# data[].attributes.headline
Leasing land to hunters creates economic incentives for landowners keeping them from clearing land

# data[].attributes.subject
Leasing land to hunters creates economic incentives for landowners keeping them from clearing land

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Agriculture in the U.S. is dominated by large, specialized crop and animal farms. These industrial farms focus on short-term productivity, often at the cost of creating environmental and public health problems.

Our new report with the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Reaping What We Sow: How the Practices of Industrial Agriculture Put Our Health and Environment at Risk, documents what the rise of large, specialized farms means for our health and our environment, and how it threatens long-term agricultural productivity.

The typical farm today grows just one or two crops, or raises one or two types of animals, and does so on a large scale. Corn is most often raised on a 600-acre field, up from 200 acres in the 1980s. The average hog is raised on a farm with 30,000 other hogs, a 24-fold increase since the 1980s. The nation's agricultural system now produces more food than we can consume or than is good for us, and does so in a way that creates a number of threats to the environment and public health.

For example, by growing the same one or two crops year after year - most often corn and soybeans - industrial farms deplete nutrients in the soil. In response, they apply manure or synthetic fertilizer but too often this washes into waterways, where it feeds algal blooms that create dead zones or pollute drinking water. Farmers have the tools to reduce water pollution, including leaving grassy buffers between fields and waterways, planting cover crops, and tilling less often. However, federal farm policy, bank lending practices that favor large farm operations, and other technological and corporate forces encourage farmers to focus on maximizing short-term output rather than making these modest changes.
Conservation buffers, such as these hedges alongside Iowa's Bear Creek, help prevent sediment and agricultural chemicals from contaminating water. Photo: Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
In animal agriculture, the focus on short-term production also creates environmental and public health threats. For instance, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) operate by raising animals in confinement and feeding them grains. Because so many animals are kept in a limited area, often in unsanitary conditions that allow disease to spread quickly, operators of these farms may feed daily doses of antibiotics to their animals. This routine use of antibiotics on animals results in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can infect humans and are very difficult to treat. Farmers can raise animals without the routine use of antibiotics - in the near future, nearly half the chicken in this country will be raised without the routine use of medically important antibiotics - but federal policy gives them little incentive to do so.

Industrial farming practices also threaten the long-term viability of agriculture. Nutrients aren't the only thing that run off from fields that lack grassy buffers or cover crops. Soil also washes into waterways. In the U.S., topsoil has been eroding from farms faster than it can be replaced, which threatens future crop yields. The same practices that help keep nutrients out of waterways can help keep topsoil in place.

One obstacle that keeps farmers from adopting better practices is federal agriculture policy that encourages, rather than discourages, some of the worst practices. Federally subsidized crop insurance, for instance, encourages specialization in corn and soy, despite its implications for water quality. A better approach would be to limit subsidized crop insurance to farms that implement measures to limit water pollution. By shifting key public policies, we can change how our food system operates to better protect public health, the environment, and long-term agricultural productivity.
Top photo: Karen Perhus via Dreamstime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Problems of Industrial Agriculture, Now and for the Future | Frontier Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Agriculture in the U.S. is dominated by large, specialized crop and animal farms. These industrial farms focus on short-term productivity, often at the cost of creating environmental and public health problems. Our new report with the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeannine P. Schweihofer, -

Selling meat by the individual retail cut or in bundles requires a license in Michigan

Many farms are offering direct sale of their meat to increase their profitability and fill consumer demand for locally produced foods. Budgets of households have been tighter over the past several years, and families often cannot afford to purchase a whole, half or quarter of a beef carcass. Similarly, those selling pork, lamb or goat carcasses may also experience that consumers do not want to purchase a whole carcass worth of meat at one time.

Meat sold in individual pieces, bundles, quarters or halves that are brought back to the farm after slaughter and processing must be inspected. Most often farmers are selling the meat frozen, and will pick up the meat from their local USDA inspected processor already frozen. In order to sell this meat to consumers, a Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) Food Establishment License is required. All of these regulations fall under the Michigan Food Law of 2000. There are several types of licenses under the Food Establishment License, and the exact type depends on how the business operates and what is sold to whom. The license that will most often affect a farmer direct marketing meat stored on his/her farm is a food warehouse license. This type of business is considered a food warehouse because the activity with the meat is storing the product. All processing and packaging take place at the USDA inspected plant. The cost associated with such a license is currently $186 per year. There will be a site inspection when first applying for the Food Warehouse License and the MDARD inspector will do the following:

1. Identify that the area the food (in this case frozen meat) is stored is separate and has a separate entrance from living quarters and personal food.

2. Inspect the overall area for sanitation or other concerns (make sure no unsanitary conditions exist, no evidence of rodents, etc.)

3. Speak with the person in charge for the license (make sure they understand the requirements and regulations)

4. Check temperatures of the food storage area (make sure that refrigerated food is 41°F or less and frozen food is 0°F or less)

5. Observe for cross contamination (make sure the packages are not being opened; handled in unsanitary manner; or allowed to come in contact with anything that could be hazardous)

6. Check for hazardous materials stored in the area where the food is stored (i.e. petroleum based products; if the separate area is a detached garage, then no oil, gas, or other potentially hazardous materials can be stored in the garage or contained portion of the building where the food is stored)

Check out Direct marketing of locally produced meats offers opportunity for livestock producers for information and licensing regarding direct marketing meat at a farmers market. More information on licensing requirements is available through this quick guide from MDARD.
Did you find this article useful?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Licenses to direct market individual cuts of meat in Michigan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeannine P. Schweihofer, - Selling meat by the individual retail cut or in bundles requires a license in Michigan Many farms are offering direct sale of their meat to increase their profitability and fill consumer demand for locally produced foods.

# data[].attributes.headline
In 2019 the average American ate 86 lbs more meat than the average american ate in the 1950's. 

# data[].attributes.subject
In 2019 the average American ate 86 lbs more meat than the average american ate in the 1950's. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
michigan food code specialized retail meat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDARD - Meat Processing Regulations and Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Department of Agriculture & Rural Development -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michigan United Conservation Clubs is the largest statewide conservation organization in the nation. Founded in 1937, our mission is to unite citizens to conserve, protect and enhance Michigan's natural resources and outdoor heritage. This mission drives everything we do as an organization.

Our strength in is our membership and support: over 70,000 hunters, anglers, trappers and conservationists and over 200 affiliated local clubs around the state. We were founded in 1937 with a simple purpose: harness the combined strength of Michigan's outdoors community to protect conservation from politics. Since then, we have been the foremost power in Michigan protecting the rights to hunt, fish and trap. Our policies are determined by our members through Michigan's most robust grassroots policy-setting process. Our experienced and professional staff carry out the resolutions adopted by our members through a suite of conservation programs ranging from direct advocacy and communications to on-the-ground wildlife habitat conservation and youth outdoor education.

Uniting citizens to conserve, protect, and enhance Michigan's natural resources and outdoor heritage.

We have led significant conservation victories such as the passage of the Bottle Bill and the creation of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund in 1976, protecting the Trust Fund in the Michigan Constitution in 1984, protecting hunting rights from anti-hunters through Proposal G in 1996 and passage of the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act in 2014.

Since 1947, we have published Michigan Out-of-Doors Magazine. Our youth magazine, Tracks, reaches tens of thousands of middle school students each year. In 2015, we launched the Michigan Out-of-Doors Podcast and DeerMichigan.com to reach a new generation of hunters, anglers and trappers. Our weekly Conservation Insider e-newsletter details the latest conservation news in Michigan, and our daily staff blogs at www.mucc.org ensure that content is always relevant and up-to-date.

Our award-winning On the Ground (OTG) wildlife habitat conservation program launched in 2013. As a partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, it has engaged more than 3,000 volunteers in dozens of fish and wildlife habitat projects on public lands and waters around the state. Additionally, in 2015 we launched the Michigan Wildlife Cooperatives partnership with Pheasants Forever, the Quality Deer Management Association and the DNR to organize private land cooperatives improving wildlife habitat.

The Michigan Out-of-Doors Youth Camp, located at the Cedar Lake Outdoor Center in Chelsea, Michigan, has educated over 56,000 youth since its founding over 60 years ago, introducing generations of Michiganders to the outdoors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About - Michigan United Conservation Clubs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Michigan United Conservation Clubs is the largest statewide conservation organization in the nation. Founded in 1937, our mission is to unite citizens to conserve, protect and enhance Michigan's natural resources and outdoor heritage. This mission drives everything we do as an organization. Our strength in is our membership and support: over 70,000 hunters,...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Grass-Fed Products are Clean and Safe

Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals. This is especially reassuring now that mad cow disease, or BSE, has been confirmed in this country. Countries that conduct more rigorous testing for BSE have identified hundreds more cases. Many experts agree that if we were to test every one of our cows for BSE (the protocol in Japan), we, too, would find more diseased animals.

As you will discover by reading the postings below, 100 percent grass-fed animals have an extremely low risk of BSE That is because their diets contain no animal by-products or other unnatural ingredients. They eat what nature intended: grasses and other green plants. You will also see research showing that choosing products from grass-fed animals may lower your risk of two other food borne illnesses, campylobacter and E. coli.

A final note of reassurance is that the producers listed on the eatwild.com website certify that their animal and dairy products are free of feed antibiotics, added hormones, and other growth promoters, making them the "cleanest" animal food you can buy.

Nearly half of US meat and poultry likely contaminated with Staph

Almost half the meat and poultry sold in the US is likely to be contaminated by highly dangerous bacteria, according to research published this month (April 2011) in the scientific journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases.

The study estimates that 47 percent of the meat and poultry on US supermarket shelves contains the bacteria staphylococcus aureus ("Staph"). It is not, however, among the four bacteria- Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, and Enterococcus-routinely tested in meat by the US government.

The researchers tested 136 samples from 80 brands of beef, pork, chicken and turkey, purchased from 26 grocery stores in five major US cities. DNA tests from staph-infected samples suggest that the farm animals themselves were the major source of contamination. "Densely-stocked industrial farms, where food animals are steadily fed low doses of antibiotics... [are] ideal breeding grounds for drug-resistant bacteria that move from animals to humans," according to the report.

The bacteria is not only linked to a number of human diseases, but is also resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics. Lance B. Price, Ph. D., senior author of the study, stated that "The fact that drug-resistant S. aureus was so prevalent, and likely came from the food animals themselves, is troubling, and demands attention to how antibiotics are used in food-animal production today."

