Meat: Where Lean and Fat Get Together

On a recent trip to the grocery store, I overheard a female customer ask the meat counter assistant which beef roast would be the most lean.  The customer was a trim figure in athletic attire, and a young girl (presumably her daughter) loitered by the shopping cart.  This customer embodied the ever-more health conscious consumer eager to provide the most nutritious food for her family.  However, the public is often bombarded with vague or contradictory statements about food (“Beef is bad,” “Eggs are good,” “Beef is good,” “Eggs are bad,” “Chia seeds and acai berries!”), making purchasing decisions difficult.  Fortunately, nutrition labels and ingredient statements on processed foods can allow shoppers to make comparisons and choices that fit their health needs.  But for many raw foods such as meats, fruits, and vegetables, the nutrient information is often not displayed.  This can lead to questions like that of the aforementioned customer. This post of Meat Salads offers some clarification on the types and amounts of fat found in different fresh meats.

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood concepts of food composition is “fat.”  The word is heavy with negative connotation, but without fat in the diet, humans and animals would fare very poorly.  After all, dietary fat facilitates the absorption of vitamins A, D, E, and K; allows for the formation and function of skin, brain, and nervous tissues; encourages the feeling of satiety, and enhances the flavor, aroma, and texture of food (Meat Poultry Nutrition, 2013).  Still, overconsumption of fat can be detrimental for human health, so limiting fat intake to only 20-35% of total daily calories is recommended for almost everyone (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012a).  Also, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 recommends further that calories from saturated fat constitute only 10% of total daily calories (CDC, 2012a).  Saturated fat and its counterpart, unsaturated fat, exist in animal muscles in different ratios depending on the species and muscle function/location.  This means different types of meat will have various levels of saturated and unsaturated fat.  Table 1 gives a simplified explanation of the two fat types, and Table 2, with data from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26, gives examples of how fat differs among fresh meats.

 

Table 1: A simplified explanation of saturated and unsaturated fats (fatty acids).  Saturated fatty acids are more often used for energy storage and insulation whereas unsaturated fatty acids are used for cell membrane structure, signaling molecules, and other functions.

Fat Type	Definition‡	Diagram‡
Saturated	Every carbon atom in the hydrocarbon chain is bound to as many hydrogen atoms as possible.  The fat has a rigid structure at room temperature.
Unsaturated	At least two carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon chain are not bound to as many hydrogen atoms as possible.  At least 1 double bond (circled in illustration) is present.  The fat has a fluid structure at room temperature.  When only 1 double bond is present, the fat is “monounsaturated.”  When 2 or more double bonds are present, the fat is “polyunsaturated.”

‡ Carnegie Mellon University, 2006

Table 2: A comparison of meat from beef, pork, poultry, eggs, and fish.  Meat will vary in saturated and unsaturated fats depending on the species and muscle of origin.

Species	Cut*	Saturated fat (g/100 g meat)^	Monounsaturated fat (g/100 g meat)^	Polyunsaturated fat (g/100 g meat)^
Beef	Chuck pot roast (1/8” exterior fat)	7.254	7.697	0.684
Beef	Top blade steak (0” exterior fat)	2.817	3.409	0.389
Beef	Strip steak (1/8” exterior fat)	2.100	2.545	0.208
Beef	Tenderloin roast (0” exterior fat)	2.363	2.578	0.454
Beef	Brisket flat half (1/8” exterior fat)	8.951	9.498	0.844
Beef	Flank steak (0” exterior fat)	2.978	2.924	0.277
Pork	Shoulder	4.140	5.367	2.474
Pork	Loin chops	2.450	2.985	0.878
Pork	Cured ham steak	1.440	1.960	0.470
Chicken	Breast (skinless)	0.479	0.586	0.360
Chicken	Thigh (skinless)	0.932	1.272	0.799
Turkey	Breast (skinless)	0.344	0.284	0.355
Turkey	Thigh (skinless)	0.782	0.749	0.722
Egg	Large, whole	1.563	1.829	0.956
Salmon	Atlantic, wild	0.981	2.103	2.539

*Except for the cured ham steak, the given values are for the raw meat servings.

^All values are presented as “g fat/100 g meat” except for the egg (g fat/50 g).

