US-Raised Meat

The Unsavory Truth of the McRib and Other Fake Foods, and Why Russia Banned US-Raised Meat

Visit the Mercola Video Library
By Dr. Mercola

Over the past couple of years, we’ve learned the unsavory truth about “pink slime,” reconstituted meat, and how the use of meat glue cheats you out of your hard-earned money at the grocery store and threatens your health.

We’ve also learned that fast food fare such as McDonald’s hamburgers contain so many chemicals and so few real food ingredients that a burger fails to show signs of decomposition after more than a decade…

The famous McDonald’s McRib also came under closer scrutiny, and turned out to be something less than mouthwatering. The McRib sandwich is a non-standard item on the fast food restaurant’s menu;1 its annual return is always advertised with great fanfare — last year it even made the headlines on ABC News.2

The pork sandwich is described as a tasty fan favorite slathered in tangy barbecue sauce, slivered onions and tart pickles, served on a hoagie style bun. Sounds perfectly normal, but what’s it made of, really? In a November 2011 article, CBS Chicago news3 spilled the beans on this seasonal favorite:

“More than 70 ingredients make up the McRib and, yes, one of them is pork. But as CBS 2’s Vince Gerasole reports, there’s also an ingredient that can be found in shoes… [Registered dietician Cassie] Vanderwall gave the McRib a closer look and found the McRib has azodicarbonamide, which is used to bleach the flour in bread. It has other uses. ‘It could be on your yoga mat, in your gym shoes, in your anything that’s rubbery,’ Vanderwall said…

Then there’s the pork – which is really restructured meat product. In other words, it’s made from all the less expensive innards and castoffs from the pig… Vanderwall said the McRib ingredient list ‘reminds me of a chemistry lab.’”

To see pictures of a ‘deconstructed’ McRib sandwich, check out foodfacts.info’s McRib page.4 It sure doesn’t look so appetizing anymore once the sauce is washed off and the meat sliced in half. In fact, it can barely pass meat, which was the point CBS news tried to make in the first place.

What is “Food” Anyway?

Two years ago, the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine singled out McDonald’s in their advertisement against obesity-related deaths. As the ad claimed, obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension and heart attacks are hallmark diseases associated with a fast food diet – a clear indication that it does not provide the appropriate nutrition for your body.

So, is McDonald’s fare really food?

When you consider the fact that a large number of the ingredients in a fast food meal exist nowhere in nature, but are rather concocted in a lab, the answer would have to be ‘no.’ Unfortunately, and to our severe detriment, ever since the advent of the so-called TV dinner back in the 1950’s, the concept of “food” has expanded from meat, vegetables, raw dairy products, fruit and other such natural items to include the highly processed, preserved, artificially flavored and often brightly colored chemical concoctions. But man simply was NOT designed to thrive on man-made chemicals.

Sadly, store-bought foods you might not recognize as processed, such as ground beef, are oftentimes no better. As reported last year, approximately 70 percent of the ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contains “pink slime” added in as a cheap filler.

The Pepto-Bismol-colored concoction consists of beef scraps and cow connective tissues, which has been treated with ammonium hydroxide (basically a solution of ammonia in water). It can legally make up 15 percent of any given beef product, which shaves about three cents off the cost for a pound of ground beef. The trimmings used come from parts of the cow that are most likely to be contaminated with dangerous bacteria like E. coli — which is why it must be treated with ammonia to kill off the pathogens in the first place. It’s really industrial food practices like this that pose very real threats to your health, not raw unpasteurized dairy products and other non-processed whole foods…

Russia Throws Poisonous Meat Back to U.S.

In related “questionable food” news, Russia has recently banned U.S. meat supplies after discovering it contains ractopamine — a beta agonist drug that increases protein synthesis, thereby making the animal more muscular. This reduces the fat content of the meat. As reported by Pravda,5 Russia is the fourth largest importer of US meats, purchasing about $500 million-worth of beef and pork annually.

