by Marion Nestle

Currently browsing posts about: Meat

Dec 2 2022

Weekend reading: Raw Deal

Chloe Sorvino.  Raw Deal: Hidden Corruption, Corporate Greed, and the Fight for the Future of Meat.  Atria Books, 2022.  

This is the first analysis I’ve seen of the meat industry from a business perspective.  Corvino is a business reporter from Forbes and did an amazing research job to do this book, including visiting CAFOs, slaughterhouses (she doesn’t say how she talked her way into it), chicken houses, and alternative meat places.  She also talked to a vast number of experts on all sides of the meat issue.  Full disclosure: she interviewed me and quoted me in the book in a couple of places.

I was happy to do a blurb for it.

Raw Deal is Chloe Sorvino’s deeply reported, first-hand account of how business imperatives drive the meat industry to mistreat workers, pollute the environment, fix prices, bribe, and manipulate the political process, all in the name of shareholder profits.  She argues convincingly for holding this industry accountable and requiring it and other corporations to engage in social as well as fiduciary responsibility.   Raw Deal is a must read for anyone who cares about where our food comes from.

On meat substitutes

I have yet to meet anyone in this industry who says they do not care about climate change.  In fact, many say they are personally driven by their product’s sustainability and environmental potential.  But it’s still all to a certain point.  There’s a reason Impossible Foods is preparing for a potentially $10 billion public listing, and that neither Impossible nor Beyond Meat is registered as public benefit corporations a move that would legally inhibit the companies from putting profit over their environmental mission.  Half of Impossible’s investors come from venture capital firms and the roster even includes a hedge fund, Viking Global Investors. Backers are no doubt ready for an exit, and they want to get Impossible the best deal.  A sustainability halo helps the cause (pp. 169-170).

On support for small local meat producers

Local infrastructure for livestock producers to cook and package products is a key missing link in making local food systems profitable and viable.  Creating lasting impacts wouldn’t cost much.  “We have the information and we have the evidence.  FaWhat we don’t have are the facilities and shared space where multiple people can leverage that at their business’s scale,” Mickie told me.  “It’s just crazy to me to be in a space where we’re trying to meet so many intersecting issues of inequity, and have to prove it one hundred percent, and then in another realm, people are playing with stem cells and getting two hundred million dollars.  We literally feed people and want to do it better )p. 257).

Chloe Sorvino has also published:

  • An adapted essay in the Los Angeles Times on universal food access
  • An excerpt in Fast Company about whether good meat exists

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

Tags: , ,
Nov 21 2022

Industry-funded study of the week: Unprocessed red meat is good for you

My theme for this week is meat, poultry, and their alternatives, starting today with this:

The study: 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, nqac152, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac152.  

Objectives: “We sought to investigate the effects of healthy diets that include small or large amounts of red meat on the maintenance of lost weight after successful weight loss….”

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…All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Comment:  The beef industry is worried about all those dietary recommendations calling for less red meat, for reasons of human and planetary health.  The more studies it can produce that cast doubt on those linkages, the more doubt it can raise about the health impact of red meat.  This study contributes to that effort.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Tags: , ,
Oct 31 2022

Happy Halloween! [But see correction]

Trick or Treat?  You can’t make this stuff up.  CORRECTION: No you can’t.  It’s a fake.  Busted.

On the brighter side…

Happy Halloween!

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

 

Tags: ,
Sep 22 2022

Food Navigator update on meat industry happenings

I subscribe to the British-based newsletter, Food Navigator.  It occasionally publishes roundups of articles on specific topics.  Here’s a sample of articles about current happenings in the meat industry.

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

 

Tags: , ,
Jul 22 2022

Weekend viewing: Robert Reich on Big Ag

I came across this from a tweet by Ricardo J Salvador @cadwego
Wherein the former Secretary of Labor clearly lays out one of the major drivers for price increases, as well as a clear way for the Biden administration to use its authority to relieve the problem. The core issue is the anti-competitive, monopoly power of consolidated industries.
Just 4 firms control 85% of the beef market, 66% of the pork market, and 54% of the poultry market. The result? -Lower pay for farmers. -Bigger profits for monopolies. -Higher prices for you. There’s no question: We need to break up Big Ag.
He explains this in a video–How Farmers Are Getting Shafted By Monopolies–which, I am delighted to report, I figured out how to embed here.

