By The Fishmonger
The Fishmonger was appalled to read that fake meat products (also known as cell-cultivated meat products) were being trialed on school children through the various breakfast and lunch programs offered in the USA.
Fortunately, the news of this incredibly shocking behavior has found its way to the U.S. Senate and two Senators, Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), have now introduced legislation that would ban fake meat products from being served in school lunches through the School Lunch Integrity Act of 2024 and will prohibit the use of cell-cultivated meat under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP).
The NSLP is the federally assisted meal program in public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions. It serves over 4.9 billion lunches annually to over 30 million
children in about 100,000 schools.
An interesting aside is that Tester is the Senate’s only working farmer and has led the charge to support Montana ranchers and increase competition for American family farms and ranches. Last year, Tester introduced bipartisan legislation to ban Paraguayan beef imports and suspend Brazilian beef imports until experts can systematically review the commodity’s impact on food safety and animal health.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has been continually questioned by Tester on suspending Brazilian beef imports to the U.S. and addressing consolidation in theag industry, citing that JBS – one of the four big packers controlling more than 80 percent of the beef industry – is based in Brazil. Who is doing that for seafood in the corridors of power where you live?
Supported by environmental activists, many companies globally, have started to research and produce cell-cultivated protein. It is reported that the first cell-cultivated protein product was generated in 2013, and it has become a popular scientific exercise to develop fake meat/protein products. These doctor-developed products aim to eliminate the need to raise livestock.
There can be no doubt that recent actions by these groups under mine the vital work of all livestock producers.
Commentators have advised that The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued grants of inspection for cell-cultured meat production, allowing two companies to produce cell-cultivated chicken products but they have yet to issue any guidance on cell-cultivated protein in the NSLP and the SPB. Clearly, a lack of demonstrated research on cell-cultivated protein raises several questions about the safety of these products.
Parents, you need to be checking that your children are not being used in guinea pig trials you have not approved!
Senator Rounds said, “Our students should not be test subjects for cell-cultivated ‘meat’ experiments. South Dakota farmers and ranchers work hard to produce high-quality beef (and protein) products. These products are often sold to South Dakota schools, where they provide the necessary nutrition to our students. With high-quality, local protein readily available for our students, there’s no reason to serve fake, lab-grown meat products in the cafeteria. I’m pleased to introduce this bipartisan legislation that benefits South Dakota producers and protects students from the unknown effects of cell-cultivated ‘meat’ products.”
“Montana ranchers grow the best meat in the world, that’s a fact – and our students ought to be getting the best in their school breakfasts and lunches daily,” said Tester. “This commonsense bill will ensure our schools can serve real meat from our ranchers, not a fake substitute grown in a lab.”
As you would expect, the legislation is endorsed by the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, R-CALF USA, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and South Dakota Pork Producers.
“The claim that cell-cultivated meat grown in a laboratory is as safe and healthful as real, natural meat has not yet been definitively determined,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA. “So, subjecting children to this nascent, scientific experiment is bad public policy. We applaud Senator Rounds’ bill to ensure our children and grand children will not be encouraged to consume this controversial and un natural product at school.”
Ethan Lane, Vice President of Government Affairs at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, was reported as saying, “The federal government should not allow lab-grown protein in school lunch and break fast programs without knowing the long-term health effects on children. The lack of nutrition and allergen research related to lab-grown proteins creates unnecessary risks for children, while traditional beef provides essential nutrients that provide health benefits to children. School cafeterias are not test labs, and we appreciate Senator Rounds and Senator Tester for standing up for our children and cattle producers.”
The Fishmonger asks you these questions – as aquafarmers and others engaged in the seafood chain, what are your children or grandchildren eating? Are you getting seafood on their plates and making it a key stone of the weekly home menu? If you are not, are you failing as a parent or aquafarmer?
“The Fishmonger still hears some doctors warn pregnant women against eating seafood – this needs to change and change quickly. Of course, to be cautious, pregnant women have critical advisories about some species, raw seafood, and some cooked seafood. There are many options outside those that present incredible outcomes for mother and baby.”
Anyone in doubt should obtain a copy of the Joe Hibbeln-inspired study (Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevel opmental outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study by Joseph R Hibbeln et al), which highlights that despite sea food being the predominant source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential for optimum neural development that women in USA are advised to limit their seafood intake during pregnancy to 340 g per week. Joe and his team used the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) to assess the possible benefits and hazards to a child’s development of different levels of maternal seafood intake during pregnancy.