The drug is banned for use in 160 countries, including China and Russia, but allowed in 24 countries, including Canada and the United States. According to the New York Times,6 the ban took effect as of December 7, 2012, and Russian health regulators stated that while they will initially conduct their own testing, foreign countries will soon be required to certify their meat as ractopamine-free if they want to export it to Russia. While the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers ractopamine safe and doesn’t test for it, Russia’s chief health inspector, Gennady Onishchenko, claims there are “serious questions” about the safety of the drug. He told the New York Times:

“For instance, use of ractopamine is accompanied by a reduction in body mass, suppression of reproductive function, increase of mastitis in dairy herds, which leads to a steep decline in the quality and safety of milk.”

Ractopamine is also known to affect the human cardiovascular system, and may cause food poisoning, according to Pravda.7 It’s also thought to be responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown, and increased death and disability in livestock. While other drugs require a clearance period of around two weeks to help ensure the compounds are flushed from the meat prior to slaughter (and therefore reduce residues leftover for human consumption), there is no clearance period for ractopamine. In fact, livestock growers intentionally use the drug in the last days before slaughter in order to increase its effectiveness.

According to veterinarian Michael W. Fox, as much as 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket. Despite potential health risks, the drug is used in 45 percent of U.S. pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys.

Mexico and Brazil have announced that they will comply with Russia’s demand for ractopamine-free meats.8 The US has shown no sign of coming to an agreement, however. Instead the US has accused Russia of violating World Trade Organization (WTO) rules — an accusation Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich has dismissed as being part of business as usual, since “all WTO members break these rules.”

How to Identify REAL Food

There are major incentives to center your diet on real foods as opposed to “food-like” products, the primary one being that real food is essential for optimal health. Real foods also taste delicious, and when bought from sustainable sources help to protect the environment. But with all the sneaky tricks being employed, how can you tell the difference? Here’s a listing of the characteristics and traits of real food versus processed “food products.”

Real Food Processed Food-Like Products
It’s grown, and sold “whole” Produced, manufactured in a factory, and sold in neat, convenient packages
Variable quality Always the same (no quality or taste variance)
Spoils fast Stays “fresh” for extended periods of time
Requires preparation No preparation required, just heat and serve
Vibrant colors and rich textures Contains fillers, additives and preservatives to make otherwise dull and bland mixtures appetizing
Authentically flavorful Artificially flavorful
Strong connection to land and culture No connection to land or culture
Shopping Guidelines for Real, Health-Promoting Food

As the U.S. agriculture industry now stands, antibiotics, pesticides, genetically engineered ingredients, hormones and countless drugs are fair game for inclusion in your food. So if you purchase your food from a typical supermarket, you’re taking the chance that your food is teeming with chemicals and drugs — even those that have been banned in other countries due to adverse health effects.

So please do your health a favor and support the small family farms in your area. You’ll receive nutritious food from a source that you can trust, and you’ll be supporting the honest work of a real family farm.

It all boils down to this: if you want to optimize your health, you must return to the basics of healthy food choices. Put your focus on WHOLE foods — foods that have not been processed or altered from their original state — food that has been grown or raised as nature intended, without the use of chemical additives, drugs, hormones, pesticides, fertilizers, and “mystery concoctions” of discarded scrap parts.

It’s really as simple as that!

And it’s not nearly as daunting a task as it may seem to find a local farmer that can supply your family with healthy, humanely raised animal products and produce. At LocalHarvest.org, for instance, you can enter your zip code and find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area, all with the click of a button. Once you make the switch from supermarket to local farmer, the choice will seem natural, and you can have peace of mind that the food you’re feeding your family is naturally wholesome. That said, regardless of where you do your grocery shopping, these are the signs of high-quality, health-promoting foods you want to look for:

It’s grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)
It’s not genetically modified
It contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs
It does not contain any artificial ingredients, including chemical preservatives
It is fresh (keep in mind that if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may actually be the better option)
It did not come from a factory farm
It is grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)
It is grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)
If the food meets these criteria, it is most likely a wise choice, and would fall under the designation of “real food.” Keep in mind that reclaiming your kitchen is part and parcel of healthful living, so you know exactly what you’re putting in your body. If you need help to get started, see Colleen Huber’s helpful tips on how to eat healthier organic food on a budget. And if you’re “hooked” on fast food and other processed foods, please review my article How to Wean Yourself Off Processed Foods in 7 Steps. It’s one of the absolute most positive life changes you could make!

