Planet

Organic meat, ABC vs. fake news in La Stampa

May 7, 2018

Food is now present in every TV and journalistic debate, ‘it’s everywhere’ as people used to say about parsley. But information is something else. On organic meat, here is the ABC of rules and values, compared with the fake news reported by an albeit authoritative newspaper, La Stampa.

Organic meat, ABC of rules vs. fake news in La Stampa

The Press, in its 4/27/2018 edition, presents the concept of ‘organic meat’ in its own way. (1) But the reality is quite different, and it is therefore appropriate to clarify the rules and values on organic animal husbandry.

(A) ORGANIC BREEDING. ‘The definition of organic’ – according to Ettore Capri, in the Turin newspaper – ‘refers only to the type of feeding and veterinary therapies, not to the mode of breeding.‘ False.

EU rules on organiclivestock farming include precise requirements on how animals are raised. (2) First, the maximum animal density and housing conditions are defined. Thus ‘animals permanently have access to open-air spaces, preferably pastures’, ‘the number of animals is limited in order to minimize overgrazing, trampling of soil, erosion or pollution caused by animals or the spreading of their droppings’.

Each dairy cow, for example, must rely on 6 sq. m. of indoor space for shelter and at least 4.5 sq. m. of outdoor parcels for roaming, in addition to grazing. Each turkey must be guaranteed at least 10 square meters of free space, each goose at least 15 square meters, and so on. Outdoor spaces for poultry should be covered with vegetation for the greatest area and provide easy access to a suitable number of troughs and feeders.

For each hectare available to the organic livestock farm, no more than two cattle, or 13.3 goats, or 230 laying hens

, or 580 broiler chickens.

Animal welfare is also guaranteed by the following requirements:

– mammals must be fed breast milk for a predetermined minimum period,

– ‘birds are not kept in cages’,

– poultry shelters must ‘be constructed in such a way as to allow them easy access to outdoor space.’

– each shelter has a maximum capacity of 3,000 laying hens (or 4,800 broilers) and its floor must be solid (no grating or trellis), covered with bedding (composed of straw, wood shavings, sand or grass) for at least 1/3 of the area,

– animals must have access to open spaces for at least one-third of their existence,

– force-feeding is prohibited (so no organic fois gras ).

– the minimum age for culling poultry is double that in conventional farming practice. 81 days for chickens, 140 days for turkeys and geese, 150 days for capons, etc. (3)

In actuality, organic animal husbandry begins with the selection of appropriate breeds, which are often less ‘productive’ but more ‘hardy’ and therefore resistant to disease and breeding stress.

B) BIO FEEDING. ‘‘It means’ – according to The Press – ‘that it is forbidden to use GMOs and synthetic pesticides in its production, although still 0.9 percent traces of GMOs are allowed in an organic product. However, the wording ‘no GMOs’ suggests that it is something dangerous to be avoided, but it is not’.

The newspaper presents the exception – ‘accidental or technically unavoidable’ contamination of feed from conventional agriculture with traces of GMOs, within the 0.9 percent limit referred to each individual raw material – as if it were the rule.

However, the Press fails to mention that the above tolerance is conditional on the operator’s ability to demonstrate that he has taken all appropriate measures to avoid the presence of even trace amounts of GMOs. This tolerance, moreover, does not descend from organic production regulations, but from GMO regulations. (4)

In fact, the EU rules on GMOs provide identical tolerance thresholds-on conventional and organic feed-for the possible adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified organisms that have already been authorized in the EU (0.9 percent), or not yet authorized, provided they have already been favorably evaluated by Efsa (0.5 percent).

The Press also omits to report that organic farms often use protein sources other than soy (the one that is at risk of GMO contamination), such as protein pea. the field bean and the lupine (see, for example

www.equizoobio.it/downloads/martini_04.pdf

e

https://www.tesionline.it/default/tesi.asp?idt=23357#_=_

).

As forGMOs Author Ettore Capri affirms technocratic dogma, no danger. In contrast, not a few scientific studies point to serious risks (to human and animal health, the environment, and biodiversity) associated with both GMOs and agrotoxics-glyphosate first and foremost-which only Franken-seed is specifically designed to resist. (5)

(C) VETERINARY DRUGS. It is reported in La Stampa that ‘In organic meat production, the administration to animals of chemically synthesized allopathic medicines or antibiotics for preventive treatment is also prohibited, but the ban on antibiotics as preventive treatment also applies to conventional meat.’ False.

Preventive treatments with veterinary drugs are not at all prohibited in conventional animal husbandry. See in this regard the handbook of the Ministry of Health ‘Biosecurity and the proper and rational use of antibiotics in animal husbandry‘. Where it is expected that antibiotics will be administered to animals both in the case of an ongoing infectious disease and also in the case of ‘real risk of developing it’.

