Organic Consumers Association

Cattle Futures: Michael Pollan from the New York Times


Cattle Futures?

Published: January 11, 2004
The New York Times

It's hard to say whether an American hamburger was appreciably less safe to
eat the day after a Holstein cow tested positive for bovine spongiform
encephalopathy in Washington State last month than it was the day before,
but it had sure gotten less appetizing. The news cracked open a door on the
industrial kitchen where America's meat is prepared, and what we glimpsed on
the other side was enough to send even the heartiest diner to the vegetarian
entree or the fish special.

We learned, for example, that the beef we have been eating (until the
U.S.D.A.'s sudden change of heart about the practice) might consist in whole
or part of meat from a ''downer cow,'' an animal so sick and hobbled that it
must be dragged to the slaughterhouse with chains or pushed by a front-end
loader. Then, before finding its way into a frankfurter, the carcass of that
animal is often subjected to an ''Advanced Meat Recovery System'' that is so
efficient at stripping flesh from spinal cord that the chances are good (35
percent, in one study) that the resultant frankfurter contains ''central
nervous system tissue'' -- precisely the tissue most likely to contain the
infectious prions thought to communicate B.S.E.

So: We have been eating downers and really picking their bones clean. And
what did these animals eat in turn? Many of us were surprised to learn that
despite the F.D.A.'s 1997 ban on feeding cattle cattle meat and bone meal,
feedlots continue to rear these herbivores as cannibals. When young, they
routinely receive ''milk replacer'' made from bovine blood; later, their
daily ration is apt to contain rendered cattle fat as well as feed made from
ground-up pigs and chickens -- pigs and chickens that may themselves have
grown up on a diet of ground-up cows. But the grossest feedlot dish we read
about in our newspapers over breakfast has to be ''chicken litter,'' the
nasty stuff shoveled out of chicken houses -- bedding, feathers and
overlooked chicken feed. Since this chicken feed may contain the same bovine
meat and bone meal that F.D.A. rules prohibit in cattle feed, those rules
are, in effect, all but guaranteed to break themselves. Oh, yes, I forgot to
mention one of the ingredients in chicken litter: chicken feces, which the
U.S. cattle industry regards as a source of protein.

Whatever else it is -- nutritious, economical, the polar opposite of
wasteful -- you can't help feeling that the convoluted new food chain that
industrial agriculture has devised for the animals we eat (and thus for us)
is, to be unscientific for a moment, disgusting.

I know, I'm offering an aesthetic judgment of a system designed not for
beauty but for efficiency. Protein is protein, goes the logic of this
system, whether you find it in an animal muscle, a soybean or a chicken
dropping: this reductionism is the world-beating formula that drives
industrial agriculture, and it works, up to a point. By feeding the absolute
cheapest forms of energy and protein to animals it treats as machines, the
industrial food chain has succeeded in making the protein we eat
unimaginably cheap. Just look at what you can get for a buck or two at
Wal-Mart or McDonald's.

But there is a problem. By the reductive logic that rules our food system,
cannibalism should be as legitimate a way of eating as any other: it's all
just protein, right? Yet the great unlearned lesson of B.S.E. and other
similar brain-wasting diseases is that, at the level of species or
ecosystems, it isn't quite true that protein is protein. Eating the protein
of your own species, for example, carries special risks. The Fore of New
Guinea were nearly wiped out by kuru, which bears a striking resemblance to
B.S.E.; they spread it among themselves by ritually eating the brains of
their dead kin.

Biologists think that evolution probably selected against cannibalism as a
way to avoid such infections (among other things). Many animals' instinctive
aversion to their own feces and to the carcasses of their species may
represent similar strategies to avoid infectious microbes and parasites.
Through natural selection, animals have developed what amount to a set of
hygiene rules that function much like taboos. One of the most off-putting
things about factory farms is how cavalierly they flout these evolutionary
rules, forcing animals to overcome deeply ingrained aversions. For their
instincts we substitute antibiotics.

Life as a human omnivore is more complicated and risky. When you can eat
almost anything, how do you avoid the dangers nature presents, the plant
toxins and parasites and lethal microbes? We have culture to guide us
(traditions, science, Jane Brody), but surely even we can still hear older
voices, aversions (to rot) and attractions (to sweetness) that still speak
when we encounter a plate of food. In matters as fundamental to our animal
lives as choosing what to eat, perhaps our aesthetic sense of things is not
just aesthetic but is informed by something deeper, something we would do
well to heed.

For tens of thousands of years, we have been eating the flesh of ruminants
that live on grass. The rightness of that picture -- a bovine grazing on
grassland -- goes way back, maybe all the way to the savanna. And while that
picture has recently been eclipsed by nauseating images of modern meat
production, the grass-fed ruminant and the vegetarian herbivore are not
extinct yet.

For several years now, an alternative, postindustrial food chain has been
taking shape, its growth fueled by one ''food scare'' after another: Alar,
G.M.O.'s, rBGH, E. coli 0157:H7; now B.S.E. Whatever science told us about
the risks of these novel industrial entrees and sides, something else told
us we might want to order something more appetizing: organic, hormone-free,
grass-finished. It might cost more, but it's possible again to eat meat from
a short, legible food chain consisting of little more than sunlight, grass
and ruminants. Back to the future: a 21st-century savanna. If, as seems
probable, this landscape should now expand at the expense of the feedlot,
then something good -- even beautiful -- will have come of this poor mad

Michael Pollan is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine.

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.