"Antibiotics are the most important drugs that we have to treat Staph infections; but when Staph are resistant to three, four, five or even nine different antibiotics -- like we saw in this study -- that leaves physicians few options," Price said. Click here to read more.

Grass-fed cows are not mad cows

Eating grass-fed beef may lower your risk of E. coli infection

When you eat grass-fed meat, you may have a lower risk of becoming infected with dangerous E. coli bacteria.

Why is this? Work conducted at Cornell University by Russell and Diez-Gonzalez in the late 1990s showed that cattle that were fed hay had far fewer E. coli than when they were fed a standard feedlot diet based on grain. ( Microbes Infect 2, No. 1 (2000): 45-53.)

In addition, the two researchers conducted a test tube study showing that E. coli from grass-fed cattle is more likely to be killed by the natural acidity of our digestive tract and therefore might be less likely to survive and make us ill.

The reason for the greater persistence of E. coli from grain-fed cattle, the researchers speculated, is that feeding grain to cattle makes their digestive tracts abnormally acidic. Over time, the E. coli in their systems become acclimated to this acid environment. When we ingest them, a high percentage will survive the acid shock of our digestive juices. By contrast, few E. coli from grass-fed cattle will survive because they have not become acid-resistant.

Since this original work, other researchers have explored the link between cattle feed and E. coli. Some have confirmed the work by Russell and Diez-Gonzalez (see " Hay feeding does indeed reduce acid-resistant E. coli, says Nebraska Beef Report." But the majority have disputed the finding.
Because of this lack of scientific certainty, people eating grass-fed beef should practice all the safe handling techniques recommended for grain-fed beef. A type of E. coli referred to as 0157:H7 can be deadly, and it takes very few bacteria to cause disease.
Whether or not grass-feeding reduces the number and acidity of E. coli in the digestive tract of cattle, there is another undisputed reason that eating grass-fed beef may be safer.Cattle raised on pasture are cleaner at the time of slaughter.

E. coli contamination takes place in the slaughterhouse when manure from an animal comes in contact with meat. The less manure on an animal when it enters the slaughter house, the less likely the meat will become contaminated.

It is difficult to remove all the fecal contamination from feedlot cattle because they stand all day long in dirt and manure. In a recent article in the magazine Meat Marketing and Technology, the associate editor stated that pasture-raised animals were much easier to clean "because they come from small herds raised in relatively clean pastures." Most U.S. cattle, he said, "are raised in far larger numbers in congested and typically less sanitary feed lots." ("The Future of Food Safety," by Joshua Lipsky. Meat Marketing and Technology, April 2001.)

Russell, J. B., F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G. N. Jarvis. "Potential Effect of Cattle Diets on the Transmission of Pathogenic Escherichia Coli to Humans" Microbes Infect 2, no. 1 (2000): 45-53. (Chart data extracted from this document.)

Study shows that cattle raised on pasture have fewer campylobacter bacteria

Australians have discovered that raising cattle on pasture reduced their risk of carrying a bacteria called "campylobacter." Fifty-eight percent of the cattle raised in a feedlot carried the bacteria, but only two percent of those raised and finished on pasture.

Campylobacter bacteria can cause fever, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, and muscle pain. Most cases are mild, but it can be life-threatening if other diseases such as cancer or liver disease are present. People most likely to be affected are children under the age of 5 and young adults from 15-29. Symptoms can occur from two to ten days after eating infected meat.

Bailey, G. D., B. A. Vanselow, et al. (2003). "A study of the food borne pathogens: Campylobacter, Listeria and Yersinia, in faeces from slaughter-age cattle and sheep in Australia." Commun Dis Intell 27(2): 249-57.

USDA gives consumers a false sense of security about U.S. beef

Ann Veneman, Agriculture Secretary in the Bush administration, made the following statement in a 2004 news conference: "scientific evidence shows that only nervous tissue like brain and spinal cord can carry the infectious agent" for mad cow disease.

Not so, according to Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the neurologist who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1997 for first describing prions, the misshapen proteins believed to cause the devastating disease. "We don't know where and how prions move through the [cow's] body before they show up in its brain," he told a New York Times reporter.

This means that the disease may be transmitted by eating other parts of a cow besides the nervous tissue-including the meat. Dr. Prusiner has devised a test to find out exactly where prions are located, but according to the New York Times article, "That experiment has not been done..." The USDA's new safeguards requiring that "specified risk material" be removed from the food supply do not appear to be broad enough.

The New York Times, Sunday, January 4th, "Jumble of Tests May Slow Mad Cow Solution," Sandra Blakeslee," p. 10.

Feedlot cowboy expresses alarm at the amount of drugs given to U.S. cattle

We recently received a letter from a ranch hand at a medium-sized U.S. feedlot. Like most modern day cowboys, his job is more likely to involve injecting cattle with steroids than herding them on horseback. His comments give a rare, behind-the-scenes look at some of the current practices in animal feeding operations.

"What really alarmed me is when I put $5,000 worth of shots in 500 head of heifers. I gave shots of Dectomax, which is a pesticide and is very thick and oily. I get the impression that it's a pesticide strip inside the cow. I'm told that it leaves the animal over the course of 6 months or so, but I'd think some of it stays in the fat. And then some kind of 7-way vaccination. Then I put in some kind of hormone implant that is so strong it was recommended to wear gloves. Other times, I have given Lutalyse, which synchronizes the heifers so they all cycle at one time. I truly think those of us in the cattle market can do without all this stuff, except maybe a 4-Way vaccine to prevent black leg and a couple of other things that can wipe out your herd."

The "bad" E. coli persists in the barn but not on pasture

The type of E. coli bacteria responsible for most cases of human illness and death is called "E. coli 0157:H7. Recently, calves that had tested positively for this deadly strain were divided into two groups. One was raised in a barn, and the other on pasture. Samples were taken once a month from April to September. The calves raised on pasture showed no signs of 0157:H7 for the entire period. Meanwhile, every one of the calves raised in pens had at least one positive sample. According to the Swedish researchers who conducted the study, "This suggests that calves on pasture may be less exposed to the bacteria or that they clear themselves."

Jonsson, M.E. et al. "Persistence of Verocytotoxin-Producing Escherichia Coli 0157:H7 in Calves Kept on Pasture and in Calves Kept Indoors" Int. J Food Microbiol 66, 1-2 (2001): 55-61.

Too little, too late

(Posted in 2002) In response to growing public concern over Mad Cow Disease, the American Meat Institute is proposing a new certification program. Under this voluntary program, cattle marketers would certify that "to the best of my knowledge" their animals were not fed protein derived from mammalian tissues. J. Patrick Boyle, president of the AMI said that "We want to reassure ... consumers that the cattle we process into beef products meet all federal requirements, including their diets and medications." Meanwhile, because bags of feed can and do get mixed up, the animal feed industry is working on its own certification program to ensure that cattle and sheep by-products are kept separate from other feedstuff.

Whether these belated, voluntary efforts manage to protect the public and calm their fears remains to be seen. Can an industry that saves costs by fattening ruminants on pizza crust, chicken feathers, gummy bears, chicken manure, candy bars, bubble gum, cement dust, and ground-up telephone books be relied upon to produce a safe and healthy product?

Hay feeding does indeed reduce acid-resistant E. coli, says Nebraska Beef Report

In 1998, researchers Diez-Gonzalez and colleagues from Cornell University drew worldwide attention when they reported that switching cattle from grain to grass lowered the production of acid-resistant E. coli bacteria. Acid-resistant E. coli are believed to be much more difficult for humans to combat. The fact that keeping animals on pasture might protect consumers from E. coli was very good news, indeed.

Since publication of the Cornell study, however, these results have been contested by a number of groups, including researchers at the University of Idaho. Now a study by the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center in Lincoln, Nebraska supports the Cornell findings. The Nebraska researchers began their investigation by trying to find alternative feeding strategies to combat acid-resistant E. coli, contending that hay feeding "is not a practical approach for cattle feeders." Unfortunately, none of their experimental approaches worked. When they switched the animals to hay, however, they found that the more natural diet did indeed have the desired effect. The researchers concluded: "This study confirms Diez-Gonzalez (1998) report that feeding hay for a short duration can reduce acid-resistant E. coli populations." Score one for Mother Nature.

"Influence of Diet on Total and Acid Resistant E. coli and Colonic pH." Tony Scott, Klopfenstein, T., et al." 2000 Nebraska Beef Report, pages 39-41. Read the report in its entirety. The report is in PDF format.

Pastured pigs and poultry are safer, too.

Animals on drugs

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report that about 70 percent of all antibiotics made in the United States now go to fattening up livestock. In the mid-1980s, 16 million pounds of antibiotics were used in livestock production. Twenty-five million pounds are being used today. This ever increasing use is contributing to the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the UCS, more than 95 percent of a common bacteria called Staphylococcus aureus is now resistant to penicillin, requiring the use of newer and stronger drugs.

One of the main uses for antibiotics in the cattle industry is to combat so-called "feedlot diseases," diseases that are common when cattle are shipped to distant feedlots, mingled with animals from other herds, and switched from their natural diet of forage to a grain-based feedlot diet. Animals that remain on pasture from birth until market are so healthy that they rarely require antibiotic treatment.

It was only a matter of time

According to a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, pigs raised in factory farms in Taiwan are harboring a dangerous type of salmonella that has become resistant to one of our newest and most potent antibiotics-fluoroquinolone, a drug that is critical to human medicine. When people become infected with this resistant strain, doctors will have few drugs in their arsenal to combat it.

The reason that the salmonella became resistant to fluoroquinolone is that the pigs were dosed with the drug on a regular basis. The bacteria that were vulnerable to fluoroquinolone died off, allowing the few that were naturally resistant to flourish.

According to a study in Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Pigs raised on pasture are healthier than ones kept in confinement and rarely require drugs of any kind.

The New England Journal of Medicine 2002; 346:413-419. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 1983. Vol. 1. p. 357-369.

Cipro's sister drug, Baytril, is being wasted on chickens

Infected poultry are now being treated with Baytril, a drug very similar to the anthrax-fighting antibiotic Cipro. The FDA, health advocates, and an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine have all urged Bayer, the producer, to withdraw the drug from the poultry industry. Bayer, veterinarians, and commercial poultry producers are in strong opposition. If Baytril is withdrawn, they argue, the United States will have to alter its poultry-raising practices.

