A viral campaign produced by website Sustainable Table, The Meatrix is a cartoon that reveals "the lie we tell ourselves about where our food comes from." It started up a few years ago, and has since been translated into 30 languages and boasts new features.

Not familiar? Though cleverly animated and peppered with humorous anecdotes, The Meatrix films are definitely not a joke, and probably not suitable for kids. There are three installments, the first being an introduction to what Sustainable Table calls "the dark side of the meat industry," and the second and third, The Meatrix II: The Revolting, and The Meatrix II 1/2, which explores new avenues into the dairy and meat-packing industries.

Our pig protagonist, Leo, chooses the red pill, and follows Mootheus, a trench coat-wearing cow, who reveals the grim reality about most of America's meat and dairy products. As they walk around the farm and Mootheus explains how animals are packed into tight-knit quarters and injected with RBGH and fed the carcasses of their relatives, the juxtaposition of the simplistic, brightly-colored cartoons against the shocking statistics helps to drive the point home.

Meatpaper is the self-proclaimed "journal of meat culture," and judging from what's up at their site, they're correct.

The site is filled with several articles on the "arts and ideas about meat," including pieces about the dry-aging room at New York's Master Purveyors, pig slaughter in Italy, why Filipinos eat Spam, and getting over the guilt of eating meat. There are also links to various food blogs.

The site itself says that they "like metaphors more than marinating tips," which I take as an indication that they're going to be talking about the world of food and not recipes and kitchen advice. They're taking subscriptions now, so you might want to check it out.

Now that meat and milk from cloned animals has been approved for sale and consumption by the FDA, all kinds of issues have been raised about these animals, from whether or not they can be considered organic to whether people will actually want to eat them. Those who support cloning say that cloned animals will be more disease resistant and that the products derived from them will be more consistent and of higher quality. The largest dairy producer in the US, the Dean Foods Co., has announced that they will be avoiding all of these issues because they will not sell milk from animals that are clones or have been cloned. A representative said that they "see no consumer benefit from this technology" and that surveys done on their behalf show that most US customers are simply "not interested in buying milk or milk products that come from cloned animals."

Dean Foods is the first major company to come out against using milk from cloned cows, joining smaller companies like Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and Organic Valley.

Ask the barista how much milk they go through in one day then next time you go into Starbucks for a latte. At some stores, the baristas probably far to busy to take note of the number of gallons used, but it is safe to say that it is a lot. And with over 5,500 stores in the US, Starbucks must be one of the largest consumers in the country, so the dairy industry will feel the effects of Starbucks decision to drop all dairy containing the artificial growth hormone RBGH. So far, the coffeehouse has hormone free milk at stores on the west coast (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico and Northern California) and in New England, or roughly 37% of all of their dairy products. The company is still developing their plan to phase out the milk from the rest of their stores and it is safe to say that it will be a gradual process when it begins.

Representatives from the dairy industry who support the use of the hormone say that it is only a matter of time before Starbucks passes increased costs onto consumers, but supporters of the switch say that more dairy farmers will stop using the hormone as consumers and businesses look for dairy produced without it, keeping prices under control. Starbucks has not said how this change has affected their operating costs, but will say that they are not planning to raise drink prices as a result of the switch.

At the moment, food produced from cloned animals is not approved for sale to consumers, but the FDA said this week that they were "moving closer to approving meat and milk from cloned animals." It could happen as early as next year.

Understandably, some people are concerned about this. 60% of Americans say that they are "uncomfortable" with the idea of eating such animals. Most feel that any products resulting from a cloned animal should be clearly marked so that consumers have a choice about what they're eating - despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded there is no more danger in eating meat or other products from cloned animals than there is from conventional animals. There are no more than 2,000 or so cloned animals in the US for now, and the FDA has asked producers to voluntarily keep such products out of the production lines.

One question that has been raised is why farmers or ranchers would want cloned cattle (or other animals) in the first place, since it would cost just as much to upkeep them as natural animals. The other big question is why consumers would want cloned food over non-cloned food. There is said to be little difference between natural and non-natural meat and dairy, and if consumers can't tell the difference, why would they pay for it?