From Table 2, differences in fat content among species and cuts are clearly seen.  Since the CDC recommends limiting fat, especially saturated fat, intake, the values listed above might not be so welcoming for beef fans.  However, the CDC also reports that saturated fat intake can be lowered when customers choose beef cuts with less marbling and then trim all visible fat from the outside of a cut (CDC, 2012b).  Marbling refers to the amount of intramuscular fat (the white flecks or specks) visible in meat.  As Figure 1 below shows, meat can be heavily laced with intramuscular fat or essentially devoid of it.  While more marbling is appropriate for a very indulgent filet mignon at a steakhouse, less marbling is more appropriate for cuts eaten more frequently at home, especially if limiting saturated fat intake is part of your lifestyle.

 

Figure 1: Marbling in cuts of fresh beef.  “Marbling” can be used to give beef a quality grade.  To limit saturated fat intake, consumers should pick cuts with the least amount of marbling that will still allow for a successful cooking and eating experience (Good, 2008).

Just like the lady at the meat counter, more and more people want to know the advantages and disadvantages of foods to make better choices for themselves and their families.  Though following the CDC’s recommendation of limiting fat calories to 20-35% of total daily calories is key to avoiding many health problems, not all foods in the grocery store come with nutrition labels that declare their fat content.  However, having a basic understanding of saturated and unsaturated fats, comparing values from the USDA National Nutrient Database, and being able to differentiate leaner cuts from those with more fat will enable consumers to buy a wide range of meats for all needs, tastes, and occasions.  Remember: variety is key.  Enjoy salmon, eggs, chicken, turkey, shrimp, pork, beef, lamb, and other meats to experience a multitude of flavors while providing your body with essential nutrients.

*To explore more foods and their nutrients, explore the Database by clicking here.*

References
 

Carnegie Mellon University (2006).  Department of Biological Sciences: Interactive Animations.  Retrieved from http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/biology/MembranePage/index2.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012a).  Dietary Fat.  Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012b).  Saturated Fat.  Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/saturatedfat.html

Good, C. (2008).  Beef Grades.  Retrieved from http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1279/beef-grades

Meat Poultry Nutrition (2013).  Skinny on Dietary Fat.  Retrieved from http://www.meatpoultrynutrition.org/ht/d/sp/i/26061/pid/26061.

USDA (NA).  National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 26.  Retrieved from http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

 

 

 

 

Don't Fear the Burger

Earlier today I was helping a professor trim beef cuts for customers that buy meat from our university.  As I was trimming the cuts, I wished our facility had the equipment and procedures for making lean finely textured beef (LFTB).  I did not have the time nor skill to remove every little piece of lean meat from the trimmings, so this meat (full of protein, minerals, and other nutrients) went unused.  However, the process for making LFTB is able to salvage that wholesome meat by separating it from the fat to which it is attached.  Unfortunately, this protein-saving innovation has come under fire since 2012 when ABC World News Tonight called LFTB a “filler” that was not necessarily meat (Flynn, 2012).  Most ground beef that included LFTB in its formulation was not labeled as such, and many consumers saw this as a breach of trust between themselves and producers.  A debate over whether LFTB should be added to ground beef and/or labeled as an ingredient ensued.

 

How fitting it was, then, when I later read on Meat & Poultry’s website that Cargill has announced its decision to label its ground beef products containing finely textured beef (FTB) with the phrase “contains finely textured beef” prior to the grilling season of 2014 (Meat & Poultry staff, 2013).  Further investigation on Cargill’s website revealed that Cargill Beef’s president John Keating believes the labeling will allay fears and concerns of consumers that desire more transparency in the meat industry (Cargill, 2013a).  Cargill has made FTB since 1993 with the approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Cargill, 2013a), and hopefully the labeling will regain consumer approval of the FTB.  While FTB and LFTB are produced in slightly different ways, the main concept of separating otherwise wasted lean meat from fat is utilized to make both products (American Meat Institute (AMI), 2013).  A three-minute, comprehensive video made by Cargill explains the process and its benefits; you can follow this link to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVXeUNDedo (Cargill, 2013b).

 

In addition to providing consumers with a nutritious whole-beef product, producers of LFTB and FTB are simply following the adage “Waste not, want not.”  According to the American Meat Institute, if L/FTB is not utilized, 1.5 million extra cattle would need to be raised for the current demand on ground beef to be met (AMI, 2013).  When more cattle are raised, more pressure is put on land, water, and other resources that are growing more limited in availability.  When FTB is made, an additional 25 pounds of quality beef can come from every animal, thereby reducing the cost of the beef for consumers (Cargill, 2013b).  Keeping the cost of ground beef low will allow more people to enjoy the nutrition and taste of beef on a regular basis.