That is exactly what needs to happen. It makes no sense to raise chickens or any other animals under conditions in which infection is routine, requiring the routine use of antibiotics.

Bayer officials say they need more proof of damage to humans before they will stop supplying Baytril to chicken producers.

US confinement-raised poultry not good enough for the Russians

Early in March, 2002, Russia imposed a ban on the importation of all poultry from the United States. Vladimir Fisinin, vice president of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, explained his government's position in the March 20th issue of The Moscow Times: "I would like to note that American farmers are injecting chickens with antibiotics used to treat people. This is prohibited in Russia." According to Fisinin, US poultry producers use such large doses of these drugs that they accumulate in the tissues of the birds. "It is dangerous," he said, "especially for children and older people."

Fisinin also asserted that giving antibiotics to chickens fosters the growth of drug-resistant bacteria. US medical experts agree. In a study in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers randomly selected 407 chickens from 26 stores in Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon. More than half of the chickens were tainted with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

McDonald, L. C., et al. "Quinupristin-Dalfopristin-Resistant Enterococcus Faecium on Chicken and in Human Stool Specimens."N Engl J Med345, no. 16 (2001): 1155-60.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria not found in free-range chickens

One of the problems with raising large numbers of animals in confinement is that disease is more common, resulting in a greater reliance on antibiotics. Over time, the bacteria mutate and become resistant to the drugs. When we humans become infected with these antibiotic-resistant bacteria, there are fewer effective medications available to treat us.

A survey of E. coli bacteria isolated from poultry raised in a state-of-the-art confinement poultry operation at a university found that all the bacteria were resistant to the commonly used antibiotics, Tetracycline, Streptomycin and Sulphonamide (Sulphafurazole). By contrast, all the strains of bacteria isolated from free-range birds were sensitive to the drugs.

Ojeniyi, A. A. (1989). "Public health aspects of bacterial drug resistance in modern battery and town/village poultry" Acta Vet Scand 30(2): 127-32.

Human health and quality of life are compromised by large-scale swine operations

According to a 2000 study, people living close to a 6,000 head swine operation in North Carolina reported "increased occurrences of headaches, runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea, and burning eyes." These complaints are similar to those reported by people who work in confinement swine operations.

Factory farming may increase profitability for corporate owners, but it can erode the health and quality of life of farm workers and members of the surrounding community.

Wing, S. and S. Wolf (2000). "Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents." Environ Health Perspect 108(3): 233-8.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
eatwild eat wild jo robinson organic grass-fed grass fed meat natural pasture pasture-raised conjugated linoleic acid beef chicken eggs cheese best animal welfare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals. This is especially reassuring now that mad cow disease, or BSE, has been confirmed in this country. Countries that conduct more rigorous testing for BSE have identified hundreds more cases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Produce farmers, especially on small organic farms, struggle with animals eating their crops

# data[].attributes.subject
Produce farmers, especially on small organic farms, struggle with animals eating their crops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
eatwild eat wild jo robinson eating on the wild side fruits vegetables antioxidants phytonutrients diet organic grass-fed grass fed meat natural pasture pasture-raised conjugated linoleic acid beef chicken eggs cheese best animal welfare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eat Wild - Getting Wild Nutrition from Modern Food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.2.

The current meat industry is unsustainable

1.4.

How plant-based meat is made

1.5.

The explosion in plant-based meat: why now?

1.6.

Plant-based meat key players: top ten brands in retail

1.7.

Plant-based alternatives key players: top ten start-ups by funding

1.8.

US plant-based meat market forecast

1.9.

Global forecast: plant-based meat

1.10.

Cultured (cell-based) meat

1.11.

How is cultured meat made?

1.12.

Challenges facing the cultured meat industry

1.13.

The cultured meat industry is growing rapidly

1.14.

US cultured meat forecast

1.15.

Global forecast: cultured meat

2.1.

An overview of the meat industry

2.1.1.

The meat industry - an overview

2.1.2.

The American meat industry - an overview

2.1.3.

Meat production across the world

2.1.4.

Demand in the developed world has stagnated

2.1.5.

Demand in the developing world is growing

2.1.6.

Chicken is taking the lead

2.1.7.

An overview of the seafood industry

2.2.

Sustainability issues in the meat industry

2.2.1.

The challenge of feeding a growing population

2.2.2.

Meat is an inefficient source of nutrition

2.2.3.

The environmental impact of animal agriculture

2.2.4.

Beef has the highest environmental impact

2.2.5.

Public health risks

2.2.6.

The problem with seafood

2.3.

An introduction to plant-based and cultured meat

2.3.1.

The world is unlikely to become vegetarian

2.3.3.

Cultured (cell-based) meat

2.3.4.

Hybrid products - a happy medium?

3.2.

The structure of meat

3.3.

Myocytes or myotubes

3.4.

Connective tissue - fibroblasts and chondrocytes

3.6.

The importance of fat in meat

3.7.

The extracellular matrix (ECM)

3.10.

The nutritional profile of meat

3.11.

Nutrient profiles of animal and plant-based proteins

4.1.1.

Could plant-based meat be the answer?

4.1.2.

A definition of plant-based meat

4.1.3.

What is plant-based meat?

4.1.4.

A brief history of meat substitutes

4.1.5.

The explosion in plant-based meat: why now?

4.1.6.

The growing market for meat substitutes

4.1.7.

Plant-based meat: not just for vegetarians

4.1.8.

Industry interest in plant-based meat is growing

4.1.9.

Major food companies are launching competing brands

4.1.10.

Fast food has been a major driver for plant-based meat

4.1.11.

The importance of store placement

4.1.12.

Health is a major driver of consumer behaviour

4.1.13.

Is plant-based meat healthy?

4.1.14.

Taste and texture are key

4.1.15.

Is plant-based meat a fad?

4.1.17.

Plant-based meat is expensive

4.1.18.

Price parity with meat is challenging

4.1.19.

The price of plant-based meat

4.1.20.

SWOT analysis for novel vegan meat substitutes

4.2.

Making plant-based meat

4.2.1.

How plant-based meat is made

4.2.2.

The challenge of replicating meat protein

4.2.3.

Texture in meat - challenges of replicating with plants

4.2.4.

How plant-based meat is made

4.2.5.

The ecosystem around plant-based meat

4.2.6.

Thermoplastic protein extrusion

4.2.7.

Extrusion of plant-based proteins

4.2.8.

Single-screw and twin-screw extruders

4.2.9.

Factors in extrusion

4.2.10.

High moisture extrusion

4.2.11.

Process improvements in extrusion

4.2.12.

Extrusion is not the only method: power heating

4.2.13.

Plant-based meat is not yet an agricultural focus

4.2.14.

Plant-based meat only uses a few proteins

4.3.

Emerging technologies and technological hurdles

4.3.1.

Fermentation case study: soy haemoglobin

4.3.2.

Gene editing technology and plant-based meat

4.3.4.

Artificial intelligence in vegan meat substitutes

4.3.5.

3D bioprinting and plant-based meat

4.4.1.

Plant-based products form a $4.5 billion market

4.4.2.

Plant-based meat key players: top ten brands in retail

4.4.3.

Plant-based alternatives key players: top ten start-ups by funding

4.4.4.

Plant-based milk: top ten brands in retail

5.1.1.

Could cultured meat be the answer?

5.1.2.

Interest in cultured meat is growing

5.1.3.

Will people eat a cultured burger?

5.1.4.

Factors impacting consumer acceptance

5.1.5.

Consumer concerns around cultured meat

5.1.6.

Consumer acceptance - geographical considerations

5.1.7.

Cultured meat and religious restrictions

5.1.8.

The environmental impact of cultured meat

5.1.9.

Which products will be available first?

5.1.10.

When will these products be available?

5.1.11.

Challenges facing the cultured meat industry

5.1.12.

SWOT analysis for cultured meat

5.2.

Making cultured meat

5.2.1.

How is cultured meat made?

5.2.2.

The four main considerations in cultured meat

5.2.3.

Choosing the right starter cells

5.2.4.

Induced pluripotent stem cells

5.2.5.

Myosatellite cells

5.2.8.

The problem with growth medium

5.2.9.

Why is growth medium so expensive?

5.2.10.

What's in basal medium?

5.2.11.

How cheap could growth medium be in the future?

5.2.12.

The seven scenarios for growth medium cost reduction

5.2.13.

Costs under the seven scenarios

5.2.14.

Are these scenarios realistic?

5.2.15.

Scaffolds and structures

5.2.16.

Considerations in scaffolds

5.2.18.

A cell culture bioreactor must meet these demands

5.2.19.

Comparison between bioreactors

5.2.20.

Major types of dynamic bioreactor

5.2.21.

Packed/fixed bed bioreactors

5.2.22.

Packed bed bioreactors - the Pall iCELLis bioreactor

5.2.23.

Fluidised bed bioreactors

5.2.24.

Hollow fibre bioreactors

5.2.25.

Disposable bag bioreactors (DBBs)

5.2.26.

A comparison of single use bioreactors

5.2.27.

Cell seeding in bioreactors

5.2.28.

Bioreactor design - lessons from other industries

5.2.29.

Challenges of scale up

5.2.30.

Challenges of scale up: the lack of hardware

5.2.31.

Challenges of scale up: antibiotics

5.2.32.

Design considerations in a scaled up plant

5.2.33.

Bioreactor design considerations with scale

5.2.34.

Cost considerations of scale up - growth media

5.2.35.

Growth medium cost scenarios with different bioreactors

5.2.36.

A scaled up cultured meat facility - BlueNalu

5.2.37.

BlueNalu's scaled up facility design

5.2.38.

Safety concerns in cultured meat

5.2.39.

Could genetic engineering help?

5.2.40.

The unique benefits and challenges of cultured seafood

5.3.1.

Cultured meat: industry overview

5.3.2.

The cultured meat industry is growing rapidly

5.3.3.

Cultured meat: what animal cells are companies using?

5.3.4.

Geographical distribution of cultured meat companies

5.3.6.

IP summary: Memphis Meats

5.3.8.

IP summary: Modern Meadow

5.3.9.

IP summary: Integriculture

5.3.10.

IP summary: patent applications

5.3.11.