Although many consumers are concerned with the standard of living of the cows, one of the primary reasons that people buy organic milk is because they are concerned about drinking milk from cows that have been treated with hormones, specifically the growth hormone rBST. The hormone has been in use since 1993 and estimates say that about 22% of cows are regularly treated with it. Only about 3% of the milk market is covered by organic milk and, due to demand and the higher operating costs of organic farms, organic milk can cost consumers twice as much as conventional milk.

For both consumers and producers, there is a middle ground: hormone free milk. Dairies do not have to meet the standards for organic milk, which is good from a time/cost perspective, but they can charge more for the hormone-free milk than for conventional. The non-rBST milk is usually priced right between conventional and organic, so shoppers can save and still get milk they feel comfortable drinking.

Uh oh. Maybe it's not just a tv commercial. It looks like all the cows have fled Wisconsin and made it to the sunny fields of California.

Although Wisconsin is known as this country's Dairy State, California beat it out for milk production more than 10 years ago. Now, Wisconsin faces the possibility of another humiliating defeat, as California catches up to it in cheese production. While Wisconsin made 2.4 billion pounds of cheese last year, California was close behind with 2.14 billion pounds. Will California beat Wisconsin?

According to dairy economists, the answer is yes. Even Wisconsinites have sadly accepted the impending defeat. John T. Umhoefer, the executive director of the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association, said that California "won't roar by us, but they will pass us."

Apparently as one of the country's largest County Fairs, the Los Angeles County Fair has enough budget to advertise on television. I've seen a few of the commercials that make fun of LA's reputation, e.g. a mother and daughter shopping and asking whether cashmere comes from a boy cow or a girl cow, and one where several girls ask about cotton candy and Atkins. However, it wasn't until today that I saw this commercial that takes the cake.

The teacher asks, "Can anybody tell me what comes from a cow?"

The kids raise their hands and answer one by one: "Lattes?" "Nu-unh. My mom says non-fat half caff cappuccinos." "Iced Caramel Macchiatos?"

Oh, I fear for the future of our country.

The Department of Agriculture has proposed some changes to the standards currently in place for grass fed beef. At the moment, there really are no specific guidelines, and farmers who produce at least 99% grass fed beef want labels that indicate that their beef is exactly what it sounds like: from cows that live in pastures and eat only grass. The proposal has no provisions that state that the cows must be kept in pastures and it defines "grass" to include "leftovers from harvested crops," including corn and silage, which feedlot finished cows are already fed. It means that some conventional beef, feedlot beef, could be labeled "grass fed."

Understandably, the farmers who have pasture-raised cattle don't like the proposal because it devalues the "grass fed" label, barely separating it from conventional beef as far as consumers are concerned. They propose a more specific definition of "grass" and a minimum amount of time that the cows must spend grazing in pasture each day. The Agriculture Department says those rules are too strict and that their standards put less strain on ranchers, particularly in years of bad weather or drought when pastures may suffer.

Under the Agriculture Department's standards, more beef labeled "grass fed" will reach the market. But will consumers want it, or be willing to pay a premium for it, if it has no distinction from conventional?

The last month saw a devastating heat wave in California, with sustained temperatures of well over 100F, and up to 120F in the deserts. The heat created lines in front of ice cream shops all over the state, but many other industries were heavily impacted. The dairy industry actually suffered losses of as many as 16,000 cows, just from the heat alone, as even overnight the temperatures did not drop down to give the animals relief. Other cows miscarried or couldn't conceive, and the milk that was gathered during the period had a lower butterfat content, making it unsuitable for some uses, like cheesemaking. The dairy industry alone could take 9 months to recover fully.

Other industries - and by extension, consumers - had losses as well. The California Poultry Federation estimated that 750,000 chickens and 180,000 turkeys also died as a direct result of the heat wave, though it is a very small percentage of the industry, so prices are unlikely to be affected. Strawberries over-ripened or rotted, stone fruits were sunburned and tomatoes "literally cooked in their skins," leading to an estimated loss of 10% of the total crop in some places. The effects on other foods, like nuts, will not be seen until their harvest comes around in fall, but California agriculture will need some time to recover fully.