 

So even though winter is knocking at our doors, next year’s grilling season will be here before you know it.  When you shop for patties or ground beef for your first cook-out, look for products labeled with “contains finely textured beef.”  These products are 100% beef, completely wholesome, and beneficial for producers and consumers alike.   And, please, don’t say they contain “p*nk sl*me.”  Thank you.

 

References

American Meat Institute.  (2013, August).  Questions and Answers about Lean Finely Textured Beef.  Retrieved from http://www.meatami.com/ht/d/sp/i/286/pid/286

Cargill.  (2013a, November 5).  Cargill Announces New Labeling for Finely Textured Beef.  Retrieved from http://www.cargill.com/news/releases/2013/NA3080930.jsp

Cargill.  (2013b).  Ground Beef Answers.  Retrieved from http://www.groundbeefanswers.com/

Flynn, D. (2012).  BPI ground beef gets support from food safety leaders.  Food Safety News.

Meat & Poultry staff.  (2013, November 5).  Cargill to Label ‘Finely Textured Beef.  Retrieved from http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Business/2013/11/Cargill_to_label_finely_textur.aspx?ID=%7B57D409DF-409D-447A-A342-B4F8E36842EB%7D&cck=1

Hamburger picture from http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/perfect-grilled-burgers-recipe/index.html

 

The Science Behind the Hot Dog: Part 2

The last time I was at my parents’ house, my dad jokingly made a reference to “cow lips” in hot dogs.  I had to cringe.  With labeling requirements that reveal all ingredients in food products, why does the myth of hot dogs being made of "unspeakable" animal parts still exist?  Its longevity may be due to a hot dog’s inner appearance.  The springy, smooth, reddish brown hot dog is a far cry from marbled, fibrous beef chuck.  However, that beef chuck can be turned into a hot dog with the right machinery, ingredients, and cooking process and still deliver the protein, iron, and other nutrients promised by a fresh cut of beef.  In a previous post, I explained the non-meat ingredients of a hot dog.  Today, let’s talk about the meat.

A hot dog is an “emulsified” meat product.  An emulsion is a stabilized mixture of solid particles dispersed throughout a liquid component (Aberle, Forrest, Gerrard & Mills, 2001).  In an emulsified meat product, the particles are fat and the liquid component is water containing salts and proteins (Aberle et al., 2001).  While water and fat would naturally not mix together, proteins with both hydrophobic (“water-fearing”) and hydrophilic (“water-loving”) parts can hold the fat and water together (Figure 1).  Myofibrillar proteins (the stringy, fibrous muscle proteins that allow for movement) hold fat and water together well, but for the myofibrillar proteins to be of use, they must first be extracted from their original positions in skeletal muscle.  A bowl chopper (think of a king-size food processor) will first dice ground lean meat into tiny pieces, thereby increasing the surface area of the meat.  Salt will extract the tightly bound myosin and actin from each other, and these liberated proteins will then interact with the fat and water which are later added to the mix (Aberle et al., 2001). 

Figure 1: Proteins coat fat particles to allow the fat to be held within the water phase of an emulsified product.

If you are unfamiliar with proteins and how they are put together, this might be a little confusing.  The main point, though, is that parts of the animal with LOTS of myofibrillar protein (i.e., skeletal muscle) can interact with water and fat much better than parts of the animal with little myofibrillar protein.  Another type of animal protein is called “stromal protein,” perhaps better known as “connective tissue.”  The main stromal proteins are collagen and elastin.  Collagen is found in skin, lips, ligaments, bones, and blood vessels, and is, in fact, the most abundant protein in an animal’s body (Lodish, Berk, Zipursky, et al., 2000).  However, it is an “insoluble” protein, meaning it is not broken down as myofibrillar proteins are broken down by salt. 

