November 16, 2015
HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Sustainable agricultural development for food
security and nutrition, including the role of livestock
We commend the CFS HLPE in tackling the issue of livestock, food security and sustainable
agriculture development. We believe, however, the draft report falsely assumes that increased
industrial livestock operations are a necessary component of feeding the world. The reality is
that we already produce enough food for close to 10 billion people on the planet today.1 While
we will need to increase food in some regions, efforts to enhance food security should focus
primarily on supporting small-scale farmers and agroecological farming systems and shifting
diets in developed countries towards more plants and less meat through nutrition and
procurement policies, a trend that we are already seeing today in many Western countries. 2
While meat consumption will inevitably grow in many developing nations, we must pursue
effective strategies and policies to ensure that meat consumption levels per capita in developing
countries remain far below the typical western diet, and that there is wider availability of meat
raised under healthier and more sustainable conditions. Finally, a stronger focus on waste
reduction would also reduce the need to expand meat and grain production for factory-farmed
animals.
Specifically, our recommendations emphasize the following points:
1. Food security and nutrition (FSN) can best be achieved by supporting small and midsized farmers and agroecological farming systems, rather than intensive production
practices, which require significant chemical and water intensive inputs and generate
significant air and water pollution.
2. Reduced meat consumption offers large GHG mitigation and health advantages.
3. Developed nations’ consumers are already demanding meat alternatives.
4. There must be greater emphasis on harmful health impacts associated with
industrialized animal production systems, especially irresponsible antibiotic use, growth
hormones, and cancer and dioxin risks.
5. Report should highlight health benefits of pastured/grass-fed meat and
organic/agroecologically produced food.
1. SMALL-SCALE AGROECOLOGICAL FARMING SYSTEMS ARE THE SOLUTION
Far from feeding the world, today’s industrial food system — backed by agribusinessfriendly trade and agriculture policies — accelerates global poverty and hunger through its
exploitation of workers and displacement of farmers. Our dominant food system prioritizes
mass-scale livestock and monoculture crop production, processed foods, biofuels and exports
— all of which undermine small producers, public health and the growth of local, diversified and
resilient farming communities. Ironically, millions of small farmers face some of the highest rates
of poverty and hunger.3
As the world grapples with how to feed 9 billion people by 2050, overwhelming evidence
shows that large-scale industrial food and farming practices are a major part of the problem, not
the solution. Our industrial food system — based on monocultures and factory farms, genetically
engineered seeds, and chemical pesticides and fertilizers — is rapidly depleting and degrading
our soil, land and water.4 This food system is compromising resources that are essential for our
future food security, while contributing to a major obesity epidemic and health care crisis that is
costing the world hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Agroecology provides a powerful solution — highly productive food systems that can
amply feed the world while reducing fossil fuel use, saving water, restoring soils and building
vitally needed carbon. A growing body of research, including a recent 2014 UC Berkeley metaanalysis, shows that diversified organic agriculture and agroecology systems are highly
productive and can deliver yields just below or in some cases on par with industrial
agriculture.5 Impressive research from the USDA shows that agroecological grain production,
using fewer synthetic chemicals, can match or exceed U.S. industrial grain yields — particularly
over the long term — while providing equal or higher profits to farmers.6
When produced on a smaller, more sustainable scale, animal agriculture can reduce
emissions. Pastured and grass-fed livestock require less feed and enable manure to become a
fertilizer, rather than a pollutant. As the USDA notes, pastured operations return manure directly
to the soil rather than storing it in huge vats, producing fewer methane emissions. Permanent,
properly managed grazing grasslands used as pastures, rangelands and hayfields can store
great amounts of much-needed carbon, building climate resiliency and reducing GHG
emissions.
