Ground Beef - How To Find Top Quality, Great Tasting Burgers

A recent New York Times article on ground beef has led a lot of friends, colleagues, and clients to ask my thoughts on the issue.

It's great to see so many of us asking how our food system works but it is complicated territory. Most of you tell me you were disgusted to learn what goes into commodity ground beef, upset that some companies may have lax food safety standards, and looking for help. I've made it my job to develop a knowledge base on beef so let me attempt to sort through the myriad issues raised in the Times.

First, allow me to highlight an issue that is rarely raised. Outside of the sheer yuck factor, one very compelling reason to avoid eating commodity ground beef is that it has very little flavor. Per my earlier post, the reason is that large packers do not use flavor as a primary goal in the first place. Instead, their focus is cost control, to produce the lowest cost burgers that you're still willing to eat.

Why spend your hard-earned cash on a lame tasting burger?

But anyway, back to the issue at hand. The Times article raises three related but separate issues: the risk of food poisoning from contaminated meat, our inability to trace our meat back to the source, and the inclusion of "trimmings" that have been treated with ammonia.

The Bad News: With regard to food poisoning there is no fail-safe solution for any food including ground meat. Meat, vegetables, fruits... at some point all food comes from the earth and typically passes through many hands - including yours - before you eat it. No matter how carefully food is handled, there is a chance that a pathogen may get into your system.

The Good News: There is great tasting ground beef out there made from source-specific, quality ingredients and I can help you find it.

Now let's debunk a few myths.

Buy From Your Local Butcher. I am a huge fan of locally grown and processed meat. However, it's important to know that many meat cutters are buying their beef from the same sources as discussed in the Times. Also, being local doesn't automatically add up to pathogen-free.

Buy From A Farmer. Based on hundreds of taste tests I can say with great confidence that you are far more likely to get flavorful ground beef from any farm-specific purveyor whether online or offline. That's because farmers industrious enough to not only raise but also slaughter, process, and market their beef are likely to be preoccupied by flavor and texture, not just yield.

Unfortunately, knowing the farmer's name does not ensure pathogen-free meat or a fabulous eating experience. Bacteria can be introduced indirectly such as a deer walking through the field, by renting a neighbor's bull, from a truck or slaughterhouse, or through cross-contamination in your own home.

As for flavor, you might be surprised to find out just how different beef can taste from farm to farm. As with winemakers, some farmers and butchers are more talented than others, too. Trust me, you will like beef from some a lot more than others.

Grind Your Own. The idea here is to purchase whole muscle cuts such as a Chuck Roast or Brisket and grind it at home or ask a meat cutter to grind it for you. The benefit is you will at least know that there are no ammonia-treated fillers or other oddities in your burger.

However, unless you (or your butcher) are extremely scrupulous, you still run the risk of food poisoning unless you thoroughly cook the beef. This is because any bacteria on the surface of the meat, on your hands, in your kitchen, or on the grinder itself can get mixed into the beef during the grinding process.

Buy Grass Fed Beef. There are many reasons to choose grass-fed beef (I call it grass-only) including flavor and texture. Eat Wild also suggests some potential health and other benefits, too. There is some evidence that grass-fed cattle have a lower incidence of certain bacteria but it's important to note that the research is inconclusive.

Either way, cross-contamination can occur at virtually any point between farm and fork so grass-fed does not guarantee pathogen-free.

So What Is The Solution?

Outside of thoroughly cooking your ground beef? Start asking questions! We have a tendency to seek shortcuts and easy answers and sadly many companies are only too happy to comply. No Trans Fats! claims do not make potato chips healthy. All Natural! is virtually meaningless in any food category. But if we all start doing everything we can to know what is on our plates and how it got there - and walk away if the answer is not forthcoming - retailers and processors will eventually start being pickier about how they source their meat.

The benefits are numerous. While it will not eliminate pathogens, at minimum buying source-specific meat will increase the chance of having a great tasting burger made without mystery ingredients.

Look For Artisan Beef

I personally look for farmer, trucker, and butcher teams who employ artisan practices to create signature-style flavors and textures. We like to compare steaks and burgers from multiple farm teams and when my family finds one we like, we feel like we hit the jackpot and stock up. (This is a great way to save money, too.)

To find artisan quality beef I created a list of questions that I employ as a guide. Please feel free to download my cheat sheet here or, if you're feeling shy, I will screen a farm or butcher for you. I also have a list that I will publish soon and expand with time.