Now, you might be wondering, “What does this have to do with hot dogs?”  Remember that hot dogs are emulsified products, and the emulsion can only be stable if the components bind together well under stress.  Meats that have high binding capabilities are those high in myofibrillar proteins such as bull and cow meat, skinless poultry meat, lean pork trimmings, and beef chucks (Aberle et al., 2001).  Meats with a high percentage of stromal protein include the infamous “filler meats:” lips, stomachs, snouts, skin, and tripe (Aberle et al., 2001).  If hot dogs contain a large percentage of collagen-rich meat, the collagen will melt during heat processing and then congeal as gelatin when the hot dogs are cooled (Aberle et al., 2001).  These hot dogs will undoubtedly not be what the producer or consumer wanted. Since skeletal muscle already contains some collagen due to the presence of blood vessels and connective tissue (Figure 1), deliberately increasing the amount of stromal protein by adding lips or snouts is not greatly practiced. 

Hopefully you now understand why the joke of “cow lips” in hot dogs is not so funny.  Producers want their customers to be happy with tasty, nutritious, good looking products, and this can only happen with the right ingredients.  If you are still curious about what’s in your hot dogs, check the ingredients label.  All filler or “variety meats” must be declared on the label, including the specific meat’s name (e.g. “heart”) (National Hot Dog & Sausage Council, 2013).  So the next time you’re at a weenie roast and someone doesn’t want to eat something made of the “less savory parts of an animal,” show them the ingredient list and enlighten them!  You can even whip out words like "emulsified" or "myofibrillar" to really impress them.

References

Aberle, E.D., Forrest, J.C., Gerrard, D.E. & Mills, E.W.  (2001).  Principles of Meat Science (4^th ed.).  Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, S.L., et al.  (2000).  Molecular Cell Biology (4^th ed.).  New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

National Hot Dog & Sausage Council (2013).  How hot dogs are made: The real story.  Retrieved from http://www.hot-dog.org/ht/d/sp/i/38597/pid/38597.

hot dog picture: http://www.afdr.org/v2933-HOT-DOG-BEEF-HD-F-DELI-STYLE-BEEF-FRANKS-51.aspx

emulsion diagram: http://lpoli.50webs.com/Tips.htm

.

Organic...Natural...Not a "Same Difference"

   A recent article from The Boulder Journal reported that consumers spent $94.7 billion on natural, organic, and functional foods, accounting for 13.5% of money spent on food in 2012 (“Top five”, 2013).  Apparently, labeling claims are greatly influencing consumers’ decisions at grocery stores.  After all, a label touting words like “organic,” “all natural ingredients,” or “naturally raised” can carry positive connotations of wellness and health.  But labeling terms may actually mislead or confuse consumers when they are thought to be interchangeable.  However, labeling guidelines do not encourage the use of synonyms to make food packaging more interesting, and each word has its own special meaning.  Here’s a brief explanation of some of the hot-topic descriptors appearing more frequently in grocery stores.

• Organic

   A hefty workload goes into earning the term “organic.”  The Code of Federal Regulations “Part 205: National Organic Program (NOP)” (under Title 7, subtitle 3, chapter 1, and subchapter M) spells out the many regulations, rules, and restrictions that must be followed for a plant- or animal-sourced product to be called “organic” (NOP, 2013).  Here is just a sampling of rules regarding animal products. 

• § 205.236 (a): “Livestock products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic must be from livestock under continuous organic management from the last third of gestation or hatching: Except, That: (1) Poultry. Poultry or edible poultry products must be from poultry that has been under continuous organic management beginning no later than the second day of life…” (NOP, 2013).
• § 205.236 (c): “The producer of an organic livestock operation must maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed animals and edible and nonedible animal products produced on the operation” (NOP, 2013).
• § 205.237 (a): “The producer of an organic livestock operation must provide livestock with a total feed ration composed of agricultural products, including pasture and forage, that are organically produced and handled by operations certified to the NOP…” (NOP, 2013).
• § 205.238 (c): “The producer of an organic livestock operation must not: (7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced” (NOP, 2013).

If producers can follow all the mandates set by the NOP, they can display the organic seal, shown below, on their food products.

                                                            

• Natural

 
   This may be one of the most misleading terms found on food packaging.  According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the term “natural” can be used on any meat or poultry product that does not contain artificial ingredients or added colors and was minimally processed (2011).  This means that the term “natural” does not refer to…

• What an animal was fed.
• How an animal was raised.
• Whether an animal was administered hormones, growth promotants, or antibiotics.
• How the added ingredients were raised or processed.

   In fact, in an article concerning various food labels ConsumerReports.org describes “natural” as “One we wish would go away” due to its ambiguity and ubiquity (2013).