The fat you eat is the fat you wear.


Coke Keeps You Thin
(Sugar Is Not Fattening)

A Randomized Trial of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Adolescent Body Weight by Cara B. Ebbeling, in the October 11, 2012 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, found that “Among overweight and obese adolescents, the increase in BMI was smaller in the experimental group than in the control group after a 1-year intervention designed to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, but not at the 2-year follow-up (the pre-specified primary outcome).”A group of 224 adolescents (124 boys and 100 girls) who reported consuming at least one serving (12 oz.) per day of sugar-sweetened beverages or 100% fruit juice were enrolled. The 1-year intervention consisted of home delivery of non-caloric beverages (e.g., bottled water and “diet” beverages) every 2 weeks, monthly motivational telephone calls with parents (30 minutes per call), and three check-in visits with participants (20 minutes per visit). The authors’ conclusion: “…replacement of sugar-sweetened beverages with non-caloric beverages did not improve body weight over a 2-year period…”

Comment: Laying the blame for obesity on sugar is the latest diversion used by agribusinesses to keep you consuming large quantities of meat and dairy products and oil-laden processed foods. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not saying sugar is health food, but that it is not the primary cause of our national epidemic of obesity. Nor should removal of simple sugars be looked to as the primary solution.

Refined sugar is “empty calories,” which can lead to nutritional imbalances. Simple sugars cause tooth decay, and in sensitive people, can cause a rise in blood fats (triglycerides). Confusion from past research tying sugar to obesity comes from the fact that children who drink more sugar-sweetened beverages also tend to eat more fast food with meat, dairy, and oil (the real culprits) and watch more television (reflecting less physical activity).

Coke keeps you thin! (1961 Coke commercial)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8zTDbpxT8ZI#t=0s

This 1961 Coke commercial, “Coke keeps you thin!” has more much truth to it than the recent dairy campaign to consume milk products to lose weight, for 4 reasons:2

1) The fat you eat is the fat you wear. Milk is 50% fat, low-fat milk is 30% fat, and cheese is 70% fat. Fat is moved almost effortlessly from the glass to the gut. Coke has no fat to wear.

2) Sugar is converted to body fat only with great difficulty. The calories from Coke are 100% simple sugar. Excess sugar calories are not converted to body fat under usual conditions, but are wasted in physical activity and heat production.

3) Sugar is appetite satisfying. As Connie Clausen says in this Coke commercial, “The cold crisp taste of Coke is so satisfying it keeps me from eating something else that might really add those pounds.” (Appetite satisfaction is not provided by dietary fat. You eat fat as if you were a bottomless pit.)

4) Coke is low in calories compared to milk. One 8-ounce glass of Coke has 97 calories, compared to 146 calories in the same size glass of whole milk. More than half the calories in milk are from unsatisfying fats that are almost effortlessly stored in your body fat.

Besides calories, milk is loaded with allergy- and autoimmune disease-causing proteins, poisonous environmental chemicals, artery-clogging saturated fats and cholesterol, precocious puberty causing hormones, and infectious agents, such as leukemia viruses, mad cow prions, and listeria bacteria.

Yes, I am saying that drinking Coke is far less harmful to you and your children’s waistline and health than is drinking cow’s milk. The current campaign in America for solving poor health and obesity by exclusively focusing on sugar as the culprit is doing little or no good, and great damage. The really sickening and fattening foods—meat and dairy products and vegetable oils—are bypassed by making sugar the scapegoat.