You Can't Find Artisan Quality, Now What?

Artisan beef is extremely hard to find but you can still increase your odds of finding great tasting beef for your family.

Look for brand name beef with a label that clearly states the cattle were raised without the use of added hormones or preventative antibiotics. You will likely find that it has more flavor and chances are higher that the ground beef is made from known sources and without ammonia-treated fillers.

If you can, order beef from several of these purveyors and compare them in a blind tasting at home. This is a great (and fun) way to find out which flavors you prefer. If you'd like to use my Artisan Beef Institute's tasting guide, which you can download here.

A step up is to find a butcher who can at least tell you the name of the farm and slaughterhouse and how he or she aged the beef. (Aging enhances flavor and texture.) Bonus points if they also test their ground beef. These are strong signs that care has gone into the making of those burgers.

Further Questions?

Have I missed information? Do you have a favorite farm, butcher, or purveyor you'd like to call out? Please leave a comment or send me an email.

In the meantime, get out there and vote with your voice and your wallet. Ask questions, good retailers, restaurants, butchers, and farmers are ready and thrilled to respond!

McWilliams Responds to Pork Fooforaw

If you enjoy thought provoking discussions about food - the good, bad, and the ugly - but haven't been reading The Atlantic's Food section of late, take a gander.

I was impressed in particular with their inviting James McWilliams to respond to those who have criticized his recent New York Times Op-Ed, in which he declared that free-range pigs carry more disease than those raised in confined quarters.

Most of the fooforaw - and McWilliams' thoughtful response to it - has centered on whether what he said was true. Without rehashing the points, he essentially admits he may have erred on a technical point and asks that his critics meet him halfway.

Absolutely, I will do this. But now that we've potentially cleared the air over the validity of his claims, let us focus on the rest of the article. My objections, listed in this post, still stand.

I sure would love to have McWilliams comment on these points, too.

Don't Eat That Pork: Trichy Words From The Prof

The New York Times featured an Op-Ed entitled "Free-Range Trichinosis" from a history professor in Austin, Texas, James E. McWilliams. I initially found this article hard to respond to because I felt the author said a lot without saying anything at all. The more I considered it, the more I understood his real message and the need to blunt the impact of his words.

The author's intended take-away is clear: Free-range pork will make you sick. The science proves it.

Marion Nestle, a well-known expert on nutrition and food politics doyenne, quickly shot down this conclusion with two simple observations that call into question the author's objectivity. See below for details or this nice post over on CivilEats.

Unfortunately, Ms. Nestle's response is not likely to be given equal air time as that given to Mr. McWilliams. Further, she does not address several other things that McWilliams says directly or indirectly with which I take issue.

Issue #1: McWilliams impugns the integrity of those raising and promoting pork from free-range pigs. Indeed, he insinuates that they are disingenuous hacks because the pigs they promote aren't really free range, anyways.

Here McWilliams takes advantage of the fact that there is no single definition of the words "free range." He has a potentially valid point: the only truly "natural" pork would be that from pigs found, and killed, in the wild. He correctly notes that the pork most food connoisseurs and sustainability advocates promote is ... "ultimately an arbitrary point between the wild and the domesticated."

Yet he goes on to cynically say that "A free-range system is engineered in part to achieve a producer’s market-driven goal: protecting his squealing investments from nature’s most obvious threats while allowing them a modicum of muscle-enhancing movement... [so he can] generate flesh retailing for $12 a pound."

What makes a farmer who designs his or her husbandry program to allow pigs to move around outdoors and socialize with other pigs and even root for their own food on occasion any more calculating than the one who chooses to raise his pigs "indoors, fighting their diseases with medicine and feeding them a carefully monitored diet"?

Further, why is the farmer who charges $12 per pound any less virtuous than one who sells her pork for less?

No doubt that there are hacks out there who take advantage of ill-defined claims such as "natural" or "heart heathy" or "free range" in an attempt to snooker the consumer into paying more, perhaps even $12 per pound. In fact, one needn't look any further than one's own cupboard to find dozens of examples of specious claims.

But perhaps that farmer whose pork commands $12 per pound is providing full transparency into her husbandry practices or is loved by her customers or both. Heck, maybe she's even selling better tasting pork.

Further, if this producer selling her pork at a premium price is ultimately found to be taking advantage of her customers by selling them a bill of goods (remember White Marble Farms "all natural" pork?) she will no longer be able to charge $12 per pound because her customers will abandon her.