The need for collaboration in the industry

5.3.14.

Future Meat Technologies

6.

ALTERNATIVE AREAS IN MEAT SUBSTITUTES

6.1.1.

What is fermentation?

6.1.2.

Production of proteins at scale through fermentation

6.2.3.

How are insects used in food?

6.2.4.

Environmental benefits of using insects for food

6.2.5.

Will consumers eat insects?

7.2.

EU regulations - Novel Food Regulation

7.3.

EU Novel Food Regulations: process overview

7.4.

EU regulations: labelling requirements

7.5.

EU labelling regulations and plant-based meat

7.6.

EU labelling regulations and cultured meat

7.7.

EU regulations: GMOs and GMP guidelines

7.8.

US regulations: cultured meat

7.9.

FDA and USDA joint agreement on cultured meat

7.10.

Labelling regulations in the USA

7.11.

US standards of identity

7.12.

The importance of labelling

7.13.

The Alliance for Meat, Poultry and Seafood Innovation

7.14.

Cultured meat: similarities and differences between EU and US regulations

7.15.

Will cultured meat be approved first in Asia?

8.

INVESTMENTS AND FORECASTS

8.1.1.

Investments in plant-based alternatives

8.1.2.

Investments in cultured meat

8.1.3.

Investments in cultured meat are growing

8.1.4.

There is much more money in plant-based meat

8.1.5.

The pros and cons of rapid investment

8.1.6.

Is Beyond Meat's growth sustainable?

8.1.7.

Major food companies are acting

8.1.8.

Mergers and acquisitions in plant-based alternatives

8.2.1.

Plant-based milk as a model for plant-based meat

8.2.2.

Plant-based meat substitutes by category

8.2.3.

Half of chicken in the US is unstructured

8.2.4.

US unstructured meat consumption

8.2.5.

US unstructured meat market forecast

8.2.6.

US plant-based meat market forecast

8.2.7.

US cultured meat forecast

8.3.1.

China's problem with meat consumption

8.3.2.

China and meat alternatives

8.3.3.

Plant-based meat forecast: China

8.3.4.

Europe and meat alternatives

8.3.5.

Plant-based meat forecast: Europe

8.3.6.

Cultured meat forecast: China and Europe

8.3.7.

Global forecast: plant-based meat

8.3.8.

Global forecast: cultured meat

9.

APPENDIX - FORECASTS WITH DATA TABLES; LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

9.1.

US unstructured meat consumption*

9.2.

US unstructured meat market forecast*

9.3.

US plant-based meat market forecast

9.4.

US cultured meat forecast

9.5.

Plant-based meat forecast: Europe

9.6.

Cultured meat forecast: China and Europe

9.7.

Global forecast: plant-based meat

9.8.

Global forecast: cultured meat

9.9.

List of abbreviations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interest in meat alternatives has surged in recent years, with sales of plant-based meat analogues skyrocketing and investment pouring into meat produced from cultured animal cells, with backers including Bill Gates and Richard Branson. But can either technology live up to the hype?

# data[].attributes.headline
Even if you don't eat meat, it's hard not to participate in killing animals. Eating farmed vegetables required farmer's to protect the vegetables from animals: usually by hunting. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Even if you don't eat meat, it's hard not to participate in killing animals. Eating farmed vegetables required farmer's to protect the vegetables from animals: usually by hunting. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frequently Asked Questions | Beef Checkoff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From quick and easy to a more thorough response, whatever Beef Checkoff question you have, you'll find the answer you need right here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the demand for meat rises worldwide, so must the production of meat. Most of the world's meat is produced in Asia, which generated 140 million metric tons of meat in 2016. Pork and poultry are the most widely produced types of meat, with sheep being the least produced. Although many people abstain from pork for nutritional or religious reasons, pork is widely consumed and produced in China and Europe. Some of the largest meat production companies in the world include Tyson, Hormel Foods, and National Beef.

In addition to producing the highest revenue from meat sales, the United States is also a major producer and exporter of meat, especially beef. The trade value of the U.S. beef industry amounted to about 6.2 billion U.S. dollars in 2017. Brazil is also a major exporter of meat, both in the form of broiler chickens and beef.

The projected per capita meat consumption is expected to remain steady at around 35 kilograms of meat per year. However, as the global population continues to climb, the overall consumption of meat is expected to rise steadily in the upcoming years. However, perhaps because of environmental or health reasons, red meat is expected to see a decline in consumption in the United States in the coming years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the demand for meat rises worldwide, so must the production of meat. Most of the world's meat is produced in Asia, which generated 140 million metric tons of meat in 2016. Pork and poultry are the most widely produced types of meat, with sheep being the least produced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your doctor might tell you to eat fewer burgers and steak sandwiches, but thanks to the exceptional lobbying skills of the American meat industry, the US government probably never will.

Rejecting the advice of their own expert panel, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced this month that the latest edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will not include considerations of environmental sustainability. Had they decided otherwise, they likely would have recommended that people lower their intake of meat, the production of which is widely recognized as a major contributor to climate change.

Health advocates are still hoping that the final guidelines, to be unveiled later this year, will include a directive to eat less red and processed meats, based on nutrition and health concerns alone. But if history is any indication, that hope is likely to go unfulfilled.

The meat industry has influenced the dietary guidelines for decades

The size of the US meat industry is immense. Beef alone is a $95 billion-a-year business, according to the USDA. And the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) estimates that, in total, the meat industry contributes about $894 billion to the US economy.

That size translates into political influence: In 2014, the industry spent approximately $10.8 million in contributions to political campaigns, and another $6.9 million directly on lobbying the federal government (calculated by combining totals for the meat processing and products and livestock sectors, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets website).

While the USDA is tasked with regulating the meat industry, it also has a role in promoting it. This tension plays out every time the US government wants to give out dietary advice-and the results generally wind up favoring the industry.

The pattern traces back to at least 1977, when Congress-a no less conflicted institution when it comes to coziness with the meat industry-had a more prominent role in setting nutrition guidelines. That year, a Senate committee report recommended that Americans decrease consumption of meat, eggs and other foods high in fat. This did not sit well with producers in those industries, who made their displeasure known at a hearing on the guidelines. As shown in the below exchange between the representative from the American National Cattlemen's Association and senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the organization objected to a recommendation to decrease consumption of any of its products, even if paired with a recommendation to increase consumption of other ones.

The USDA's 1984 Food Wheel

In December of that year, the committee released the second edition of its report. A proposal to "[d]ecrease consumption of meat and increase consumption of poultry and fish" had been replaced with a recommendation to "[d]ecrease consumption of animal fat, and choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake." Senator George McGovern, who chaired the committee, was quoted as saying that he "did not want to disrupt the economic situation of the meat industry and engage in a battle with that industry that we could not win."

Proposed 1991 Eat Right Pyramid

A similar battle played out in the early 1990s when the USDA replaced its food wheel, which visually put eggs, meat, poultry, and dairy on the same footing as vegetables, with a food pyramid, which made it clearer that Americans should eat more fruits and vegetables than meat, poultry, and eggs. In April 1991, the Washington Post published a story about the arrival of the Eating Right Food Pyramid. "There is no question that the basic food groups as they used to be presented really gave the impression that the most important things were meats and dairy products," Joan Gussow, a nutritionist with the Columbia University Teachers College, told the paper. "This is a real mark of progress."

By the end of the month, though, the new pyramid had been pulled. "Yielding to pressure from the meat and dairy industries, the Agriculture Department has abandoned its plans to turn the symbol of good nutrition from the 'food wheel' showing the 'Basic Food Groups' to an 'Eating Right' pyramid that sought to deemphasize the place of meat and dairy products in a healthful diet," the Washington Post reported. As Alisa Harrison, director of information for the National Cattlemen's Association told the Post, her organization worried that consumers would think the pyramid meant they should "drastically cut down on their meat consumption."

A year later, after an additional $855,000 in USDA spending, another pyramid was released with 33 small changes, including numbers that showed how many servings from each food should be eaten. (In the previous iteration, how much to consume was shown comparatively to other food groups and in less obvious text.)

As described in detail in this 1993 article by Marion Nestle of the New York University Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, instead of saying to "eat less," the guidelines came to include only positive instructions. In the most recent dietary guidelines, published in 2010, "lean meat" is listed in Chapter 4: Food and Nutrients to Increase.

This year, however, the advisory report preceding the updated guidelines explicitly advises to eat less red and processed meat, though the total amount of recommended meat intake is the same as it was in 2010.

The meat industry is not sitting idly by to see how the final guidelines turn out.

One tactic: Deny what the data show

While the 2015 advisory report included a footnote that "lean meats can be part of a healthy dietary pattern," the panel's advice to eat less of specifically red and processed meat has run into the same industry objections that McGovern's committee did in 1977.

"Lean meat is a headline, not a footnote," said Barry Carpenter, NAMI's president and CEO, in a statement the trade group released in February after the panel's recommendations were released.

In response to an email inquiry from Quartz, NAMI extolled the healthfulness of meat as a reason to keep eating it at current levels. Americans "currently eat the recommended amount of protein, there is no reason for the government to reduce its recommended levels of meat and poultry," NAMI spokeswoman Janet Riley wrote.

But as government data consistently shows, most Americans actually eat much more than their recommended daily protein intake (46 grams for women, and 56 grams for men). And among populations where more protein is necessary, lean meats, poultry, seafood, and plant-based proteins are the ones usually suggested by health professionals.

Another tactic: Attack the science

The efforts to keep Americans from lowering their meat intake include some important new allies. Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,and the Nutrition Coalition, backed by John and Laura Arnold, billionaires from Texas whose fortunes are tied back to Enron, have joined in as major power players in the fight, according to an in-depth report from Politico.

Their key tactic: Attack the scientific methodology used by those recommending a drop in consumption.

According to Politico, before the Nutrition Coalition was officially formed, Teicholz attended a meeting with representatives for ConAgra, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, among others, to talk about whether criticizing the guidelines from the scientific standpoint would "create new opportunities" for rewriting the recommendations. Since then, Politico reports, Teicholz also has met with USDA staff, House Agriculture Appropriations chairman Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), and Debra Eschmeyer, a senior nutrition policy adviser to Michelle Obama and the executive director of the first lady's health initiative, Lets Move!. Teicholz, who describes herself as an investigative journalist, tells Quartz she has not taken money from the food industry for these activities.

