as one reader tells me, that beef producers hate this system and hate paying for it with checkoff funds, but that’s how it works.  Advocacy, anyone?  In any case, I apologize for not including this iinformation n my original post.

Unprocessed red meat in the dietary treatment of obesity: a randomized controlled trial of beef supplementation during weight maintenance after successful weight loss.  Faidon Magkos, Sidse I Rasmussen, Mads F Hjorth, Sarah Asping, Maria I Rosenkrans, Anders M Sjödin, Arne V Astrup, Nina R W Geiker. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 116, Issue 6, December 2022, Pages 1820–1830, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac152

Methods: In this 5-mo parallel randomized intervention trial, 108 adults with BMI 28–40 kg/m² (45 males/63 females) underwent an 8-wk rapid weight loss period, and those who lost ≥8% body weight (n = 80) continued to ad libitum weight maintenance diets for 12 wk: a moderate-protein diet with 25 g beef/d (B25, n = 45) or a high-protein diet with 150 g beef/d (B150, n = 35).

Conclusions: Healthy diets consumed ad libitum that contain a little or a lot of unprocessed beef have similar effects on body weight, energy metabolism, and cardiovascular risk factors during the first 3 mo after clinically significant rapid weight loss.

Funding: The study was supported by The Beef Checkoff (a program of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, CO, USA) and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council (Copenhagen, Denmark). Lighter Life (Essex, UK) sponsored very-low-calorie diet products for the weight-loss phase of the study. The sponsors had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Conflicts of interest: NRWG has received funding from The Beef Checkoff program (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, CO, USA) and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council (Copenhagen, Denmark) to conduct additional studies relevant to the role of meat in the diet. AVA is a member of the scientific advisory board for Weight Watchers, USA; congressional chairman for RNCP (Répertoire National des Certifications Professionnelles), France; co-owner of the University of Copenhagen spin-off Flax-Slim ApS; co-inventor on a pending provisional patent application for the use of biomarkers to predict responses to weight-loss diets; and co-inventor of other related patents and patent applications that are all owned by the University of Copenhagen, in accordance with Danish law. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Comment: The conclusion of this beef industry-funded study is that you can eat as much beef as you like without its having any effect on your body weight or metabolic risk factors, as long as you first lose weight and keep it off.  This is a perfect example of why looking at one food at a time makes no sense without also taking into consideration everything else you are eating and how much.  The Beef Checkoff got the answer it wanted, so money well spent.

IPES-Food, the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, has a new report: The politics of protein: Examining claims about livestock, fish, “alternative proteins” and sustainability 

The report contains a deep analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these eight claims.

The report’s argument is that the focus on protein is overblown.

For decades, the perceived need for more protein has led to distractions and distortions in development programs, flawed marketing and nutritional campaigns, and calls to increase the production and trade of meat, dairy, and protein-enriched foods.

Today, the evidence clearly shows that there is no global ‘protein gap’: protein is only one of many nutrients missing in the diets of those suffering from hunger and malnutrition, and insufficiency of these diets is primarily a result of poverty and access.

The report displays data to back up its arguments in attractive and easily understood charts.  Its conclusions are clearly marked.  Example:  part of the conclusion for Claim #5: Alternative proteins are a win-win.

In conclusion, there are too many uncertainties and data gaps, and too much variation between systems, to make a definitive statement on whether ‘alternative proteins’ are more environmentally sustainable than animal source foods as a whole. Bold and categorical claims about ‘alternative proteins’ being a ‘win-win-win’ are therefore likely to be misleading…The validity of claims about ‘alternative proteins’ (and the purported benefits of these products) ultimately comes down to how foods are produced, what food systems we consider to be desirable and viable, how we weigh up trade-offs ….

Sensibly, the report makes only three recommendations:

Comment:  I think this report is well done, well written, and well presented.   But here’s where this nutritionist gets cranky: Why title it Protein?  Protein is a nutrient, not a food.  Using protein to stand for foods that contain it is an example of “nutritionism,” the reduction of  the benefits of a food to its single components.

I had to search the report for an explanation of what IPES means by protein.  As far as I can tell, its writers assume you know what it means.  But sometimes the report refers to meat and protein, implying that meat means beef, and protein means protein-containing animal foods other than beef.  At other times, the report uses protein to include beef as well as poultry, fish, dairy, and insects.   But what about vegetables and grains?  They have protein too.  Legumes are particularly good sources; grains have nourished entire civilizations.

I realize that protein—a chefs’ term—is widely understood to stand for all foods, particularly from animals, that contain protein, but that’s nutritionally incorrect because basically every naturally occurring food contains some protein (OK, lettuce doeesn’t have much).

I wish everyone would find a better term, one that calls meat meat, if that’s what’s meant.