More dairies may be going organic, but the demand for organic milk is close to exceeding the supply. Dean Foods, a Texas-based company that is the nation's largest producer of dairy and the owner of Horizon Organics, has even gone so far as to say that the sale of organic milk to stores could be rationed this winter. Part of the reason is that the production of organic dairy drops in winter, when cows in some parts of the country must be sheltered and protected from the cold.

One other problem facing the industry is an increased interest, from the customer,s into where the milk specifically comes from. Dean Foods has already dropped some of their larger suppliers and is focusing on mid-sized herds and smaller family farms. In fact, in trying to meet the current demand, Dean Foods is planning for the long term, hoping to avoid situations like this in the future, by spending $20 million in the next 5 years, helping small farmers transition to organic.

Doubtless, the transition will be easier for farmers to make when they are assured of a strong market for their product. For the rest of the year and until spring, however, consumers would be wise just to buy organic milk when it is available and not expect to see any price cuts or special deals on dairy.

Yesterday, I mentioned that "white beef" would be served at the UK's most expensive picnic lunch. This raised the question as to what exactly white beef was. It turns out that white beef is meat from British white cattle, cows that are related to ancient, indigenous cattle that lived in the UK. The cows are exceptionally attractive, with snowy white hides and contrasting black points, and are known for their gentle nature and hardiness. Like many rare breeds, the numbers dropped precipitously low for a time, with only 149 cows left in the breed in the 1960's. Since that time, new herds have been established and the numbers are increasing. Some are even being raised in the US.

The beef from these cows is prized not only because the cows are limited in number, but the meat is tasty. It is said to be somewhat leaner than other beef, but with very consistent marbling, which makes the meat juicy when cooked.

The Institute of Food Technologists, a nonprofit group with over 22,000 members, studied over 20 years' worth of past research on antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance with a group of food scientists and microbiologists and came to the conclusion that using antibiotics to treat animals is not necessarily harmful to humans. The study was intended to provide a contrast to the claims of organic groups that promote antibiotic free foods as being the healthiest option.

While the results will be officially released tomorrow, scientists emphasize that they are not dismissing "concerns about overuse of antibiotics or antimicrobials," which can certainly be unnecessary and their overuse could even lead to the production of new, antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. But the fact remains that the health of many animals would suffer if they were never treated with antibiotics; the cost of meat could increase, perhaps to levels that would be prohibitively expensive for some, if food production dropped and the supply of meat on the market went down.

The study does not say that antibiotics and antimicrobials are unconditionally safe, as they can certainly be overused or misused, but it does serve to reinforce the idea that food production doesn't exist in black and white or good and bad, even if there is a hard line between organic and non-organic.

An undercover investigation revealed that some butchers in the UK were selling non-certified organic beef under an organic label. Some of the butchers were from small towns and knew their meat suppliers closely. They were willing to attest to the quality of the beef that they sold, even if they have not been willing or able to purchase organic certification for their shop. Others, however, simply claimed to use the term as "shorthand."

Because the organic label can command up to 5 times the price of conventional beef, there is a clear financial incentive for less scrupulous butchers to try and sell it as such. From the customer's perspective, it can be quite difficult, if not nearly impossible, to tell the difference between organic and non-organic beef based on physical appearance and the scientific methods are not a guarantee. Relying on certification continues to be the most trustworthy method, but is it actually doing a disservice to small businesses, like some butchers, who say they can't afford the £300-£400 to become certified?

Cheese-makers in England's West Country say that excellent grazing conditions last year are to thank for some of the great mature and vintage cheeses that are starting to appear in British markets. A cow's diet greatly affects the quality and flavor of the milk it produces and the characteristics of the milk are then amplified and concentrated in cheeses produced from it. A mild winter and a wet spring created New Zealand-like conditions, according to one Somerset cheese-maker quoted in Farmers Weekly. Another farmer from Devon said it was the best grazing year ever.