Comments
“In terms of food availability at the global level, agriculture, including livestock, has recorded
impressive progress in production over time, due to a combination of economic development,
advances in technology, knowledge and improved management along the supply chain. This
increased production has mostly occurred through specialization, intensification, industrialization
and economies of scale that depend increasingly on inputs often grown outside the farm,
including animal feed from the crop sector and non-renewable sources of energy.” (pg 9)
See comments above.
“The needed increase in agricultural production (including livestock) offers a huge opportunity to
lift smallholders out of poverty.” (pg 13)
Lifting smallholders out of poverty requires systemic changes, including support for the
millions of small-scale farmers worldwide who produce 70 percent of our food on 25
percent of farmland.7 Rather than increasing agricultural production, poverty reduction
can be alleviated through technical assistance for small-scale farmers, protection against
land grabs, and building climate resiliency through diversified, agroecological farming.
Research published in the Journal of Peasant Studies shows that diversified Cuban
farms exhibited crop losses fifty percent lower than neighboring monoculture farms
during negative climate conditions, while showing a faster productive recovery. 8
“Second, by facilitating the correction of nutrient deficiencies and addressing undernutrition. For
this increase in access to animal-sourced foods, livestock numbers need to increase, but so too
will the productivity of these animals, the latter being particularly important if natural resources
(particularly water) are to be used wisely, and environmental pressures and greenhouse gas
emissions are to be mitigated.” (pg 26)
While animal food products in small quantities may be necessary in developing nations
for FSN, these needs can be satisfied through integrated livestock-crop farming systems.
This section fails to account for the negative externalities of the large-scale industrial
livestock sector (i.e. water pollution, grain dependence, corporate consolidation) as well
as its tendency to lead to overproduction of livestock. A new UN Food and Agriculture
Report, puts the cost of the environmental damage from agro-industrial production at
$3.36 trillion annually, including $1.1 trillion in costs from livestock production.9 The
same report finds that organic and agroecological alternatives, such as holistic grazing,
greatly diminish these costs and can provide a path forward that more effectively
sustains both humans and the planet.
“The WDR makes the case for liberalization of agricultural markets – domestically and globally –
as an important means of revitalizing the sector in support of development and FSN. It notes, for
example, that access to world priced imports of food staples can be pro-poor, including for
smallholder agricultural producers who are net buyers of food. Similarly, removal of export
restrictions on food, often intended to dampen prices in local markets, can hamper access of
poor farmers to valuable export market opportunities and noting two-thirds of agricultural value
added is in developing countries.” (pg 14)
Liberalizing trade regimes such as the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA only prioritize industrial
production of export commodities while eroding public investments in small-scale
diversified farming for local and regional consumption.10 These regimes promote inputintensive agriculture, pushing millions of farmers deep into debt, causing mass farm
closures, poverty and migration.11
“The world is only able to support its present population because of the “green revolution”,
which was driven by innovations in plant breeding, including mutation breeding, fertilizer and
pest control.” (pg 48)
Others have noted that the “green revolution” actually led to environmental damage,
reductions in biodiversity, loss of traditional knowledge, deep debt for poor smallholders
and increased farm consolidation for the wealthier farmers.12 Furthermore, this analysis
of the green revolution fails to account for an alternative scenario, in which more
research and development could have been invested in agroecological solutions. Any
modest yield gaps that do exist from industrial agriculture result primarily from a huge
gap in public-funded research. In the US, less than 2% of agricultural research spending
focuses on improving and expanding organic farming.13
“At the same time, opponents are concerned about currently unknown harmful effects, the
escape of genetically modified organisms into the environment and the transfer of allergens into
new foods (Buiatti et al., 2013).” (pg 48)
Agribusiness has pushed biotech crops in developing nations as a solution for hunger
and drought – but it has failed in many cases, a Cornell University study found.14
Analysis by the Australian government found that “crops genetically engineered for
drought tolerance have not been found to outperform traditional varieties.”15 Most GMO
crops, including corn, soy and cotton, are grown primarily for animal feed, biofuels, fiber
or ingredients for processed foods — and thus fail to address the root causes of hunger
or deliver healthful benefits to consumers.