Following her op-eds in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal about why Americans need more meat, dairy, and eggs in their diets, Teicholz also recently published a feature report in BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal, directly questioning the scientific approach behind this year's USDA/HHS advisory report. (She also argued that sustainability was irrelevant to the guidelines.) The BMJ story was underwritten by the Arnolds, who Politico reports "are spending an initial $200,000 to communicate [the scientific] critique" of the guidelines submitted by the government's advisory panel.

The article has been widely criticized by nutrition experts for its many inaccuracies, both large and small. (BMJ told Quartz that the article was fact-checked "in line with our usual procedures" but did not respond to inquiries as to whether any corrections would be forthcoming.)

It is far from the only instance of the government's expert panel being attacked for its methods. Republican lawmaker Mike Conaway of Texas, who chairs the House Committee on Agriculture and hails from the largest cattle-producing state in the country, wrote an op-ed for U.S. News & World Report echoing Teicholz's article for BMJ by questioning the science behind the advisory group's conclusions, as well as its decision to include sustainability as a factor in its recommendations. And as James Hamblin wrote in The Atlantic, at the recent Congressional hearing on the guidelines, lawmakers spent a significant amount of time questioning the scientific validity of the advisory report.

In a statement to Quartz, HHS and the USDA said the agencies "required the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to conduct a rigorous, systematic and transparent review of the current body of nutrition science" and are "considering the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, along with comments from the public and input from federal agencies, as we develop the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans to be released later this year."

There's no certainty about what the final guidelines will say in regards to meat consumption, but if the past is any guide, burgers, pork loins, and steaks will be far from the recommended dietary chopping block.

Updated Oct. 24, 9:30pm: This post was updated with a response from Nina Teicholz.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Meat's wildly successful, 40-year crusade to keep its hold on the American diet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your doctor might tell you to eat fewer burgers and steak sandwiches, but thanks to the exceptional lobbying skills of the American meat industry, the US government probably never will.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first blush, you'd think venison would be more widely available in Michigan.

Richer than beef and gamey in flavor, deer meat is high in nutrients such as protein and iron and lower in calories, cholesterol and fat than most cuts of beef, pork or lamb.

It mixes well with other meats and lends itself to a variety of processing into steaks, salamis, sausages, burgers and, of course, jerky.

And, some say, it's a product that embodies the Pure Michigan ethos: It comes from local producers and evokes positive images of fall in the Mitten State's vast, forest-covered countryside.

So, why don't more restaurants or meat markets offer it in a state where an estimated 654,100 hunters harvested about 418,000 deer last year?

"It's kind of a Catch-22," said Colin Kelly of Kelly's Deer Processing in Big Rapids.

Earlier this fall, Kelly processed 150 deer culled from game ranches and sold it over his retail counter and through a wholesaler to butcher shops and restaurants.

Kelly averages about 1,500 deer per year though the processing facility, and some of the processed meat is sold online and shipped to states including Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, where he said the price is "outrageous."

"The demand is growing," said Kelly. "There's more product being made out of this."

Kate Lane manages a similar operation in Traverse City called Michigan Venison. She attributes part of the increasing demand to a growing desire among conscious consumers to know the provenance of the food they're eating.

Michigan Venison's online presence includes recipes venison chili, meatloaf, bean salad, lettuce wraps and other dishes. In addition to the various meat cuts for sale, the company also sells spice blends and kits for making sausage with the ground meat.

"Anything and everything to help make venison more mainstream," said Lane.

Ground meat is the most common form of venison due to its versatility - it can become burgers or be added to tacos, chili, pasta, etc. Not including shipping, Kelly sells bulk ground venison for $4 per pound, Lane sells it for $8.98 per pound.

Derek Sanders of Sanders Meats in Custer buys a couple thousand pounds of venison from Kelly every year and processes the meat into salami, which he sells for about $16 per 3-pound stick.

He stocks the meat year-round, but said hunting season is when demand pops.

"A lot of customers will come back just for the salami because they can't get it anywhere else," he said. "Especially people who don't or aren't able to hunt."

Although demand may be growing, there's a natural limit on supply that generally makes venison a seasonal product.

Deer are wild animals and that poses a natural obstacle to mainstream venison consumption. Deer that are killed for meat outside of hunting season generally come from herd culling at Michigan game ranches.

Ranchers cull deer on their own schedule, said Kelly, because culling for meat is secondary to a ranch's primary goal of catering to hunting clients.

The in-state domestic meat supply has dwindled as the number of game ranches has declined over the past decade. After hitting a peak at more than 800 in 2003, the Department of National Resources now licenses only 394 such facilities in Michigan.

The increasing price of grain, corn and other feed crops coupled with stricter regulations on fence height and fee increases in the early 2000s are likely the main factors in the decline, said DNR biologist Ryan Soulard.

Diseases such as Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD) have killed captive deer in Michigan, said Soulard, but most game ranches have shrugged off those losses and continued on without much issue.

Of the game ranches in operation, a smaller percentage have the number of deer within their borders to warrant culling the herd for meat, said Kelly.

Although everyone seems to know someone who had venison for dinner last night during hunting season, it's usually from a deer that was shot privately and the meat stored in the freezer and shared informally with friends and family.

State law prohibits unlicensed sale of wild game. Officials say only about a dozen or so standalone meat processors in Michigan are licensed to resell venison, although the total number of establishments licensed to process wild game is much higher.

In Birch Run, "Dixie" Dave Minar, executive chef and owner of Oscar & Joey's Roadhouse, said wild game meat such as venison, bison, duck and others make up about 40 percent of the menu.

Minar, who has been serving venison for 26 years, tries to buy Michigan venison whenever he can, but said domestic whitetail supply can be more expensive than fallow deer meat imported from New Zealand.

Minar uses venison in a variety of dishes including meatballs, steaks, stews and chilis.

He will cater a dinner in Lansing next month featuring venison, and even eventually plans to open what he said will be the world's first cannery that specializes in wild game soups.

"It's a wonderful flavor," he said. "To me, it's way superior to beef. My wife and I very seldom use beef at home. It's mostly ground venison."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why venison isn't found in more Michigan restaurants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first blush, you'd think venison would be more widely available in Michigan. Richer than beef and gamey in flavor, deer meat is high in nutrients such as protein and iron and lower in calories, cholesterol and fat than most cuts of beef, pork or lamb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bad meat, bad health

Recent studies have shown that meat from intensively farmed animals can have lower levels of beneficial omega-3 and a less favourable ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. An inadequate intake of omega-3 and an unbalanced ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 have been linked with cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. A recent Compassion in World Farming report shows that extensively farmed animal products often contain higher levels of antioxidants, iron and lower levels of fat. The rise of factory farming and 'cheap' meat has also led to significant overconsumption problems in many countries around the world; heavy red and processed meat consumption has been linked to a number of serious health-related conditions, including obesity, diabetes and cancer.

But don't just take our word for it

Heavy red meat consumption can increase the risk of some cancers developing by as much as 43%.

World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) (2011)

Food-borne illnesses

The conditions on a typical factory farm - where animals are forced to live in close proximity to one another in cramped spaces - facilitate the spread of bacterial pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella. These can cause gastroenteritis in humans and, in extreme cases, death.

But don't just take our word for it

A large-scale UK survey found that battery-cage farms are six times more likely than non-cage farms to be infected with the strain of salmonella most commonly associated with food poisoning.

Veterinary Record (2010)

Animals and workers crammed together

Cramming animals together in their hundreds or even thousands creates the perfect conditions for diseases to be transmitted and even to mutate into more dangerous strains (Pew Commission, 2008). Farm workers can play a role too; according to an article in Environmental Health Perspectives (2009), industrial farm workers are a key risk for zoonotic infection as a result of their 'routine and intensive exposure' to the farm animals, potentially serving as a 'bridge population' that could transfer infections from animals to the wider public.

But don't just take our word for it

Fifty years ago, a US farmer who raised pigs or chickens might be exposed to several dozen animals for less than an hour a day. Today's confinement facility worker is often exposed to thousands of pigs or tens of thousands of chickens for eight or more hours each day.

Antibiotics overload

Antibiotics can form an important part of good animal husbandry, preventing sick animals from suffering. However, there is an extreme overuse of these drugs in many factory farms. Antibiotics are often fed to factory-farmed animals to offset the disease risks posed by overcrowding - this is carried out regardless of whether the animal is infected or not. In some countries, antibiotics are even used to promote growth**. The rampant use of antibiotics in farm animals may well be harming us, driving the development of drug-resistant bacteria, which can reduce our ability to recover from a wide range of food-borne illnesses and diseases.

Nearly 80% of the total antibiotics distributed in 2009 in the US were for farm animals.

US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2009)

* Zoonotic diseases are those diseases that can pass between animals and humans

** The use of antibiotics to promote farm animal growth is outlawed in the EU but legal in a number of countries, including the United States

But don't just take our word for it

Eating large amounts of red and processed meats increases exposure to toxins and is linked to higher rates of heart disease, cancer and obesity.

Environmental Working Group (EWG) (2011)

Animal waste from large factory farms is threatening our health, the water we drink and swim in, and the future of our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams

National Resources Defense Council (2001)

Seventy-five percent of the antibiotics used on livestock are not absorbed by the animals and are excreted in waste, posing a serious risk to public health.

Worldwatch Institute (2011)

FDA believes the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals for production purposes (e.g., to promote growth or improve feed efficiency) represents an injudicious use of these important drugs.

So what?

Factory farming threatens our health. By taking action against factory farming, we are not just creating a food and farming revolution; we are also creating a healthier world for ourselves.