• Naturally raised

                                                     

 
   For animal products, this claim reveals more information than “natural” regarding how animals were managed during production.  According to the Agricultural Marketing Service, “naturally raising” includes the following practices.

• No growth promotants are given to animals.
• No animal by-products are used for feed.
• No antibiotics (except for ionophores to prevent parasitism) are administered (2009).

   So based on these definitions, does one label imply more wholesomeness than another?  Not necessarily.  The NOP’s plethora of regulations includes some caveats that may allow producers to skirt some requirements.  For example, the NOP states, “The producer of an organic livestock operation may provide temporary confinement or shelter for an animal because of…Conditions under which the health, safety, or well-being of the animal could be jeopardized” (NOP, 2013).  Perhaps one could argue that due to persistent threats to herd/flock health, some of the regulations set forth by the NOP should be disregarded, and those animals may not be raised as closely to NOP standards as other animals.  Also, the rule addressing the use of treatments not allowed in organic production (in bold) implies that animals receiving such treatments can provide wholesome products safe for human consumption; their products just cannot be sold as "organic."

Also, whether organic, natural, or conventional foods are superior in terms of healthfulness continues to be debated.  According to an article by Zak Solomon in Food Safety News, most of the current studies on this subject cite limited data, but the following conclusions should be considered.

• Pesticides have been found on both organic and non-organic produce, and the levels of this contamination generally are too low to harm humans.
• Microbes can easily contaminate organic and non-organic plants and animals due to their omnipresence in the environment.
• Contamination can occur at all steps of production, and recalls of organic products can be just as likely as those for non-organic products.
• Refrigerating perishable foods, cooking raw meat and eggs thoroughly, and washing hands before and after handling food are the best ways to prevent food-borne illness regardless of the food's label (2013).

   In summary, "organic" meat products must come from animals raised according to strict guidelines, and any non-meat ingredients within them must also be "organic."  The term "natural" does not reveal how animals were raised and refers only to ingredients. Only naturally occurring ingredients and minimal processing are allowed, but the label does not mean much if the only ingredients are chicken breast, water, and salt. The "naturally raised" label refers to how animals were managed but does not reveal anything about non-meat ingredients.  Of course, all meat products that have passed USDA inspection, are properly packaged, and are stored at correct temperatures are completely safe for human consumption and should reflect a company's dedication to insuring animal welfare and promoting human health.

References

Agricultural Marketing Service.  (2009, January 21).  Naturally Raised Marketing Claim Standards.  Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=NaturallyRaisedMarketingClaimStandards&rightNav1=NaturallyRaisedMarketingClaimStandards&topNav=&leftNav=GradingCertificationandVerfication&page=NaturallyRaisedMarketingClaims.

ConsumerReports.org.  (2013, September). Making sense of food labels: Some to look for and others to ignore.  Retrieved from http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/08/making-sense-of-food-labels/index.htm.

Food Safety and Inspection Service.  (2011, April).  Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms.  Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e2853601-3edb-45d3-90dc-1bef17b7f277/Meat_and_Poultry_Labeling_Terms.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

“National Organic Program,” Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations Pt. 205. 2013 ed.

Solomon, Z.  (2013, August 30).  Organic foods: The safety question.  Food Safety News.  Retrieved from http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/08/organic-foods-the-safety-question/#.Uiy5FTZOMaA.

Top five natural food trends: who is buying what, and why.  (2013, September 6).  The Boulder Journal.  Retrieved from http://www.boulderijournal.com/article.php?id=9538.

Images of "organic" and "natural" meat products can be found at www.applegate.com.
Image of USDA Organic seal can be found at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=7f3635a4fd38fe67ff9f9a7b49adb514&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.4.354.12&idno=7.

Image of "naturally raised" can be found at http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/9634659/.

Hey, Tyson: What's your Beef with the Beef?

