Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues, released a video criticizing new research by University of California Berkeley professor Dr. Tyrone Hayes alleging endocrine disruption in amphibians caused by the popular herbicide atrazine.

“For the last ten years I’ve been watching closely the research and activism of Dr. Tyrone Hayes from the University of California – Berkley. And for ten years Dr. Hayes has tried to claim that atrazine is an eminent threat to amphibian populations because it feminizes frogs at some, but not all, concentrations,” says Avery.

Avery points out that Dr. Hayes’ research is flawed due to the small sample size of the experiment. He cites several recent papers that have used sample sizes much larger and allowed the EPA full access to their research that contradict Hayes’ research, finding no impact on feminization of males. Avery goes on to criticize Dr. Hayes for releasing his findings “via press release orchestrated by environmental organizations instead of doing research by the book without bias.

We have to weigh one or the other. I don’t think Dr. Hayes has really stepped up to the plate. He continues to do research that according to the EPA is ‘insufficient’and ‘scientifically flawed.’  They [the EPA] also complain that Dr. Hayes would not share his raw data.

Finally Avery addresses Dr. Hayes research directly, asking if his research is correct then frog populations in areas where atrazine has long been used would not be thriving as many are today. He also refers to a Yale University study which found frogs in urban areas having more of a feminization problem than rural areas, where atrazine is used.

Hudson InstituteCenter For Global Food Issues
Alex Avery And Dennis Avery
November 26, 2007
Click here to view the entire paper.

New Beef Eco-Report: Pound-for-pound, beef produced with grains and growth hormones produces 40% less greenhouse gas emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to organic grass-fed beef.

To reach these startling conclusions, analysts at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues used beef production models from Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions estimates from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC).

More than 95% of beef produced in the United States is raised on grain-based diets in feedlots, using supplemental growth hormones, both natural and synthetic. The report details the extensive human and environmental safety requirements for the use of supplemental hormones on feedlots, as well as the growing body of environmental monitoring studies showing no significant negative impacts from their use. Instead, the data show major environmental benefits of this production system: Saving 2/3rds more land for nature and producing 40% fewer greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef produced.

The use of supplemental hormones in beef production has been deemed safe for humans by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, the World Health Organization, the Codex Alimentarius Committee of the World Trade Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and a conference of expert toxicologists established by the European Agriculture Commission.

The first-of-its-kind analysis compared the land costs and greenhouse gas emissions of organic grass-based beef with conventional grain-finished beef. The findings are particularly relevant in light of a UN Food and Agriculture Organization report published last summer estimating that beef and dairy production are responsible for 18% of all human greenhouse gas emissions.

“Environmentally conscious consumers who have been told that grass-raised beef is more environmentally sensitive and sustainable should rethink their beef purchases in light of our findings,” says lead author Alex Avery, director of research at the Center.

Executive Summary

Growth promoting hormones are a key component of North American beef production. Their use over the past 50+ years (since 1956) has proven beneficial not only to beef producers, but to consumers and the environment, who benefit from lower costs and more efficient use of scarce natural resources. In short, they allow us to achieve the old Yankee maxim of producing more from less.

Every food safety authority that has examined their use and the resulting beef products have found them to be both safe and wholesome, helping to produce an overall leaner beef supply with minimal residues of no practical health consequence. This assessment is shared not only by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States and Health Canada, but also by the Codex Alimentarius Committee of the World Trade Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and even a conference established by the European Agriculture Commission.

There are six hormones approved for use in beef production in more than 30 countries. Three of these are natural, three synthetic. The three natural hormones (testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone) have been deemed completely safe for use in beef production, are a natural part of all mammalian physiology, and are released into the environment at levels well within natural ranges. Their use is uncontroversial.