Our sources

1. Journal of Animal Science (2008), Effects of Conventional and Grass-feeding Systems on the Nutrient Composition of Beef

2. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy (2002), The Importance of the Ratio of Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acids

3. Compassion in World Farming (2012), The Nutritional Benefits of Higher Welfare Animal Products

4. WCRF (2011), Colorectal Cancer Report 2010 Summary

5. Veterinary Record (2010), Investigation of Risk Factors for Salmonella on Commercial Egg-laying Farms in Great Britain, 2004-2005

6. Pew Commission, 2008. Putting Meat on the Table

7. EHP (2009), Swine CAFOs & Novel H1N1 Flu: Separating Facts from Fears

8. Pew Commission, 2008. Putting Meat on the Table

9. Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics (2011), Case Study of a Health Crisis: How Human Health is Under Threat From Over-use of Antibiotics in Intensive Livestock Farming

10. WHO (2011), Antimicrobial Resistance

11. USFDA (2017), Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals

12. USFDA (2018), Sales of Antibacterial Drugs in Kilograms

13. EWG (2011), Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change and Health

14. NRDC (2001), Cesspools of Shame

15. Worldwatch Institute (2011), Global Meat Production and Consumption Continue to Rise

16. USFDA (2010), The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's not just farm animals that suffer from factory farming - our health is also put at risk. The provenance of our meat and dairy products can affect their quality and nutritional values. And with their focus on high numbers and confined spaces, factory farms can be the perfect breeding grounds for infectious zoonotic* diseases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1/ Includes beef, pork, veal, and mutton/lamb, but excludes edible offals.
Note: All poultry and livestock products are on a retail weight basis, except "other chicken" and "turkey" which are reported by USDA on a carcass-weight basis.
Fish/shellfish is reported by The National Marine Fisheries Service on an edible weight basis.
Source: USDA
Last updated 12/18/2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Forecast 2019, in Pounds - The National Chicken Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1/ Includes beef, pork, veal, and mutton/lamb, but excludes edible offals. Note: All poultry and livestock products are on a retail weight basis, except "other chicken" and "turkey" which are reported by USDA on a carcass-weight basis. Fish/shellfish is reported ... Read More >

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tracing the Origins of Salmonella Outbreaks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also see the [archival list][1] of Science 's Compass: Enhanced Perspectives I n the 1980s, health officials in Europe and the Americas noted a considerable increase in human food-borne illness [[HN1]][2] caused by Salmonella enteritidis [[HN2]][3], a pathogen found in chicken carcasses, eggs, and egg products ([1][4]).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is a boon to wildlife and humans alike

Conservatives who don't hunt, especially those who live in urban America, often give me the same reaction when they find out that I not only hunt but have hunted all over the world and also write for hunting magazines. Their eyes search me for a moment before they smile and maybe nod. Just like that, they seem to have decided there's a slight flaw in my character that they're willing to pardon.

They might then tell me that their uncle or someone else they have vague memories of always enjoyed my particular transgression, so they understand. If I want to kill animals for fun, then that's okay with them.

"You eat the meat, right?" they'll often ask as they search for ethical common ground to justify my pastime - they eat meat, after all.

"Of course," I'll say, while thinking they don't understand, not a damn bit.

I could tell them that hunters pay for much of the conservation that occurs in America, because hunters pay Pittman-Robertson taxes when they buy guns and ammunition. Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937 to place a 10 percent tax on handguns, an 11 percent tax on other firearms and ammunition, and an 11 percent tax on bows and related equipment. The revenue raised from this tax is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which keeps around 1 percent for administrative fees. The rest is apportioned to the states according to a formula. The formula is based on the area of the state (50 percent) and the number of paid hunting-license holders there (50 percent). Also, no state may receive more than 5 percent, or less than one-half of 1 percent, of the total apportionment. Last year about $800 million was raised from these taxes and distributed to the states. Another $350 million was raised from similar taxes on fishing equipment.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms manufacturers, estimates that, on a daily basis, about $3.5 million from these taxes and license fees goes to wildlife-conservation efforts. There are 15 to 20 million hunters and more than 100 million gun owners in the U.S., so hunters pay just a slice of the total. Regardless, this means that every time you hear a gunshot, it's as if a cash register is ringing for conservation.

Meanwhile, state game departments use hunters to control wildlife populations. Wildlife biologists do their part by setting seasons and bag limits. This keeps our roads safer. Right now, even with American hunters harvesting between 4 million and 6 million whitetail deer each year, an estimated 1.5 million car-deer collisions occur annually in the U.S., costing an estimated $1 billion and killing about 200 people.

By controlling deer populations, hunters are also making sure that habitats don't get over-browsed. This benefits many other wildlife species, including non-game species.

Our unique system of game management, called the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation," has produced astounding benefits. For example, every big-game species in the U.S. has actually increased in number after a hunting season was placed on it. This has occurred because hunters are a constituency lobbying for the flourishing of each game animal. Just go to the public-comment session of any state wildlife agency, and you'll see a lot of passionate people in orange hats and camo jackets advocating policies that preserve wildlife.

Some have criticized this system of game management by saying that hunters actually want too many deer and ducks and so on. At times, that has been the case, but not often. Aggressive doe-management policies, for example, were once resisted by hunters who were afraid they would destroy deer populations. Many of the deer hunters who felt that way had simply grown up at a time when whitetail-deer populations were coming back from near extinction. Today, the vast majority of deer hunters believe in utilizing doe tags when needed to control deer populations. (Tags are limited, and one tag equals the right to harvest one female deer or a male without antlers.) In any case, in the democratic process, agricultural and other interests keep a check on the possibility of overhunting. The process varies by state, but there are often boards representing various interests that advise on wildlife policy.

Typically, hunters don't want wildlife populations to exceed the carrying capacity of the land. If there are too many deer, then the deer will eat away the vegetation. When this happens, bucks lack the nutrition required to grow large antlers. To make sure managed deer herds have enough to eat, many deer hunters now plant crops - "food plots" - for deer. They also fertilize trees such as oaks that produce heavy yields of deer-attracting fruits and nuts, and they put out mineral supplements for deer. Hunters have also created organizations such as the Quality Deer Management Association to study the science of wildlife management.

Now, although hunters are proud of these things, the financial and conservation side effects of hunting aren't the primary reason that millions of Americans hunt. They're also not the first or even second reason that conservatives who don't hunt should support hunting.

Hunters often go into the woods after game to take part in a family ritual that brings generations together. They then enjoy the meat together at the table. People also hunt because it is a thrilling and challenging experience that allows them to be a part of the wild (as a predator is). People hunt for other reasons as well, such as the desire to obtain truly free-range, hormone-free meat.

One main reason conservatives should support hunting is that hunters and their associations act as a counterbalance to far-left environmentalism. Not all hunters vote Republican (many Democratic-voting union members hunt), but most hunters tend to be conservative on environmental issues. Hunters don't share today's preservationist belief that humans can only harm nature; those who hunt tend to understand that we are part of the ecosystems we live in, so forest and game management aren't off-limits, though we must take a responsible and scientific approach to them. This is why the environmental Left fears and fights local sportsmen's groups all the time. It's why environmentalists don't like to admit that hunters are some of wildlife's greatest advocates.

Just look at the League of Conservation Voters' "National Environmental Scorecard": The "issue categories" by which the group ranks politicians include "climate change," "clean energy," "drilling," and "wildlife . . . including the Endangered Species Act," but "hunting" appears nowhere on the list. Moreover, the candidates who receive the organization's highest grades are Democrats who often fail to support hunting.

In its reflexive opposition to hunting, the environmental Left is actually anti-environment.

Consider hunting leases to see how the hunting economy benefits wildlife and the environment. In the South and Midwest, it's common for farmers and ranchers to lease land access to hunters. This creates a substantial economic incentive for farmers and ranchers to have healthy wildlife populations on their lands. Without this money, deer, elk, rabbits, quail, bears, and other species would be mainly a financial liability to farmers and ranchers. Because hunters pay to hunt this wildlife, farmers and ranchers are much less likely to clear-cut woodlots and other habitat that wild animals need to survive; they're also less apt to overuse depredation permits to seriously reduce deer populations.

Another reason everyone should support regulated hunting is that farmers - and small organic farmers most of all - must control wildlife populations. If they don't, before long they'll just be raising crops to feed wildlife. People who are used to getting their vegetables from the produce aisle can find this reality hard to accept.

A few years back, I attended a dinner party at a restaurant and found myself seated across the table from a woman who amiably introduced herself as an attorney and asked what I did.

"I write about hunting and other issues," I said.

As she speared a baby carrot with her fork, she looked me in the eye and said, "Well, I'm a vegan. I'm above all that killing."

I thought, Well, she started it , and asked, "Do all of your vegetables come from no-animal-killing farms?"

"What are those?" she asked, with her fork hovering in front of her lips.

"You look for the label that says 'No-Animal-Killing Farm Participant' when you purchase vegetables, don't you?"

"Um, no." She put her fork down.

"You'd better ask the waiter if this restaurant's vegetables come from a USDA-certified no-animal-killing farm."

The waiter wandered by moments later and she asked, "Excuse me, I'd like to know if your produce comes from no-animal-killing farms."

"Uh, I'll have to check."

He was back with a worried look. "I'm sorry, but the cooks haven't heard of that designation. I'm sure the vegetables are safe. We get them from organic farms. They come in fresh every day."

She looked morosely at her salad, but then saw me smirking.

"There's no such thing," I said.

She started to get up. I stopped her by saying, "I've hunted on farms all over America, and the farmers are always appreciative."

"They all have produce to defend. I haven't met a farmer yet who doesn't kill geese, rabbits, or deer to preserve his livelihood."

"And your point is?"

"Every cabbage or carrot you eat was raised by farmers who kill wildlife so you'll have veggies to eat. It's only natural. Defending a food source is part of living in this world."

To her credit, she said, "Well, I suppose that's true."

Why people hunt can be a complicated thing. And no, the Second Amendment wasn't written and ratified to protect hunting. The U.S. Bill of Rights is meant to prevent the government from infringing on the freedoms with which we're born. Hunting is just one thing that millions of Americans use their Second Amendment freedom to enjoy. But what hunting does for us, for wildlife, and for the environment is indisputable. Being pro-environment means being pro-hunting.

Frank Miniter - Mr. Miniter's next book, out in October, is Spies in Congress-Inside the Democrats' Covered-Up Cyber Scandal. @frankminiter

The Gun Issue

Books, Arts & Manners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a boon to wildlife and humans alike Conservatives who don't hunt, especially those who live in urban America, often give me the same reaction when they find out that I not only hunt but have hunted all over the world and also write for hunting magazines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Infectious diseases of livestock are a major threat to global animal health and welfare and their effective control is crucial for agronomic health, for safeguarding and securing national and international food supplies and for alleviating rural poverty in developing countries. Some devastating livestock diseases are endemic in many parts of the world and threats from old and new pathogens continue to emerge, with changes to global climate, agricultural practices and demography presenting conditions that are especially favourable for the spread of arthropod-borne diseases into new geographical areas. Zoonotic infections that are transmissible either directly or indirectly between animals and humans are on the increase and pose significant additional threats to human health and the current pandemic status of new influenza A (H1N1) is a topical example of the challenge presented by zoonotic viruses. In this article, we provide a brief overview of some of the issues relating to infectious diseases of livestock, which will be discussed in more detail in the papers that follow.