“In a world of increasing competition for the scarce natural resources on which agricultural
production depends, meeting future demands for FSN requires improving the efficiency of
current use of inputs rather than expanding land and water inputs.” (pg 48)
See comments above.
“For example, industrial, intensive livestock operations tend to be efficient in production, but
sometimes at the expense of water pollution and the welfare of animals, and depend on
feedstuffs from the crop sector, with knock-on environmental effects. Extensive livestock
operations tend to depend on pasture and conserve land at risk from erosion vulnerability, but
sometimes at the expense of productive efficiency.” (pg 65)
As noted in our comments above, production efficiency is only one of many factors to be
considered when looking at FSN. For example, pasture-raised livestock not only
conserve land, but also offers increased carbon sequestration benefits,16 not to mention
improved farmer livelihoods and decreased water pollution. To quote a Nature published
paper, “When appropriately stocked and managed, grassland–ruminant ecosystems are
an efficient, sustainable method of producing high-quality protein with minimal
environmental impacts.”17
2. REDUCED MEAT CONSUMPTION OFFERS LARGE GHG MITIGATION ADVANTAGES
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)’s recent 2014 report on agriculture and climate change mitigation notes
that reducing meat consumption would decrease non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions more
than technological mitigation options; combining both approaches would deliver even greater
GHG reductions.18 According to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the past IPCC chair, “In terms of
immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it
clearly is the most attractive opportunity. Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and
decrease it from there.”19
Comments
“The economic yield gap is accompanied by a similar environmental efficiency gap: numerous
studies have shown that ASF from animals reared in more intensive and specialized systems
have a relatively lower carbon footprint than those from extensive systems” (pg 48)
While many studies do find that intensive livestock systems have lower GHGs for enteric
fermentation, feed production, and manure management, those same studies do not
consider the carbon sequestration benefits of pasture based systems. Several studies
have found that when those sequestration benefits are accounted for, pasture based
systems can in fact lower overall GHG emissions.20,21,22,23 In any case, rather than
focusing on a singular issue, such as GHGs, it is important to consider the overall
environmental harm of intensive systems, and the potential environmental and economic
benefits of agroecological alternatives. Meat and dairy raised in sustainable, organic,
humane and well-managed pasture-based systems can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, increase climate resiliency, protect natural resources and enhance soil and
water quality24,25,26 biodiversity, and pollinator health.27 These practices also improve
public health and provide safer conditions for workers. Furthermore, as grass-fed
pastures are often not suitable to intensive crop production, these systems can use
marginal land to actually increase food security. All these factors should be taken into
account.
3.3.1 GHG emissions from the livestock sector (pg 52)
This section is missing the large GHG benefits from encouraging reduced livestock
consumption.
“Mitigation (reduction or prevention) of the sector’s emissions could be achieved by a reduction
in production and/or consumption, by an increase in production efficiency, or by shifting the
structure of production towards less emission-intensive animal food types.” (pg 62)
This section could further stress the effects of consumption change on mitigation (see
footnotes 18 and 19 in the section above).
3. DEVELOPED NATIONS’ CONSUMERS ARE DEMANDING MEAT ALTERNATIVES
The report’s focus on increasing livestock production fails to note that developed nations — who
currently over-consume meat and animal products — are beginning to shift towards more
nutritionally and environmentally sound plant-based diets. Research suggests that 36 percent of
U.S. consumers prefer milk and meat alternatives and that between 26 and 41 percent of
Americans have eaten less meat over the past year.28 In fact, many food service providers are
aware of these trends and ready to provide such options. One Datassential study found that,
“reducing the portion size of animal protein on menus is expected by nearly half of operators to
increase the healthfulness of the entrees, and by over a third to increase the culinary innovation
involved with the dishes.”29 The same survey found that meals with animal protein as a garnish,
rather than as a central portion, appeal to half of consumers; and more than seventy percent of
consumers were concerned about transparency in food sourcing.
