The beef with getting beefed up

[Gob]

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) will discuss controversial changes to drug rules at a meeting this weekend.

In Switzerland, Wada officials will consider relaxing the absolute ban on the drug clenbuterol, used illegally by athletes to build muscle.

Some athletes say their positive test results for the drug were caused by eating beef.

London's Olympic anti-doping chief says a minimum threshold would make testing more uniform.

Clenbuterol is a powerful drug used to treat asthma, but it can also help build up lean muscle mass and burn off fat.

The drug's growth-promoting ability has also found favour with beef farmers, particularly in China and Mexico.

The fact that humans can ingest the substance inadvertently by eating beef is putting pressure on Wada's rules, which deem the slightest trace to be a doping infringement.

During the 2010 Tour de France, the eventual winner Alberto Contador tested positive for a minute quantity of clenbuterol. Contador's defence was that he had eaten a contaminated steak that had been brought in from Spain.

His argument was accepted by the Spanish cycling federation. However, Wada has appealed against the decision, and after numerous delays the case is set to be heard at the Court of Arbitration in Sport in November.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14952870

[dgs49]

I've always wondered what it is about cow feed that causes them to gain weight so prodigiously, with the vast majority of the weight gain being muscle (meat). As I understand it, the mature cattle that are are typically slaughtered for beef are only a few years old.

[BoSoxGal]

Cattle, pigs, chickens/turkeys and now farmed fish are pumped full of hormones to make them produce more meat. The typical chicken/turkey raised for slaughter is so grossly misshapen by this engineering it can't remain standing long or walk more than a few feet - but it produces lovely huge breasts for sale at the meat counter.

Where is that barfing icon I requested?

[Liberty1]

I keep hearing these claims with no evidence. When I buy chicken it says "No-hormones".

[BoSoxGal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_fa ... en_farming

I've seen chicken production houses with my own eyes, in person.

A good documentary that will allow you to see inside an intensive farming chicken production house (licensed by Tyson) is Food, Inc.

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

For the record, I was raised around small farms - my grandparents had turkey farms, my uncles both had gentleman's farms that fed their familes/neighbors. I have no beef (no pun intended) with eating animals raised and cared for the old ways. Intensive farming practices are disgusting, cruel, and ultimately make human beings sick.

eta: With the caveat that the more I learn about the underlying causes of heart disease and the other host of illnesses plaguing Western diet aficianados, the more I am inclined to keep moving toward a largely plant-based diet, with meat a very occasional treat. And now that I have access to wild game meat, I'll stick largely to it.

[Liberty1]

So the Tyson chicken that says "No hormones" is not correct?

and ultimately make human beings sick.

Who, what?

And now that I have access to wild game meat, I'll stick largely to it.

Me too as much as possible (although my own hunting has not been very succesful lately), or local bison.

[BoSoxGal]

Check the USDA website for explanation of labeling on meats.

Federal law prohibits hormones in pork/poultry, so when they label 'no hormones,' they have to add small print to that effect so the consumer isn't tricked into thinking they're getting something special.

However, the feed the poultry/pork is raised on can be filled with antibiotic and other goodies which ultimately effect growth/health of the animals. Read the first link I posted to learn more about how poultry are raised/fed.

I do believe that when animals are raised inhumanely the meat from those animals ultimately harms the consumer in many ways, not just direct consumption.

I highly recommend the documentary I previously linked. I think you would consider it time well spent to view it.

[BoSoxGal]

Check the USDA website for explanation of labeling on meats.

Federal law prohibits hormones in pork/poultry, so when they label 'no hormones,' they have to add small print to that effect so the consumer isn't tricked into thinking they're getting something special.

However, the feed the poultry/pork is raised on can be filled with antibiotic and other goodies which ultimately effect growth/health of the animals. Read the first link I posted to learn more about how poultry are raised/fed.

I do believe that when animals are raised inhumanely the meat from those animals ultimately harms the consumer in many ways, not just direct consumption.

I highly recommend the documentary I previously linked. I think you would consider it time well spent to view it.

[dgs49]

Red meat cannot harm you. (It's the green furry meat that should cause concern).

Ahem.

Well, if it ain't hormones that causes the weight/muscle gain, is sure as hell isn't antibiotics.

Steroids?

I wanna get me some, whatever it is.

[Liberty1]

I'm no chemistry expert by any stretch, but I would expect hormones and antibiotics to change when cooked, just like the meat itself.

[BoSoxGal]

Feedlot cattle are routinely given synthetic hormones via feed - it's one reason US beef is banned in many countries. They are also fed a corn-rich diet, which increases e coli bacteria in the ruminant gut by a vastly significant factor over grass-fed cattle. Industrial farmed animals have been the source of nearly all outbreaks of salmonella and e coli that have in fact caused many human deaths. The majority of meat in the US (some 70%) is industrially farmed and processed through a handful of slaughterhouses.

So, red meat can harm you. So can pork, chicken and turkey.

Additionally, the link between consumption of animal protein and highly increased risk of cancer and other disease is definitively established.

[Gob]

The growth hormones used in beef are steroids dgs.

Since the 1950s, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a number of steroid hormone drugs for use in beef cattle and sheep, including natural estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, and their synthetic versions. These drugs increase the animals’ growth rate, the efficiency by which they convert the feed they eat into meat, and the leanness of their meat. The FDA approves these drugs only after extensive studies have shown that the food from the treated animals is safe for people to eat, and that the drugs do not harm the treated animal or the environment. The drugs also have to work as intended.

