Buffalo: a supermeat!

I first discovered the buffalo burger when I was living in New York several years ago. It was in a diner of all places- not normally the kind of establishment where you expect to find new foods, but then, this was New York. On this particular visit to the Malibu Diner, there were table tents promoting the nutritional qualities of their buffalo burgers. Healthy burgers? I figured I'd have to try them. After one bite, I was hooked. High in protein, low in fat, and delicious (not at all like oft-bland turkey or chicken burgers); they quickly became a staple of my New York diet.



These days, when my food choices have as much to do with ethics as with health and taste, I am delighted to have discovered yet another reason to opt for buffalo meat. It turns out that bison, or American buffalo, are one of the most sustainably-raised meat sources in our country. Because they are native to North America, bison have co-evolved with the natural grasses that grow on prairie land. Consequently, they do not need (and are not administered) antibiotics or growth hormones in order to thrive. Furthermore, bison are gentler on the land than cattle, and they may even enhance the land; this article cites researchers who claim that bison-grazed prairie yields greater plant diversity than ungrazed land. Unlike cattle, bison are not domesticated: they graze on their native grasses and require lots of room to roam. Their grass preference contributes to their healthier, lower-fat nutritional profile.

When I was in Bozeman recently, the front page of the paper had an article about bison. (You've got to love that about Bozeman.) It turns out that Ted Turner is the largest bison rancher in the country, and that one of his ranches is just outside of Bozeman. Turner has a chain of restaurants called Ted's Montana Grill that specializes in all things buffalo. (The chain has not yet reached California, but those of you in New York should try the Rockefeller Center location at some point and let me know how it is). Ironically, there is not yet a Ted's Montana Grill in Montana, but that will change this summer, when Bozeman gets its own Ted's. Meanwhile, keep your eyes peeled when you're out at a restaurant, and taste some of that delicious, healthy, ethical goodness for yourself. In the Bay Area, you can try buffalo burgers at Pearl's, Buffalo Burger (you don't say!), or Bullshead Restaurant.

A note to home chefs: since buffalo is lower in fat than other meats, you have to take special care not to overcook it; otherwise, it will be dry and tasteless. The National Bison Association recommends cooking bison "slow and low"- that is, at low temperatures for lengthy periods. If you're making buffalo burgers, cook at medium heat for 4-6 minutes per side. You can find buffalo meat at any natural/organic grocery store, some farmer's markets, and the occasional forward-thinking "regular" grocery store (Ukrop's). Here's a link to some buffalo recipes to get you started!

Attack of the clones

The FDA has recently determined that "meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals." (Read the full press release here.) Until now, meat and dairy farmers had agreed not to sell any products that were from clones or offspring of clones. This latest decision clears the way for cloned beef, pork and dairy products to enter the food system. The FDA has also stated that food from cloned animals need not be labeled as such, because "food derived from these sources is no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals."

Frankly, this makes me squeamish. I can't pretend to challenge the science or methodology of the study, so I'll admit that my squeamishness may be entirely irrational. But there it is. I don't want to eat bacon from a cloned pig, or drink milk from a cloned cow. I just don't.

I fully support the use of cloning animals to develop cures or treatments for human ailments. I support cloning human embryos for the same purpose. But cloning for food? Isn't that a scenario out of some futuristic movie that nobody expects to come true?

My benign reaction is that, if we have reached the point of cloning animals in order to have enough meat or dairy products to feed ourselves, then as a society we are probably eating too much of those products. My more sinister reaction is that it is probably the large corporations who are behind the idea of cloning animals for use in the food supply. The FDA alludes to this, stating, "clones are intended to be used as elite breeding animals to introduce desirable traits into herds more rapidly than would be possible using conventional breeding." Hmmm. Elite breeding animals. So Harris Ranch finds the biggest, heartiest cow among the thousands of cows in its feedlots, and it clones that cow (as many times as it wants), giving it an endless supply of super-breeders of big, hearty cow DNA.

Seriously, this stuff makes me feel nauseated.

I'm curious about whether others feel the same way, or whether I'm overreacting. After all, cloning is standard practice in horticulture. We drink wine from grape clones. We eat apples from cloned apple trees. Why do I feel differently about milk and meat?

Cancerous red meat!

A new study has been published that finds a correlation between higher consumption of meat with a higher risk for a number of different cancers. (The study's findings were covered by many major news outlets; here's a link to one of them.) In addition to an increased risk of colon cancer (which was already known), red meat has now been linked to lung, liver, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers as well.

The media seem to love stories like this. With the rise of cancer rates in our society, we desperately need to find somewhere to point our fingers. It's the meat! No, the transfats! No, it's the Aspartame! the Teflon!

If we were to listen to every instance of "{insert food or behavior here} causes cancer" and change all of our behaviors accordingly, we would become fat-free, sugar-free vegan raw foodists.

And while that does sound enticing, I'll take some joy with my meal, thank you very much.

Buried in the study but not covered by the media outlets is the following point:

-The quintile with the highest red-meat intake (approx. 1/4 pound per day) also had the highest BMI (body mass index), the lowest number of servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and the lowest percentage of reported physical activity.

As far as I can tell from reading the study, the researchers did not control for any of these factors. (Smoking, on the other hand, was controlled for in the lung cancer findings.) In other words, although the researchers acknowledge the above characteristics of the biggest meat-eaters, they did not isolate any of these factors as possible contributors.

My answer then, is: everything in moderation. I don't think the meat-eaters among us have to worry too much about these dangerous cancers, any more than we should throw away our non-stick frying pans. Certainly most of us could stand to substitute a hearty lentil soup for a Porterhouse steak every now and then, but I don't think we need to become ascetics. If you can find balance in your life, by eating a variety of foods (including fruits and vegetables) in moderation, exercising (both the body and the mind) regularly, and getting enough sleep, I think you're probably doing as much as you should in order to stay well and happy.