Comments:
Projections (pg. 13)
Implicit in these projections are that total global meat/animal product consumption will
increase significantly — a scenario that does not have to happen.
“As diets become richer and more diverse, the livestock sector offers improvements to the
nutrition of the vast majority of the world. Livestock products not only provide high-value protein
but also are important sources of a wide range of essential micronutrients, in particular minerals
such as iron and zinc, and vitamins such as vitamin A. By providing essential nutrients,
especially in the critical first 1 000 days from conception, animal-sourced foods can help ensure
normal physical and cognitive development. Well-nourished and well-educated children can
grow up to be healthy young adults who are able to realize their full potential and contribute to
family income-earning and national development. On the other hand, diets rich in livestock
products, in particular red meats, are implicated in rising health concerns in some countries,
although the scientific evidence and nutritional guidance has often changed through time and
can be confusing to consumers.” (pg 28)
This paragraph should open with the acknowledgement that, in developed countries,
industrially produced livestock food products are often implicated in some of the most
pressing chronic health problems. High consumption of industrially produced meat,
especially red and processed meat, is associated with increased risks of diet-related
disease, including heart disease,30 diabetes31 and cancer.32 U.S. government guidance on
need to consume less meat is clear. The 2010 USDA/HHS guidelines recommend no more
than 1.8 ounce servings a day of red meat).33 It should also be emphasized that a plantbased diet is a nutritionally appropriate alternative that is beneficial to the health of
people and the environment. The USDA,34 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,35 and other
top health organizations agree that a well-planned vegetarian or vegan diet can provide
all necessary nutrients and protein required for a healthy diet. And importantly plantbased diets are associated with decreased risks of all heart disease, diabetes and
some cancers.36
Claims that red meat and processed meats are “nutrient dense” are misleading because they
ignore all the harmful components of industrially produced meat:
4a. ANTIBIOTICS
The industrial system of food animal production is putting human health at risk due to misuse of
vital antibiotics. Seventy to eighty percent of antibiotics sold37 in the United States go toward
livestock production. These drugs are often used to accelerate animal growth and prevent
diseases stemming from poor diets and crowded, unsanitary conditions, rather than for
treatment of sick animals.38 In its 2013 report Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States,
the CDC states: “Up to half of antibiotic use in humans and much of antibiotic use in animals is
unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe.”39
Comments:
“Livestock production and products also carry important health risks, especially in terms of foodborne disease, emerging diseases and occupational hazards. There are also social concerns
such as human health, animal care and industrialization associated with livestock, with
attendant social and economic costs.” (pg 8)
Antibiotic resistance should be included as a health risk.
“Risks in an interconnected world” (pg 50)
Antibiotic resistance should be included as a health risk.