   Perhaps you have heard that Tyson Foods Inc. has stopped purchasing cattle that have been fed Zilmax, a feed additive meant to improve carcass quality.  The subsequent flood of news stories peppered with phrases like “beta-agonists,” “growth promotants,” and “animal welfare” can understandably raise questions from the public.  What are beta-agonists?  Are they safe for animals to consume?  If fed to an animal, is the meat safe for me to eat?  A very comprehensive article published by the American Society of Animal Science’s Taking Stock newsletter explains beta-agonists well.  The entire article can be found at http://takingstock.asas.org/?p=9145.  Here’s a brief summary of this article’s explanation of beta-agonists and what they do:

·         As animals mature, lean muscle is more difficult to produce than fat.  At the finishing stage (the time period before slaughter), beta-agonists encourage the formation of muscle mass rather than fat.  This means more lean meat (about 30 pounds per head of beef) will be available for the consumer.

·         Beta-agonists used for livestock are called ractopamine and zilpaterol hydrochloride; both are approved by the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.  While ractopamine can be used for swine and cattle, zilpaterol hydrochloride is only fed to cattle.  Its trade name, as sold by Merck & Co., is Zilmax.

·         Meat from beef cattle fed Zilmax is safe to eat.  Beta-agonists break down quickly before animals are slaughtered, and no human illnesses or ailments have ever been tied to the consumption of meat from Zilmax-fed cattle.

·         Tyson Foods Inc. has cited joint problems for its concern over cattle fed Zilmax with the logic that additional weight gained due to Zilmax would add pressure to joints.  However, no direct connection between Zilmax consumption and the loss of joint integrity has been found (McCurry-Schmidt, 2013).

   So there we are.  Zilmax is FDA-approved, increases the amount of lean muscle on a carcass and does not harm consumer health.  Of course, since the health of animals is a top priority for farmers and processors, the appearance of cattle with obvious joint problems has raised concerns.  According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Merck & Co. will temporarily suspend sales of Zilmax and conduct studies on how the additive affects the health of cattle (Newman & Gee, 2013).  Research into this issue will hopefully reconfirm Zilmax’s safety, identify how it may affect cattle negatively, or reveal a different cause for joint problems.

   Of course, while all cases of endangered animal welfare are important, taking a “guilty until proven innocent” approach can trigger resentment from producers.  Cattle farmers all over the world have accepted the use of Zilmax for the last twenty years, the FDA has approved it in the U.S. since 2007, and documented research has supported its use for over 30 years (Rich, 2013).  Why, then, is the blame for beef cattle walking stiffly being thrown on Zilmax?  The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association CEO Forrest Roberts commented recently that specific additives “can be used responsibly when managed properly,” (Coffeen, 2013).  Providing cattle with the necessities to develop strong skeletons and feeding promotants for only a short time are parts of proper management; overuse of a muscle developer on an animal with a weak skeleton can understandably cause problems. 

   The world’s population is growing and, of course, needs to be fed.  Beef and pork are choice sources of nutrients are being demanded more and more by a growing middle class.  Being able to increase the yield-to-feed ratio for livestock will benefit producers, consumers, and animals as long as the means to do this are safe for all concerned.  To understand how much impact Zilmax or other additives can have on the beef supply, consider this quote from Richard Raymond, a former Undersecretary for Food Safety, USDA:

“If only half of the 24 million head of cattle harvested annually, a conservative estimate to be sure, yielded an additional 30 pounds of meat, this would provide 360 million more pounds of lean beef during a time when drought and high grain prices are forcing a reduction in the size of the American cattle herd. That would equate to 1.4 billion additional quarter pounders to help feed the world’s children, too many of whom go to bed hungry every night,” (Raymond, 2013).

References

Coffeen, Peggy.  (2013).  Tyson no longer taking cattle fed Zilmax.  Retrieved from http://www.agriview.com/news/livestock/tyson-no-longer-taking-cattle-fed-zilmax/article_130e0790-6166-5da2-bc5c-a7888abeee49.html.

McMurry-Schmidt, M. (2013, August 16).  What are beta agonists?  Taking Stock.  Retrieved from http://takingstock.asas.org/?p=9145.

Newman, J. & Gee, K.  (2013, August 18).  What’s ailing America’s cattle?  The Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579020953889322782.html.

Raymond, R. (2013).  Having agony over the agonists?  Perspective from a former USDA Food Safety official.  Retrieved from http://factsaboutbeef.com/2013/08/02/having-agony-over-the-agonists-perspective-from-a-former-usda-food-safety-official/.

Rich, D. (2013, August 19).  Tyson to ban cattle fed with Zilmax.  High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal.  Retrieved from http://www.hpj.com/archives/2013/aug13/aug19/0813ZilmaxbanDRdbsr.cfm.