The Ministry of Health, in the cited manual, advises farmers to ‘avoid the use of antibiotics when it is not necessary (e.g., non-infectious diseases, viral infections, self-limiting infections).’ But if antibiotics were really used only when necessary, why would the Ministry recommend the above?

On the other hand, it is true that antibiotics-except coccidiostats and histomonostats-cannot be used in feed as ‘growth-promoting additives,’ as of 1.1.06, according to reg. EC 1831/03.

Thus, the preventive use of antibiotics is by no means prohibited in non-bio animal husbandry. On the other hand, only the addition to feed of antibiotics whose prophylactic effect is intended to be exploited, not the prophylactic effect, but the secondary ‘doping’ effect (of accelerating the growth rate of animals) is prohibited.

Organic meat and consumer health

‘
The

organic foods have been found to be as safe
as much as conventional products,’ Ettore Capri continued. Trouble otherwise, we add. Given that food safety is a pre-requisite for the marketing of any food, conventional and organic, as prescribed by the General Food Law (EC Reg. 178/02).

The antibiotic resistance However, it deserves at least a mention. Taking into account that the development of antibiotic resistance causes 25,000 deaths each year in Europe, with an estimated health care expenditure of 1.5 billion euros. And it’s’one of the greatest threats to global health,’ according to WHO. Therefore, it does not seem correct to overlook the figure that 71 percent of the total antibiotics sold in Italy are for animals.

Eloquent in this regard is

the WHO publication, ‘

Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) Report‘

. According to which ‘antimicrobial resistance is a critical public health problem worldwide’. In relation to 8 particularly prevalent pathogens (including. Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus e Streptococcus pneumoniae), ‘the rates of antibiotic resistance are increasing, to the point that infections caused by these pathogens may need to be treated with drugs of last resort, which may not only be less effective and safe, but may be derived from more resource-intensive processes and may also not be widely available, particularly in resource-limited settings. For this reason, antibiotic resistance of these pathogens is currently considered among the greatest public health threats globally‘.

Organic animal husbandry, the Values not to be overlooked

The organoleptic properties of meats, as of other products, depend on a plurality of factors and subjective evaluations, with respect to which it seems unrealistic to make aprioristic judgments.

The values expressed by organic productions are broader. These values pertain to respect for ecosystems and animal welfare, which The Press does not care to consider. (6)

The meta-analysis ‘Comparison of nutritional quality between conventional and organic dairy products: a meta-analysis‘, published in 2012 by the ‘Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture’, plays in theabstract that ‘Our meta-analysis shows that organic dairy products have significantly higher content of protein, ALA, omega-3 fatty acids, cis-9, trans-11 conjugated linoleic acid, trans-11 vaccenic acid eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosapentanoic acid than those of conventional production, with cumulative effect sizes (confidence interval ± 95%) of 0.56 ± 0.24, 1.74 ± 0.16, 0.84 ± 0.14, 0.68 ± 0.13, 0.51 ± 0.16, 0.42 ± 0.23, and 0.71 ± 0.3, respectively. We also observed that organic dairy products had significantly higher omega-3 to omega-6 ratio (0.42 vs. 0.23) and Δ9-desaturase index (0.28 vs. 0.27) (P <0.001) than conventional versions. In fact, the current organic farming regulation pushes organic farms to produce organic dairy products with nutritional qualities different from conventional ones. It is suspected that the reason for these evidences lies in the differences in dietary regimen between conventional and organic dairy production’.

The review ‘Organic food and impact on human health: assessing the status quo and prospects of research’, published in 2011 by NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences.) adds that ‘Animal studies to date have shown positive effects of an organic diet on weight, growth, fertility indices and the immune system’.

The scientific publication ‘Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems’ – on ‘Advances in Agronomy’ (2001) – in turn adds that ‘Within the entire farm system, a number of structural features and tactical management approaches are combined. Organic farming systems are land-based; specific breeding techniques, shelters and nutrition interact with breed selection and herd management; and animal welfare standards are generally higher than comparable conventional systems’.

It’s true, eating organic costs more. Often too much more, due to speculation that is concentrated in the distribution phase. And it is therefore essential to promote in Italy today the democratization of organic, as we have already written. It is also true that the rules can be improved and tightened, as in fact is already happening. (7) But information-even in print, and all the more so in generalist newspapers-must be truthful, transparent, complete.

Dario Dongo, Roberto Pinton and Giulia Torre

Notes

(1)

http://www.lastampa.it/2018/04/27/blogs/pianeta-cibo/carne-sicuri-che-bio-sia-meglio-9J5LKGlbZaqMotEh8hJdTK/pagina.html

(2) V. reg. EC 834/07

, at

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0834&from=IT

, reg. EC 889/2008 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008R0889&qid=1525620906605&from=IT