4b. GROWTH HORMONES
Industrial meat production, specifically in the United States, relies heavily on the use of growth
hormones and growth promoters in beef, pork and turkey production to fatten animals as quickly
as possible with the least amount of feed. While this can be economically advantageous for
meat companies and producers, it also may pose serious risks to humans, animals and the
environment.40 Numerous studies have found potential links between zeranol (a growth
hormone) intake and heightened risk for breast cancer.41
4c. CANCER RISKS
There is strong evidence that diets high in red meat (beef, pork, lamb) and processed meat (hot
dogs, bacon, sausage, deli meats, etc.) increase the risk for colorectal cancer.42 Many
epidemiologic studies have reported a modest but significant association between high intakes
of processed meats and red meats and increases in cancer incidence and mortality in a doseresponse relationship, as well as death from other causes.43,44 Both the American Institute for
Cancer Research (AICR)’s Recommendations for Cancer Prevention and the American Cancer
Society’s guidelines mention the importance of nutrition, including reduced red and processed
meat, and physical activity for cancer prevention.45
In contrast, plant-based diets are associated with decreased risks of all heart disease,
diabetes and some cancers. 46
4d. DIOXIN RISKS
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 95 percent of our exposure to cancercausing dioxin like compounds (DLC) come from meat, dairy, fish and shellfish.47 The Food and
Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, World Health Organization and National
Academy of Sciences all agree that the best way to lower personal dioxin levels is to reduce
dietary exposure to dioxins by lowering animal fat intake and increasing consumption of fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains.48
5. HEALTH BENEFITS OF GRASS-FED/PASTURED MEAT
When consumed in moderation, responsibly raised meat and animal products can bring health
benefits. Grass-fed and pastured meat and dairy provide a dense source for many of the
shortfall nutrients identified in the DGAC’s report recommendations, including calcium, iron, and
A, E, and B vitamins. Grass-fed meat is leaner than that produced in the grain-fed commodity
system and, in the case of both meat and dairy, the fat profile is healthier than that of its grain
fed counterparts. A 2010 review of three decades of research found that grass-fed beef
provides higher levels of nutrients, including Omega-3 fats, beta-carotene, conjugated linoleic
acid and Vitamin E than grain-fed beef.49 A 2013 study published in PLoS ONE found that
grass-fed organic dairy has far higher levels of Omega-3 fats than grain-fed dairy.50
REFERENCES
1
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_
Billion_People__and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger
2
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/Vegan-is-going-mainstream-trend-data-suggests
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/Young-Germans-embrace-meat-reduction
3
http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report.p
df
4
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Final_Natural_Capital_I
mpacts_in_Agriculture_-_Supporting_Better_Business_Descision-Making_v5.0.pdf
5
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1799/20141396
6
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047149#pone-0047149-g003
7
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Coping_with_food_and_
agriculture_challenge__Smallholder_s_agenda_Final.pdf
https://www.grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small-farmers-feed-the-world-withless-than-a-quarter-of-all-farmland
8
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2010.538584#abstract
9
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Final_Natural_Capital_I
mpacts_in_Agriculture_-_Supporting_Better_Business_Descision-Making_v5.0.pdf
ity of Michigan note. Hit by climate volatility, industrial farming systems “may experience lower
productivity, higher vulnerability”
ty, and reduced sustainability
Research in the American Journal of Alternative Agriculture found that organic soils hold in
more water than conventional plots, allowing for yields that are less affected by drought periods.
D.W. Letter, R
12
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty/#fn1
13
http://food.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/JAFSCD_Closing_Knowledge_Gap_Commentary_Sept-2013.pdf
14
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.031405.091314
15
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/3/183.full.pdf+html
16
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749101002238
17
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01014.html
18
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Ch. 11: Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use (AFOLU).
19
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink
20
Pelletier N, Pirog R, Rasmussen R. (2010) Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of
three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems
103(6):380-389.
21
https://kb.wisc.edu/dairynutrient/375fsc/page.php?id=48431
22
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk.
23
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749101002238
24
Poudel DD, Horwath WR, Lanini WT, Temple SR, van Bruggen AHC. (2002). Comparison of
soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in organic, low-input and
conventional farming systems in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
25
Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Kristensen IS. (1998). Can organic farming help to reduce N-losses?
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.
26
Bulluck LR, Brosius M, Evanylo GK, Ristaino JB. (2002). Organic and synthetic fertility
amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and
conventional farms. Applied Soil Ecology.
27
Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, Ahnström J, Turnbull LA, Bengtsson J. (2014). Land-use
intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Ecology.
28
Crawford, E. (2015, March 17). Vegan-is-going-mainstream-trend-data-suggests. Retrieved
September 14, 2015, from http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/Vegan-is-goingmainstream-trend-data-suggests.
29
http://www.menusofchange.org/images/uploads/pdf/CIAHarvard_MenusofChange_AnnualReport_2015a1.pdf
30
Pan A1, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB.