These steroid hormone drugs are formulated as pellets that are placed under the skin on the back side of the animal’s ear. The pellets dissolve slowly under the skin and do not require removal. The ears of the treated animals are discarded at slaughter and not used for human food. Using scientific data, FDA establishes the acceptable safe limits for hormones in meat. A safe level for human consumption is a level of drug in the meat that would be expected to have no effect in humans based on extensive scientific study and review.


http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Saf ... 055436.htm

[Sean]

They should just feed them sheep spines. It worked in the UK...

[The Hen]

Nomnomnomnomnom. Sheep spines.

[Gob]

Some of the bullshit the food industry feeds you

[rubato]

There is a Danish practice to require a prescription for the use of antibiotics as a way of reducing the production of resistant strains of dangerous bacteria.

An excellent idea. We should follow their example.

http://www.saveantibiotics.org/resource ... rience.pdf

In human medicine, antibiotic use is generally confined to treatment of illness. In contrast, antibiotics and other antimicrobials (drugs that kill microorganisms like bacteria) often are routinely given to food animals in the U.S. in order to grow animals faster and to compensate for unsanitary conditions on many industrial farms. Bacteria exposed to antibiotics at low doses for prolonged periods can develop antibiotic-resistance—a dangerous trait enabling bacteria to survive and grow instead of being inhibited or destroyed by therapeutic doses of a drug.1 Since many of the classes of antibiotics used in food animal production also are important in human medicine, resistance that begins on the farm can lead to a serious public health problem.

Recognizing the potential for a health crisis, Denmark stopped the administration of antibiotics used for growth promotion (i.e., non-medical uses) in broiler chickens and adult swine (finishers) in 1998, and in young swine (weaners) in 1999. Today in Denmark, all uses of antibiotics in food animals must be accompanied by a prescription in a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship, and veterinarians cannot profit from the sale of antibiotics. In addition, farmers, veterinarians and pharmacies must report the use and sale of antibiotics, and farm inspections are conducted regularly. Although the U.S. food animal production and animal drug industries often claim that the ban was costly and ineffective, the World Health Organization (WHO) found that the Danish ban reduced human health risk without significantly harming animal health or farmers’ incomes.2 In fact, Danish government and industry data show that livestock and poultry production has increased since the ban, while antibiotic resistance has declined on farms and in meat.3

Assessing the Danish Experience
In 2003, the WHO published a study entitled “Impacts of Antimicrobial Growth Promoter Termination in Denmark,”4 which culminated their review of Denmark’s elimination of antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) in food animal production—a ban that was five years old at the time. The goals set forth by WHO included assessing the impact of the ban on: antibiotic resistance in humans; human health; animal health and welfare; the environment and animal production. The report focused particularly on swine and broiler chickens, and based its study on data from the Danish Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Program (DANMAP) and VETSTAT, as well as national experts’ working papers. VETSTAT, a special antimicrobial use monitoring program originating in 2000, is a prescription-based initiative that collects information on veterinary prescriptions from pharmacies, vet practices and feed mills.

Researchers with the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, the Danish Medicines Agency, the Technical University of Denmark and the State Serum Institute have been compiling, analyzing and publishing data on antibiotic use in food animals since the early 1990s. In addition, they have studied antibiotic resistance in animals and food since the mid-1990s and in humans since the early 2000s. DANMAP publishes this data in an annual report available online.5 Many of the report writers and their colleagues also have published findings of the Denmark ban in independent scientific literature.6 Additional journal articles have been published comparing the impacts of the AGP ban in Denmark to similar bans in Sweden and Norway, which also were successful in reducing antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance.7 www.saveantibiotics.org
... "
____________________________________________________-

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I'm no chemistry expert by any stretch, but I would expect hormones and antibiotics to change when cooked, just like the meat itself.

Many drugs are excreted either unchanged (penicillin) or still in an active form (hormones). While most are broken down by cooking not all beef is completely cooked and some substances are not rendered harmless even by cooking (prions, the things that cause Mad Cow disease).

Yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

I used to drive by a feed lot when I travelled between Yuma and Phoenix, AZ.

It is hard to really grasp the scope and stench of one until you see it up close and personal - as disgusting as some of the videos are, the experience of it in real life is gut-wrenching.

I have been an omnivore my entire life, with a fair bit of meat in the mix. For health reasons I am working to alter my lifestyle such that eating the fatted calf is a rare occurrence.

But at whatever frequency of consumption, I simply don't want to eat the flesh of an animal that has been kept in such conditions that it must stand knee-deep in its own excrement for days, weeks, months on end; or live its entire life in the dark, choked by the fumes of millions of excretions of urine daily, so cramped with its neighbors that cannibalism is routine and living creatures lay side by side with the dead. It is not just cruelty to the animals, it is cruelty to ourselves to poison our bodies with the flesh of tortured creatures.

eta: Just to clarify; beyond the visual assault of seeing acre upon acre of cattle crammed shoulder to shoulder knee-deep in shit and the incredible stench - there is also the persistent lowing of the cattle, which I cannot fathom as anything other than indicative of the unrelenting stress of that situation. By comparison, the cattle I was raised around on small family farms in New England and the cattle I see every day on the range in Montana do not persistently low - it is distress, pure and simple, that causes those animals to cry out so incessantly.