To the Reader who prefers to review the data--- and make his own mind-- the
following is submitted:

We humans who eat a normal human diet that containing fruits and vegetables
in place of pasta and sugary imitation food can expect to process that food
in one day.   Those who eat  imitation food  high in refined  sugars and
refined grains take as much as five days to process the food.    Beets are
the indicator.  During that five day period unusual bacterial activity may
well occur as  some evidence tends to indicate more disease in these
individuals.

Now a cow's normal diet is raw natural grass complete with stems and the
rough irritant whiskers that surround the seed grain.    When it is fed
"just"  grain it stores fat quickly,  to the extent that the animal gains
weight and value;  the meat  gains fat marbled through the muscle meat and a
higher Government grade.

Now  with greatly reduced  fiber does it not raise the question that the cow
could have a different  digestive retention period?    During that different
period  could not the chemical status of the gut change?

Another view;    In Europe raw hamburger was/is eaten by some.     In Europe
workers take more pride in their "profession"  even if it is as  butcher.
In the USA we have workers who "don't care".     As  it is presently
presented the E coli threat only occurs if  the gut content of the cow is
spread to the meat.    Now I know one thing for sure in this area.    The
gut content will not contaminate the meat in a clean well regulated
processing plant because it will be removed and disposed of properly.     So
I  would blame lazy, incompetent American workers for any  E coli
contamination!    I  feel that a German or French  butcher  would cause a
fight or worse if pushed by his boss to get careless.

Regards,  Lorenzo


----- Original Message -----
From: "bruce sherrod" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 5:35 PM
Subject: [P-F] e.coli in grassfed meat (was Re: [P-F] Food poisoning)


> matesz writes:
> >bruce sherrod asked for a reference for the information I posted below:
> >>When animals are raised on grains, they become host to the deadliest
strain
> >>of E. coli bacteria; the National Academy of Sciences estimates that one
of
> >>every three grain fed cattle is infected with this strain.  Grain fed
> >>animals have bacterial counts over 300 times that of  animals that are
fed
> >>pasture and hay and little or no grain.  In contrast, pasture fed
animals
> >>have practically no detectable levels of the most dangerous, acid
resistant
> >>strains of E. coli.   Grain carbohydrates feed the growth of acid
resistant
> >>E. coli; grass and other pasture foods do not.  Consequently, grass fed
> >>animals do not need to have antibiotics as a supplement to their diets.
> >
> >My response: My husband got that info from <www.eatwild.com> and Jo
> >Robinson's excellent, short, concise book, "Why Grass Fed is Best."  This
> >book  has extensive references.
>
> Unfortunately, the web site does not say anything about e.coli
> contamination in grassfed meat, except for this:
>
>     It [grassfed meat] also lowers the risk of E. coli (a subject
>     discussed in some detail in Why Grassfed Is Best!).
>     (http://www.eatwild.com/news.html)
>
> I would still very much like to see the reference that shows bacterial
> counts of grain fed animals being 300 times that of grass fed, and which
> shows that "pasture fed animals have practically no detectable levels
> of the most dangerous, acid resistant strains of E. coli." It seems to
> me that this statement _must_ be false, considering that there have
> been studies which do detect the levels of acid resistant e.coli in
> grassfed animals:
>
>     Grain feeding and the dissemination of acid-resistant Escherichia coli
>     from cattle.
>     Diez-Gonzalez F; Callaway TR; Kizoulis MG; Russell JB
>     Division of Biological Sciences, Section of Microbiology, Cornell
>     University and Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department
>     of Agriculture, Ithaca, NY 14853-8101, USA.
>     Science 1998 Sep 11;281(5383):1666-8
>     PMID: 9733511 UI: 98404270
>
>     The gastric stomach of humans is a barrier to food-borne pathogens,
>     but Escherichia coli can survive at pH 2.0 if it is grown under mildly
>     acidic conditions. Cattle are a natural reservoir for pathogenic E.
>     coli, and cattle fed mostly grain had lower colonic pH and more
>     acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed only hay. On the basis of
>     numbers and survival after acid shock, cattle that were fed grain
>     had 10(6)-fold more acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed hay,
>     but a brief period of hay feeding decreased the acid-resistant
>     count substantially.
>
> >antioxidants, CLA, omega-3s and more!!!   The benefits of grass fed meat
and
> >pastured poultry are not fluff.  (I think you meant the summary of the
> >article was fluff, right?? :-))
>
> Yes, I meant that the article was fluff; it says nothing about the
> nutrition, safety, taste, or quality of Joel Salitan's meat products,
> nor anything about the environmental impact of his farming methods.
>
> The benefits of grassfed meat, as you say, are not fluff.  But they
> can be overstated, and such exaggerations make the supporters
> of grassfed lose credibility.
>
> -Bruce
> munching on grassfed short ribs from Rafter Ranch (featured on
> eatwild.com) for lunch today