The truth of the matter is that there is no single "best" set of protocols for raising clean, tasty food. In my opinion, it is also impossible to create a single definition or marketing claim that perfectly encapsulates best practices. Gray areas will always exist and best practices is in the eyes of the beholder.

So rather than do as Mr. McWilliams has done and call one group of farmers fakes, let's encourage all producers - individual farmers, co-ops, or brands - to open their protocols to public scrutiny and let us customers vote with our pocketbooks as to whom to support.

Issue #2. The author also impugns those of us who are actively seeking an alternative to CAFO raised pork.

Mr. McWilliams seems particularly put off by the idea that people should want their food to actually taste good. "Pork lovers, supporters of sustainable meat and slow-food advocates have long praised the superior taste of the free-range option," he writes. But he then follows this with the suggestion that, because free-range pork isn't really natural, "neither is its taste." Ergo, the real reason these people want free-range pork is because they "despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness."

Sir, there may be some who seek outdoor-raised pork for sentimental, ethical, or similar reasons other than taste and texture. What's wrong with that?

Issue #3. The author suggests that if we continue to promote and eat free-range pork then we are unethical.

Since Mr. McWilliams argues that the only way to create pork that doesn't make you sick is to raise pigs indoors, he challenges those of us seeking tastier meat to look for better indoor solutions. Unless we accept this, he says, "there’s only one ethical choice left for the conscientious consumer: a pork-free diet."

Here I think Mr. McWilliams could have a fair point. It makes intuitive sense that eating genuinely wild pork (or game or whatever) carries a higher risk than eating meat raised under the watchful eye of a talented, ethical farmer.

If eating pigs raised in any outdoor conditions is ever proven to in fact dramatically increase the probability of contracting food borne illnesses, and the individual consumer cannot take reasonable measures to mitigate this risk,* then perhaps we should remove pork from our diets completely.

But then let's take that to the logical end. Note that Mr. McWilliams does not argue that CAFO-raised pork is free of bacteria that can make us ill. He simply says that science "proves" that outdoor raised pigs have a higher incidence (remember, he's done nothing to prove this). Unless we kill off all possible sources of contamination (from insects to housecats, or frankly, all animal life) or somehow sterilize all that we eat, it seems that all foods, whether plant or animal, carry a risk of making one ill.

We can't very well stop eating altogether. I ask what can we do? One key is transparency and education - let's open the books and let consumers decide which purveyors to support and why. And let's not let articles like this go unanswered.

The other thing we can do is to put the food back in meat! Countless hours and words are used every day talking about who's husbandry or land management protocols are the best, whether to use microbials or not, if organic is good or not.

Let's start rewarding people for making really clean but also really great tasting food. As long we agree to a minimum set of standards and let those who exceed them advertise themselves as such, let's celebrate the differences in flavors and textures across the breeds or varieties, seasons and growing regions. Let's remove the many layers between farm and fork so that consumers can give feedback to the producer and create a continuous improvement feedback loop.

Let's take this conversation to a new level and out of the weeds.

There are a lot of very smart, thoughtful people out there trying to figure out how to give people access to cleaner, more humanely raised, tastier food. I'd love to hear what you would suggest, too.

ps New York Times, I realize this was an Op-Ed piece but you could have balanced this piece with someone offering a different perspective. Better yet, you might have turned to someone like Andrew Martin to provide some scrutiny here.

* Such as cooking the heck out of it like we're forced to do with commodity ground beef because the processors can't be bothered to take measures to prevent contamination.

Here in short is Marion Nestle's response to Mr. McWilliams with regard to the validity to his claims on the "science" front. I've added it here at the bottom as many others have addressed this point and quite well. I instead wanted to chip in my two cents above, my personal reaction to the article as a whole.

Mr. McWilliams writes that "scientists have found that free-range pork can be more likely than caged pork to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites" including "higher rates of salmonella and... the parasite trichina."

Nestle notes that the study cited by Mr. McWilliams measured the presence of antibodies to certain diseases in the pigs' blood, not the presence of disease in the meat. In other words, the free range pigs in the study were exposed to organisms and developed immunity to them. The indoor raised pigs were not similarly exposed and thus did not develop a similar immunity.

Nestle goes on to ask why Mr. McWilliams did not clarify this point and answers her own question by pointing out that the study itself was paid for in the first place by The National Pork Board. "Sponsored studies are invariably designed in ways that produce favorable results for the sponsor."