Keywords: emerging infectious diseases, livestock and zoonotic pathogens, vector-borne diseases, global impact, food security

1. Introduction and food security

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the world is faced with a changing landscape of infectious diseases that affect man and animals, and that pose significant threats to health and welfare and to the international food security agenda. Livestock diseases that have devastating outcomes on animal health and that impact on national and international trade remain endemic in many parts of the world. Threats from old and new pathogens continue to emerge, fuelled by changes in the environment (climate, hydrology, disruption of ecosystems, etc.), in agriculture and food production (intensive systems of husbandry, farming monoculture, food processing, etc.) and in the demography and connectivity of the modern 'global' village (population growth, urbanization, international trading, world tourism and rapid transportation, etc.; Gibbs 2005). The spread of new influenza A (H1N1) is illustrative: between February 2009 when the first cases of an influenza-like illness in people were reported in the Gulf coast state of Veracruz, Mexico, and 24 June 2009, it had spread to 91 countries with 55 867 cases reported (see http://www.who.int for daily updates).

The global human population is expected to increase from approximately 6.5 billion in 2008 to approximately 9.2 billion by 2050 ( UNDP 2008), with around one billion of this increase occurring in Africa. Population growth on such a scale poses enormous challenges for food production in general, as an increased demand for 50 per cent more food is expected by 2030, and for livestock in particular, especially in developing countries where material increases in household incomes and accompanying urbanization drives demand for meat and dairy products ( Delgado et al. 1999; Jones & Thornton 2009). The first year in which more than half the people on Earth (approx. 3.3 billion) inhabited urban areas was 2008, and by 2030, this number is expected to increase to approximately five billion, with the vast majority of urban growth occurring in Africa and Asia ( UNFPA 2008). Alongside these unprecedented changes in the size and location of human populations and the demands for food, the impacts of environmental change are likely to be detrimental to agricultural production ( Fresco 2009). These factors will therefore drive a requirement for a systematic application of science through the entire food chain in order that all food-producing sectors adapt to changing temperatures, nutrient and water conditions and exposure to harmful pathogens. The opportunities for scientific innovation are tremendous in number and scope and must be exploited if the world's population is to have enough to eat in the decades ahead. Control of livestock pathogens will continue to be a highly important component of efficient food production and become associated more overtly with the food security agenda.

The world cattle population is estimated currently to be approximately 1.3 billion head, with 30 per cent in Asia, 20 per cent in South America, 15 per cent in Africa, 14 per cent in North/Central America and 10 per cent in Europe ( http://cattletoday.info). Estimates of the global number of smaller livestock vary considerably from source to source, but it is generally accepted that there are approximately one billion pigs, approximately two billion small ruminants and more than 50 billion poultry reared annually for food production. Methods of farm production are tremendously varied and bring with them their own particular risks in terms of the introduction and transmission of infectious diseases. At one extreme is the very low-intensity subsistence livestock farming, particularly of poultry, sheep and goats, that operates in the poorest of the world's rural households and that is critical to sustaining local food supplies, alleviating poverty through income generation and for nutritional status. These animals are often kept under scavenging conditions with little attention to disease control, housing or feed supplementation, suffer a high burden of endemic disease and are likely to be in close contact with other livestock species and humans, and potentially in contact with a variety of non-domestic animals. The impact of epidemic diseases on the livelihoods of these poor farmers, particularly if there is high mortality or the imposition of animal movement restrictions or culling, is severe ( http://smallstock.info). In this issue, Perry & Grace (2009) consider in detail the impacts that livestock diseases, and control of these, can have on developing and promoting national and international policies that are pro-poor and that will reduce rural poverty. At the other end of the farming spectrum are the highly organized and intensive sectors of the poultry industry where the rapid growth rates of birds reared in stocking densities of up to 50 000 birds in a single shed give the most efficient feed-to-meat conversions of any farm system and provide cheap, high-quality products for the consumer. This intensity of husbandry can only be done by controlling many infectious diseases that would otherwise inflict severe losses or even prevent intensive poultry production completely, by the administration of vaccines at the start of the rearing period. For the poultry sector, the emergence of a new pathogen, or a new variant of an old pathogen has the potential to spread rapidly and devastate national flocks, as has happened on several occasions with strains of highly pathogenic avian influenza (Alexander 2000, 2007; Velkers et al. 2006). Indeed, some outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza have resulted in the destruction of entire national flocks of poultry and complete restocking has been required from an international breeding company before poultry production could be resumed. Such vulnerability illustrates the importance of infectious livestock diseases within the context of global food security.

Some of the pathogens considered in this series of reviews present an actual or real risk to a serious shortage of food in many parts of the world. Within Europe, the recent incursions of bluetongue virus (BTV) and subsequent outbreaks of disease have provided a reminder that livestock can quickly become exposed to the ravages of a new disease that takes hold because of changing conditions. Across Northern Europe, BTV has become a very recent new threat to sheep and cattle and in 2008 the mortality rates of infected sheep were high (more than 10% in some countries). Only the introduction by the UK of a national plan for vaccination against BT in 2008 prevented establishment and spread of the disease, and the high susceptibility of most European breeds of sheep to BTV means that vaccination must continue. While the gradual northwardly spread of BTV from Northern Africa and the south Mediterranean regions had been observed for several years ( Mellor et al. 2008), the abrupt introduction of BTV-8 in Northern Europe was unexpected and a further reminder that livestock diseases can appear rapidly and without apparent warning ( Wilson & Mellor 2009). Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the UK in the 1980s is arguably the best exemplar of a new and highly significant disease of livestock emerging as a consequence of change, in this case to feeding practices, with a profound impact on food supplies and security and public confidence.

2. Emerging and re-emerging diseases

Increases in the emergence or re-emergence of animal and human infectious diseases have been evident in many parts of the world for several years ( Weiss & McMichael 2004; Gibbs 2005; Woolhouse et al. 2005). Over 1600 human pathogens are now described, an average of three new diseases is reported approximately every 2 years, and a new infecting organism is published every week (http:/www.gideononline.com). Some emerging diseases such as Lyme borreliosis, cat-scratch fever (bartonellosis), fifth disease (parvovirus B19), legionellosis and cryptosporidiosis are actually much older, but the causative agents were recognized only relatively recently; similarly, several presumed non-infectious conditions such as peptic ulcer, Kaposi sarcoma and cervical cancer are now known to have infectious aetiologies. Nevertheless, there is no doubting the emergence of many genuinely new diseases and, whereas 60 per cent of all known infectious agents are zoonotic ( Taylor et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2008), it is estimated that approximately 75 per cent of 'new' human pathogens reported in the past 25 years have originated in animals and the risk of zoonoses is predicted to continue to increase ( King et al. 2006). RNA viruses pose particularly high zoonotic risks because they can emerge and spread rapidly and a recent statistical analysis of 146 viruses of livestock indicates that the ability of a virus to replicate in the cytoplasm (without nuclear entry) is the strongest single predictor of cross-species transmission and the ability to infect humans ( Pulliam & Dushoff 2009).

Against the background of zoonoses accounting for around 60 per cent of new disease introductions ( Taylor et al. 2001; Jones et al. 2008; Jones & Thornton 2009), the 'megacities' of the world provide an obvious focus of attention as they typically constitute melting-pot environments for the mixing of human and animal infectious diseases and their potential rapid spread, both locally and internationally. In 2000, there were 18 megacities with populations in excess of 10 million inhabitants, by 2025 Asia alone is expected to have at least 10 megacities and by 2030 over two billion people in the world will be living in slums associated with cities ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity). Mexico City, with a population of around 23 million people, was the focus of the early phase of the 2009 spread of influenza A/H1N1, and Ma et al. (2009) in this issue describe the emergence of zoonoses in the context of China, where it is forecast that cities will contain a total population of 800 million people by 2020. The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus and its rapid international spread provides another recent example of the transmission of a new disease from a megacity. Fortunately, the outbreak of SARS was 'owned' by the countries involved subsequently and a series of fast-acting global campaigns by medical practitioners and others proved adequate to stop the disease from becoming established. However, many diseases, including livestock diseases, are regarded as seemingly intractable problems and if the affected areas of the world straddle political or economic boundaries, especially involving countries in different national, regional and economic groupings, a lack of ownership of the disease may more typically define the need for containment and control.

The rate of introduction of vector-borne pathogens to previously 'free' areas of the world is increasing ( Jones et al. 2008). It is estimated that almost half of the world's population is infected by vector-borne pathogens ( http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu) with the greatest impact on developing countries within tropical and subtropical areas. The impacts of climate change and global warming are becoming more obvious and the survival and spread of BTV into Northern Europe provides a disturbing example of how an 'exotic' vector-borne livestock pathogen can quickly become established within new geographical regions to present new and significant risks to livestock production. Since the arrival of BTV-8 in The Netherlands in 2006, bluetongue (BT) has spread widely throughout Northern Europe with around 57 000 holdings in Europe affected by BTV in 2007 (with tens of thousands of animals killed) and around 33 000 holdings were affected in 2008. Significantly during the past 3 years, more serotypes have been introduced very recently within Northern Europe (including BTV-1, BTV-11 and BTV-16) and, with BTV-1 circulating, it is now clear that ongoing and sustained vaccination campaigns will be necessary for several years if the disease of BT is not to cause further welfare problems and high rates of mortality in sheep.