“Nearly twelve thousand pregnant women completed a food frequency questionnaire assessing seafood consumption at 32 weeks gestation.”
The findings were that maternal seafood intake during pregnancy of less than 340 g per week was associated with an increased risk of their children being in the lowest quartile for verbal intelligence quotient (I.Q.), compared with mothers who consumed more than 340 g per week.
Low maternal seafood intake was also associated with an increased risk of suboptimum outcomes for prosocial behavior, fine motor, communication, and social development scores. For each outcome measure, the lower the intake of seafood during pregnancy, the higher the risk of sub optimum developmental outcome.
“Maternal seafood consumption of less than 340 g per week in pregnancy did not protect children from adverse outcomes; instead, they recorded beneficial effects on child development with maternal seafood intakes of more than 340 g per week, suggesting that advice to limit seafood consumption could be detrimental.”
These results show that risks from the loss of nutrients were more significant than the risks of harm from exposure to trace contaminants in 340 g of seafood eaten weekly.
The Fishmonger notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) encourages parents to dish up more fish for their kids. Their last technical report, “Fish, Shellfish, and Children’s Health: An Assessment of Benefits, Risks, and Sustainability,” outlines evidence of the health advantages of eating fish while helping pediatricians point parents to the safest sources. Fish, the report states, should be a welcome part of a child’s diet.
They report that in addition to being protein-dense with no saturated fat or sugar, many types of fish are high in vitamin D and calcium, and many are a rich source of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which are used by the body to build nerve cells in the brain and eyes. Seafood consumption may improve infant neurodevelopment and decrease cardiovascular disease risk. A growing body of research shows that introducing fish early in a child’s diet may even help prevent allergic diseases such as asthma and eczema.
Lead author Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, FAAP, an executive committee member of the AAP Council on Environmental Health, reportedly said, “For families who eat meat, fish should be a welcome part of a child’s diet. We encourage pediatricians to ask families about fish and shellfish consumption −since most children don’t eat much beyond the occasional fish sticks/fingers− and advise them on the healthiest choices.”
“It should be noted that U.S. children’s seafood consumption has declined yearly since 2007. The main reason, the report outlined, was that many families avoid feeding their children fish, and women avoid it during pregnancy because of the scare tactics of environmentalist agitators in promoting the idea of methylmercury pollution. Seriously, how many people has this impacted?”
No one could argue that eating contaminated fish could harm a child’s developing nervous system. Mercury is a naturally occurring metal released into the air primarily by burning coal and some types of mining. When it settles into water, bacteria convert mercury into a more dangerous form, methylmercury. Methylmercury can build up in fish–typically those that eat other fish and live longer. These tend to be larger ocean species, such as sharks, swordfish, and orange roughy, but freshwater fish also can contain mercury, depending on where it is caught.
However, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency guidance, the AAP says exposure to mercury in fish can easily be minimized or avoided. The agencies recommend that pregnant or breastfeeding children and women eat 1-2 weekly servings of a variety of fish among the choices identified. Families who eat freshwater fish they catch locally should check advisories and limit servings to once a week if the body of water where they fish is not monitored.
Dr. Bernstein said learning about different types of fish and shellfish and adding more of it to children’s diets should be a goal of every family, adding, “For most types of seafood, the nutritional benefits far outweigh the risks.”
Despite the favorable nutritional and sustainability profile of fish and shellfish, children in the United States eat relatively little compared to other animal protein sources, and seafood consumption by children has declined to levels not seen since the early 1980s.
Evidence suggests that federal mercury advisories on fish consumption pushed people away from eating fish in general and canned tuna in particular. Evidence based expert guidance has essentially advised that seafood should be more prominent in the American (read global) diet. And yet it seems okay to serve cell-cultivated food to school children!
The Scientific Report of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, has stated, “The Commit tee concurs with the Joint WHO/FAO Consultancy that, for the majority of commercial wild and farmed species, neither the perceived risks of mercury nor organic pollutants outweigh the health benefits of seafood consumption, such as decreased cardiovascular disease risk and improved infant neurodevelopment.”
The Fishmonger will be talking more about seafood consumption, food security and nutrition, and other vital issues at Aqua Farm 2024 (www.aquacultureconference.com.au), the event occurs at SeaWorld, an excellent place for families/kids – see you there!
References and sources consulted by the author on the elaboration of this article are available under previous request to our editorial staff.