The three synthetic growth enhancing hormones are melengestrol acetate (MGA), trenbolone acetate (TBA), and zeranol. These are more stable analogs of the three natural hormones. All three of these synthetic hormones enter the environment predominantly in the same way as the natural: via cattle waste. All three have undergone extensive eco-safety assessments, including worst-case estimates of their levels in cattle waste, runoff from cattle feedlots, and runoff from land on which the waste has been applied. In addition, there is a growing body of science regarding their fate in real-world environments.

But beyond this reassuring history, there are enormous environmental benefits to be gained from use of these products. Increased feed use efficiency, reduced land requirements, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef produced have all been conclusively demonstrated.

Comparing conventional beef production to an alternative grass-based beef production system using an economic/production model created by scientists at Iowa State University shows that growth promoting hormones and ionophores decrease the land required to produce a pound of beef by two thirds, with fully one fifth of this gain resulting from growth enhancing pharmaceuticals. Whereas grass-based organic beef requires more than 5 acre-days to produce a pound of beef, less than 1.7 acre days are needed in a grain-fed feedlot system using growth promotants.

Grain feeding combined with growth promotants also results in a nearly 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) per pound of beef compared to grass feeding (excluding nitrous oxides), with growth promotants accounting for fully 25 percent of the emissions reductions.

In short, growth promoting implants safely and responsibly allow humanity to produce more beef from less feed, using less land, and creating less waste.

This short YouTube friendly video addresses consumer concerns about food choice from the International Food Information Council Foundation(IFIC). This humorous and entertaining look at how food is grown and produced is aimed at those who are uncertain about the differences between organic, biotechnology and conventional food production methods. Narrated by an improv comic, and featuring interviews with nutrition and food safety experts and the “person on the street,” the clip aims to assure consumers that the only choice that matters is the healthful, nutritious one.

“What’s for Lunch” from IFIC

International Food Information Council Foundation posts humorous school lunch video in popular You Tube space.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) February 19, 2008 — Introducing “What’s for Lunch?,” a short YouTube friendly video that addresses consumer concerns about food choice from the International Food Information Council Foundation(IFIC). This humorous and entertaining look at how food is grown and produced is aimed at those who are uncertain about the differences between organic, biotechnology and conventional food production methods. Narrated by an improv comic, and featuring interviews with nutrition and food safety experts and the “person on the street,” the clip (aims to assure consumers that the only choice that matters is the healthful, nutritious one.

The IFIC Foundation is the educational arm of IFIC. IFIC’s mission is to communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition to health and nutrition professionals, educators, journalists, government officials and others providing information to consumers. IFIC is supported primarily by the broad-based food, beverage and agricultural industries.

Read Full Release

Dennis Avery will be speaking on January 21st at 9:40 AM at the Fertilizer Latin America Conference.   http://www.fertilizerlatinamericaconference.crugroup.com The conference is the leading annual event for the Latin American fertilizer industry and is being organized by British Sulphur Events.  The primary focus of this 19th annual conference is on the supply and utilization of fertilizers in promoting agricultural development in all parts of Latin America and the Caribbean.

For further information please contact cruevents@crugroup.com or call +44 20 7903 2444

Center for Global Food Issues is proud to present our new website. We hope you enjoy the fresh new look.

The Center for Global Food Issues, Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug, Greenpeace Founder Dr. Patrick Moore and Syngenta Crop Protection were recently featured on WJMK TV’s American Environmental Review series hosted by 60 Minutes’ Morley Safer.

This nationally syndicated program is seen on public television stations in the U.S. and via Worldnet in over 100 countries. To view this program segment on high-yield conservation agriculture made possible by conservation tillage (also known as con-till or no-till) practices.

Conservation Tillage

This segment, hosted by Morley Safer of 60 Minutes, illustrates the safety of milk produced by rbST-supplemented cows and its benefits to farmers. Featuring interviews with dairy farmers, Cornell University’s Dale Bauman and Ruth Kava from the American Council on Science and Health, this video has great educational value.

American Farm Review Video Segment on the Use of Recombinant Somatotropin (rbST) in American Dairies