(2012) Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results from 2 Perspective Cohort Studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412075
31
Pan A., Sun Q., Bernstein A. M., Schulze M. B., Manson J. E., Willett W. C., et al. (2011). Red
meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated metaanalysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
32
Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, et al. (2007) A Prospective
Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk. PLoS Med.
33
USDA and HHS (2010), Dietary Guidelines for Americans
USDA, Healthy Eating Tips. http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ten-tips-healthy-eating-forvegetarians
35
Craig WJ, Mangels AR. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian
diets. J Am Diet Assoc.
36
Tuso P, Ismail M, Ha B, and Brolotto C. 2013. Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based
Diets. Perm J. Spring; 17(2): 61–66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
37
The Pew Charitable Trusts. “Record-High Antibiotic Sales for Meat and Poultry Production.”
Accessed online, April 7, 2015, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/newsroom/news/2013/02/06/recordhigh-antibiotic-sales-for-meat-and-poultry-production.
38
Khachatourians, G. Agricultural Use of Antibiotics and the Evolution and Transfer of
Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Canadian Medical Association Journal 159 (1998): 1129-1136.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1229782/ ; Jukes, T. The Present Status and
Background of Antibiotics in the Feeding of Domestic Animals. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 182 (1971): 362-379.
39
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf
40
Newbold, R. & Heindel, J. (2010). Developmental exposures and implications for early and
latent disease. InT.J. Woodruff, S. J. Janssen, L.J. Guillette, Jr, L.C. Giudice. (Eds),
Environmental Impacts of Reproductive Health and Fertility. (92-102). New York: Cambridge
University Press. ; Diamanti-Kandarakis, E., Bourguignon, J.P., Giudice, L.C., Hauser, R.,
Prins, G.S., Soto, A.S., Zoeller, R.T., & A.C. Gore (2009). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: an
Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocrine Review, 30(4), 293. doi: 10.1210/er.20090002..
41
Belhassen, H., Jiménez-Díaz, I., Arrebola, J., et al. (2015). Zearalenone and its metabolites in
urine and breast cancer risk: A case-control study in Tunisia. Chemosphere, 128, 1-6. 30(4)
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.055; Lin, Y., Liu, J., Lin, S., et al. (2010). Zeranol may
increase the risk of leptin-induced neoplasia in human breast. Oncology Letters, 2(1).
doi: 10.3892/ol.2010.214; Xu, P., Ye, W., Jen, R., et al. (2015). Mitogenic activity of zeranol in
human breast cancer cells is enhanced by leptin and suppressed by gossypol. Anticancer
Research, 29(11). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20032412.
42
World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Continuous Update
Project Report. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer.
2011.
43
Kushi LH, Doyle C, McCullough M, et al. American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition
and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer With Healthy Food
Choices and Physical Activity. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 30-67.
44
Sinha R, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, Leitzmann MF, Schatzkin A. Meat intake and mortality: a
prospective study of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169:562-571.
45
Kushi, L. H., Doyle, C., McCullough, M., Rock, C. L., Demark‐Wahnefried, W., Bandera, E. V.,
... & Gansler, T. (2012). American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity
for cancer prevention. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62 (1), 30-67.
46
Tuso P, Ismail M, Ha B, and Brolotto C. 2013. Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based
Diets. Perm J. Spring; 17(2): 61–66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
47
Food and Drug Administration, A Veterinarian Newsletter July/August 2000 Volume XV, No IV
48
Federal Interagency Working Group on Dioxin, Questions and Answers about Dioxins, July
2000
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/dioxin%20questions%20and%20answers.pdf
49
Daley CA, Abbott A, Doyle PS, Nader GA, Larson S. (2010). A review of fatty acid profiles
and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal.
34
50
Benbrook CM, Butler G, Latif MA, Leifert C, Davis DR. (2013). Organic Production Enhances
Milk Nutritional Quality by Shifting Fatty Acid Composition: A United States-Wide, 18-Month
Study. PLoS One.