 

His bottom line:

Just 4 firms control 85% of the beef market, 66% of the pork market, and 54% of the poultry market.

The result?
-Lower pay for farmers.
-Bigger profits for monopolies.
-Higher prices for you.

There’s no question: We need to break up Big Ag.

Tags: , ,
Jul 18 2022

Industry funded study of the week: Meat!

The title alone was enough to make me ask: Who paid for this?

Title: Approximately Half of Total Protein Intake by Adults must be Animal-Based to Meet Non-Protein Nutrient-Based Recommendations with Variation Due to Age and Sex.  

Conclusion:  This study provides factual information about the animal protein contribution to total proteins compatible with meeting all nutrient-based recommendations at no additional cost and shows that it varies between 45% and 60% depending on the group of adults considered.

Sources of Support: MS-Nutrition and MoISA received financial support from the French National Interprofessional Association of Livestock and Meat (Interbev). Interbev had no role in the design, implementation, analysis and interpretation of the data.

Comment: The meat industry has a problem.  High meat consumption has been associated with poor health; meat production has been associated with climate change.  This study is designed to push back on the first association.

For data on whether and how industry funding influences the design and outcome of research, please see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

Tags: ,
May 27 2022

Weekend reading: Meat

Brian Kateman.  Meat Me Half-Way: How Changing the Way We Eat Can Improve Our Lives and Save Our Planet.  Prometheus Books, 2022. 

I hadn’t expected this book to be so compelling, but it was and I did a blurb for it.

Meat Me Half-Way is an exceptionally thoughtful and well-argued synthesis of the rationale for the “reducetarian” movement to eat less (but not necessarily zero) meat as a means to improve human and planetary health. I especially like the book’s call to unite vegans, vegetarians, proponents of plant-based and cell-based meats, and advocates for regenerative agriculture in this common cause.  Sign me up!

Kateman says

Ultimately, we all want to see the end of factory farming…we must support, or at least not actively oppose, legal approaches toward that end—even when others’ solutions for chipping away at factory farming are not our preferred ones.  This means plant-based meat and cell-cultured meat advocates not actively opposing better meat—even if they don’t think better meat is the ethical, environmental, or nutritional ideal.  This also of course means better-meat advocates not opposing plant-based and cell-cultured meat for not being “the real thing.  (P. 179)

Tags: , ,
May 18 2022

Scathing report on meat packing industry v. public health

Here’s a report from a House Subcommitteethe on the behavior of the meat packing industry during the Trump Administration.

The key findings:

  • The Meatpacking Industry Had Notice of the Acute Risks the Coronavirus Posed to Workers in Meatpacking Plants.
    Meatpacking Companies’ Claims of an Impending Protein Shortage Were Flimsy if Not Outright False.
  • Meatpacking Companies Successfully Enlisted Trump USDA Political Appointees to Advocate Against Health Protections for Workers, While Sidelining Career Staff.
  • Meatpacking Companies Worked with Trump’s USDA to Force Meatpacking Workers to Stay on the Job Despite Unsafe Conditions.
  • Meatpacking Companies Worked with USDA and the White House in an Attempt to Prevent State and Local Health Departments from Regulating Coronavirus Precautions in
    Plants.
  • Meatpacking Companies Successfully Lobbied USDA and the White House to Issue an Executive Order Purporting to Insulate Them from State and Local Coronavirus
    Regulations and Liability for Worker Infections and Deaths.

And just to remind you what was at stake, from Leah Douglas’s reporting for the Food and Environment Reporting Network:

Here’s Leah Douglas’s analysis of this report in Reuters, where she now works.

In the meantime, the meat packers deny all of this.

At the end of April, the House Agriculture Committee held hearings on the effects of consolidation in the meat industry.  These were the result of complaints by ranchers that they have been squeezed out by meatpackers and are being forced to sell their animals at prices below their costs.

I’ve written previously about President Biden’s executive order on the meat industry, and about his concerns about lack of competition in that industry.

The hearings followed up on those themes: The CEOs of the four major meat packing companies testified in defense of their practices, and denied colluding on prices.

Should we believe them?

Why does this remind me of the cigarette CEOs denying that their products cause cancer?

If you want more details, here are the links (thanks to Jerry Hagstrom for collecting these at The Hagstrom Report on April 27).  His report is at this link.

Tags: ,