Other livestock diseases are also moving geographically and include African Swine Fever (ASF), the cause of a very serious haemorrhagic fever of pigs, which leads to mortality rates close to 100 per cent. Rather typically for diseases that are now emerging as serious pathogens on a potentially far larger scale than hitherto (and somewhat neglected for scientific study), there is no vaccine against ASF virus (ASFV) and control has to rely on other approaches, such as slaughter of infected herds. ASF had been previously been confined mainly to sub-Saharan Africa, with continued spread to previously uninfected countries on that continent, but the introduction of ASFV into Georgia in 2007 and its subsequent spread from the Caucasus has introduced a new risk to pig production in Europe. In this issue, Costard et al. (2009) review the mechanisms by which ASFV is maintained within wildlife and domestic pig populations, how it can be transmitted, the broader risks for global spread of ASFV and how disease might be mitigated. Wild boars have the potential to distribute ASFV widely and they are also known as reservoirs for a number of other important diseases and their growing importance in transmission of zoonotic diseases is the specific theme of Meng et al. (2009) in this issue. The roles of wildlife in transmission are being identified with increasing clarity and for avian influenza wild waterfowl have been shown to be capable of widely distributing the virus. Iqbal et al. (2009) in this issue set the scene for their work on investigating whether different avian influenza viruses show variation in the degree of diversity from the consensus sequence of the virus as they replicated in different hosts by broadly reviewing the maintenance of highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses in different avian host species. They note the prevalence of the virus in waterfowl such as ducks and swans, but also a variety of other wild bird species, including sparrows, crows, magpies and birds of prey.

Other wildlife seen as increasingly important in the transmission of zoonotic pathogens includes the fruit bat, which is known to be a reservoir of internationally important zoonotic pathogens such as Hendra virus and Nipah virus. Greater risks to human health from wildlife pathogens appear to be inevitable as a consequence of increasing human contact with wildlife through greater access to, and disturbance of, wildlife habitats. Deforestation and the taking of land for livestock farming can lead to the habitats of wildlife being disturbed, and the spread of Nipah virus to pigs (and thence to humans) in 1998 in Malaysia is associated with the movement of fruit bats from their forest environment to cultivated orchards and pig farms, driven by fruiting failure of forest trees during El Nino-related drought as more land was sought for farming ( Chua et al. 2002; Looi & Chua 2007).

In general, much less is known about infectious agents of wildlife, livestock and even companion animals than of humans, and there are several examples where enzootic viruses of animals (SARS coronavirus, hantaviruses, Ebola and Marburg viruses, Nipah virus, Hendra virus and human immunodeficiency viruses) were completely unknown until they switched hosts to cause disease in humans ( Parrish et al. 2008). However, emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and zoonoses are not solely due to viruses and a recent detailed study of 335 EID events in man and animals between 1940 and 2004 concluded that more than 50 per cent were due to bacteria or rickettsia, more than 10 per cent to protozoa, 6 per cent to fungi and 3 per cent to helminths ( Jones et al. 2008). A major concern is that vector-borne diseases have increased dramatically over the last decade adding support to hypotheses that climate change drives emergence of diseases where arthropod vectors are sensitive to environmental changes. Tropical areas have seen the highest increases in EIDs, and while those caused by zoonoses emanating from wildlife are correlated with wildlife biodiversity, those caused by emergence of new drug resistant strains are correlated with agronomic factors such as antibiotic use and population density.

In the spring of 2009, a new influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged and spread rapidly throughout the world, and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 June. Epidemiological data indicate that the outbreak in humans started in mid-February in Veracruz, Mexico ( Fraser et al. 2009), the virus is related to swine influenza A (H1N1) viruses recently circulating in pigs in North America and in Europe/Asia and carries a mixture of genes from viruses circulating in these two geographical regions ( Garten et al. 2009; Trifonov et al. 2009). Six gene segments are most similar to those of swine H1N2 influenza A viruses isolated from North America in the late 1990s, whereas two gene segments are related to those of Eurasian strains of the early 1990s. Evolutionary phylogenetic analysis suggests that it is likely that initial transmission to humans occurred several months before recognition of the outbreak and that it is possible that reassortment of swine lineages to generate the direct precursor of the pandemic strain may have occurred years ago ( Smith et al. 2009). However, the virus has not been previously detected in any animal or human populations and definitive scientific evidence to support its origin directly in pigs is not yet confirmed ( Irvine & Brown 2009). It has been established experimentally that the virus can infect and transmit between pigs ( Brookes et al. 2009), and it is highly probable that natural transmissions between humans and pigs will become a feature of the pandemic, although a complete picture of the potential host species range of these viruses has not yet emerged and many questions relating to disease severity in susceptible hosts, transmission dynamics within and between hosts and probable risks of selection for increased virulence due to zoonotic transmission remain to be determined.

Maudlin et al. (2009) in this issue make the point that, unlike newly emerging zoonoses that attract the attention of the developed world, many endemic zoonoses are neglected by comparison and this 'in turn artificially downgrades their importance in the eyes of administrators and funding agencies'. This is a problem familiar to most scientists working on endemic livestock pathogens per se and presents many risks to the broader relevant scientific activity, not least the prospect that important basic and underpinning research data, tools and reagents are not in place. A good example of endemic zoonoses that continues to cause divergent clinical disease is toxoplasmosis, caused by the ubiquitous apicomplexan protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, which has high prevalence in many parts of the world associated with consumption of tissue cysts in undercooked meat, or exposure to oocysts derived from cat faeces ( Sibley et al. 2009, this issue). As well as causing congenital infections with severe clinical sequealae, T. gondii establishes chronic, persistent infection in humans with a lifelong risk of reactivation, often associated with immunosuppression. Ocular toxoplasmosis is on the increase in immunocompetent people throughout the world, with an estimated incidence of 2 per cent in the USA (up to five million patients) and a much higher incidence in southern Brasil ( Holland 2003) where it has been shown recently that clinical disease is associated with the emergence of newly described divergent parasite genotypes ( Khan et al. 2006).

The changing incidence of pathogens and patterns of diseases over time requires the scientific community to review, develop and use different sets of skills. For example, climate change and the increasing spread of vector-borne diseases has driven a need for more entomologists and vector biologists and the re-emergence of helminth infections globally will, as Robinson & Dalton (2009) note in this issue, increase the need for basic laboratory research on zoonotic helminths. As the diseases change, so will the professional skills set required.

3. Past successes and future prospects

Infectious diseases are remarkably difficult to eliminate and only smallpox virus has formally been eradicated. However, a highly significant veterinary achievement is the expectation that, by 2010, the disease rinderpest (the cause of cattle plague) will also have been eliminated from the planet. This prospect was facilitated by the launch in 1994 of a Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme (GREP) both to consolidate gains in rinderpest control and to move towards disease eradication. While the biology of the virus was permissive to control by vaccination, the GREP was ultimately successful because it implemented a highly effective international coordination mechanism to promote the initiative, confirm freedom from rinderpest in affected areas and to deliver technical guidance and the means to achieve the goals. Thus, the expected eradication of rinderpest represents a triumph for a holistic approach to control, which integrates vaccination, robust diagnostic practices and, crucially, the political wills of many countries.

Unfortunately, for the prospects of further eradication successes, most pathogens are characterized by phenotypes presenting different antigenic forms that are stable with time (antigenic diversity) or that show antigenic variation during the course of infection. The presence of multiple serotypes or variants of a pathogen is a major hurdle for long-term control by vaccination and it seems that more complete successes such as the eradication of smallpox virus and rinderpest virus are aspirational rather than realistic. However, good progress continues to be made on the control of several important livestock pathogens and mechanisms are now in place to bring together the critical scientific expertise and political will to succeed. For example, to provide tools to endemically affected countries to help with control of foot and mouth disease (FMD) virus and to improve methods to better manage and reduce risk of outbreaks in FMD-free countries, a Global Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Alliance (GFRA) was established in 2003 to bring together the relevant animal health research organizations worldwide. Thus, the GRFA is aligned conceptually to the GREP and is spearheading work to understand more about key issues of the biology of FMD virus, such as predictions of the virulence and spread of FMD virus under different circumstances, immunological mechanisms of protection against disease and virus replication and how to generate longer-lasting protective immunity after vaccination, the drivers of virus evolution and ways to improve vaccine stability and generate protection to multiple serotypes. Initiatives such as GFRA will help to share the burden of controlling burdensome diseases because, as Paton et al. (2009) point out for FMD in this issue, if the potential for disease control becomes too large for individual nations to tackle, responsibility for control may be seen to belong to a third party. This type of political dimension is clearly a significant factor in the prospects of better control of some very important diseases and any inertia in implementing plans at national government levels will make it easier for pathogens to persist and spread further.

The ability to control livestock diseases effectively is sometimes problematic because of the 'carrier state' in which a pathogen persists in the host for extended periods. Stevens et al. (2009) in this issue report that the bacterium Salmonella enterica may develop a carrier state in the host after primary challenge and such carriers typically excrete high levels of bacteria during recovery from enteric or systemic disease, often in the absence of clinical signs. In some cases, the carrier state may exist for the lifetime of the host, for example, with bacterial species such as S. enterica serovar Dublin.

FMD is also characterized by a carrier state in which FMD virus locates rapidly to, and is maintained in, the light zone of germinal centres ( Juleff et al. 2009) and it remains a fundamental problem to be overcome before more effective control measures can be put in place. The tropism of pathogens and why some organisms translocate from one site of development to another remains generally poorly understood. Stevens et al. (2009), this issue, report an emerging theme among pathogens associated with enteric fevers, such as S. enterica serovar Typhi, Brucella spp. and enteropathogenic Yersinia spp.: they use 'stealth strategies' to evade detection by the innate immune system of the host and thus any control by the host at the level of mucosal surfaces.

In summary, considerable challenges are presented by livestock and zoonotic pathogens to the health and well being of animals and man. For some critically important diseases, the first line of defence will be the deployment of state-of-the art approaches to diagnosis and surveillance to provide a network of global intelligence on their spread and an assessment of risk presented. Combined with this, the delivery of effective vaccine strategies for the control of major pathogens of livestock will be especially testing and a continuum of new and better vaccines able to deliver more long-lasting and durable protective immunity and to be effective against multiple strains or variants will be essential.

References

Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S., Courbois C.1999Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. In Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28 Washington, DC, USA: IFPRI/FAO/ILRI [Google Scholar]

UNDP 2008Human development report 2007/2008: fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided World. New York, USA [Google Scholar]

UNFPA. The state of world population 2007: unleashing the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population Fund; 2008. Available at [http://www.unfpa.org/swp/swpmain.htm . Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Livestock infectious diseases and zoonoses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Infectious diseases of livestock are a major threat to global animal health and welfare and their effective control is crucial for agronomic health, for safeguarding and securing national and international food supplies and for alleviating rural poverty in developing countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
We're not here to have the "human supremacy" debate

# data[].attributes.subject
We're not here to have the "human supremacy" debate