1) Cara B. Ebbeling, Ph.D., Henry A. Feldman, Ph.D., Virginia R. Chomitz, Ph.D., Tracy A. Antonelli, M.P.H., Steven L. Gortmaker, Ph.D., Stavroula K. Osganian, M.D., Sc.D., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D. A Randomized Trial of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Adolescent Body Weight. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1407-1416

Dairy Subsidy

Jeffrey Simpson (Bill Grimshaw)

JEFFREY SIMPSON

Canada’s a double-dealer in world trade

JEFFREY SIMPSON

The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 20 2010, 4:35 PM EDT

Suppose you were a member of the Canadian Widget Makers Union. Your company tried to export widgets to Country X but couldn’t penetrate the market because of a 241-per-cent tariff. Chances are, you, the company and the CWMU would scream blue murder at the blatant protectionism.

Or suppose you were a wheat farmer. You want to export to Country Y but discovered that your product faced a 292-per-cent tariff, effectively shutting you out of the market.

It sounds implausible, even crazy, that anything like this could happen in today’s world of trade agreements. But it does happen, right here in good old Canada. Welcome to supply management.
If you think stratospheric is too strong a word, consider these tariff levels for imports above the small allowed quota

Last month, eight Pacific countries gathered in Melbourne to begin negotiations toward what they believe could become a free-trade deal among them. They hope that such a deal could spread to other Asian countries, that continent being the world’s fastest growing area.

Canada, belatedly, wanted to be at the Melbourne table. Instead, we were told we weren’t welcome, except as observers.

The rebuff came from some of our closest friends – the United States, Australia and New Zealand. They wanted participants who are serious about free trade. They knew that Canada wouldn’t be serious, because Canadian participants would be obliged to exclude supply-managed agricultural products, just as Canada has done in every trade agreement.

Canada, as the world knows, is a double-dealer in world trade. We talk a great game, and work hard to create free or freer trade in some areas, because liberalized trade greatly benefits a country so dependent on exports.

Then Canada turns around and defends to the upmost supply-managed products with tiny import quotas and stratospheric tariffs on anything above those tiny quotas.

If you think stratospheric is too strong a word, consider these tariff levels for imports above the small allowed quota: chicken, 238 per cent to 253 per cent; turkey, 154 per cent to 169 per cent; fluid milk, 241 per cent; cream, 292 per cent; yogurt, 237 per cent; buttermilk, 268 per cent; butter, 298 per cent to 313 per cent; cheese, 245 per cent; ice cream, 277 per cent; eggs, 163 per cent.

Think these are high? They were even higher before the mid-1990s, when Canada was forced to cut tariffs by 36 per cent. What did we do? We placed higher-than-stratospheric tariffs on supply-managed goods, then reduced them by 36 per cent to today’s level.

Here’s another part of the supply-management racket. Quotas for imported eggs, cheese, cream and chicken haven’t been raised since the mid-1990s, despite population and economic growth. Domestic supply-managed farmers, operating behind these tiny, static import quotas and huge tariffs on anything above the quota, have scooped up the new market, while raising domestic prices since they face no competition.

Supply-management lobby groups pat themselves on the back, saying their system doesn’t cost the taxpayer a nickel. This is absolutely true – and deeply misleading. Taxpayers don’t subsidize these farmers through the government, but they do as consumers with every purchase of these products, which are also used in many processed foods.

Low-income consumers are hurt the worst, because they pay a larger share of their limited household budgets on food than wealthier citizens. You would expect the New Democrats, self-appointed champions of low-income people, to be up in arms about this racket, except that their friends in the union movement and think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives never saw a liberalized trade agreement they liked.

The NDP, therefore, joins the other parties in pledging undying fealty to supply-managed farmers. Just before the last round of world trade negotiations, the House of Commons, whose members can seldom agree on the day of the week, unanimously passed a resolution instructing Canadian negotiators to defend supply management to their dying breath.

Australia and New Zealand, two of the countries that rebuffed Canada, used to have huge protection programs for dairy farmers. New Zealand swept away all subsidies in 1984 – and is now the world’s largest exporter of dairy products! Australia got rid of its subsidies by buying out farmers courtesy of a tax on milk that paid for the rationalization of the industry.

In Canada, the power of the Quebec and Ontario supply-managed farm groups frightens and paralyzes federal governments of whatever political stripe. The farmers compose the music. They write the libretto. Politicians sing what is put in front of them.