- With Mayo Clinic nutritionists
Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D.
read biographyclose windowBiography of
Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D.
Katherine Zeratsky and Jennifer Nelson
Jennifer K. Nelson, M.S., R.D., L.D., C.N.S.D.
Jennifer Nelson is your link to a better diet. As specialty editor of the nutrition and healthy eating guide, she plays a vital role in bringing you healthy recipes and meal planning."Nutrition is one way people have direct control over the quality of their lives," she says. "I hope to translate the science of nutrition into ways that people can select and prepare great-tasting foods that help maintain health and treat disease."
A St. Paul, Minn., native, she has been with Mayo Clinic since 1978, and is director of clinical dietetics and an associate professor of nutrition at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.
She leads clinical nutrition efforts for a staff of more than 60 clinical dietitians and nine dietetic technicians and oversees nutrition services, staffing, strategic and financial planning, and quality improvement. Nelson was co-editor of the "Mayo Clinic Diet" and the James Beard Foundation Award-winning "The New Mayo Clinic Cookbook." She has been a contributing author to and reviewer of many other Mayo Clinic books, including "Mayo Clinic Healthy Weight for EveryBody," "The Mayo Clinic Family Health Book" and "The Mayo Clinic/Williams Sonoma Cookbook." She contributes to the strategic direction of the Food & Nutrition Center, which includes creating recipes and menus, reviewing nutrition content of various articles, and providing expert answers to nutrition questions.
Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D.
As a specialty editor of the nutrition and healthy eating guide, Katherine Zeratsky helps you sort through the facts and figures, the fads and the hype to learn more about nutrition and diet.A Marinette, Wis., native, she is certified in dietetics by the state of Minnesota and the American Dietetic Association. She has been with Mayo Clinic since 1999.
She's active in nutrition-related curriculum and course development in wellness nutrition at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and nutrition related to weight management and practical applications of nutrition-related lifestyle changes.
Other areas of interest include food and nutrition for all life stages, active lifestyles and the culinary arts.
She graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, served a dietetic internship at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and worked as a registered dietitian and health risk counselor at ThedaCare of Appleton, Wis., before joining the Mayo Clinic staff.
Latest entries
- Meet the SuperTracker
Feb. 8, 2012
- Quick start for a healthy heart
Feb. 1, 2012
- Questions about nutrition — Top 5 FAQs
Jan. 25, 2012
- Taking off the holiday pounds
Jan. 4, 2012
- Put the fruit back in fruitcake
Dec. 21, 2011
About our e-newsletters
- Free e-newsletters
- Mayo Clinic expertise
- We do not share your e-mail address
Housecall, our weekly general-interest e-newsletter, keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics with timely, reliable, practical information, recipes, blogs, questions and answers with Mayo Clinic experts and more. Our biweekly topic-specific e-newsletters also include blogs, questions and answers with Mayo Clinic experts, and other useful information that will help you manage your health.
Housecall Archives
Mayo Clinic Housecall
Stay up to date on the latest health information.
What you get
- Free weekly e-newsletter
- Mayo Clinic expertise
- Recipes, tools and other helpful information
- We do not share your e-mail address
Nutrition-wise blog
-
Dec. 4, 2009
Wild game — A healthy choice?
By Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D.
When autumn arrives in my home state of Minnesota, I start getting questions from hunters about the health effects of eating wild game. Deer, elk, caribou and antelope are examples of game meats, and duck, pheasant and turkey are commonly hunted game birds.
In general, wild game is leaner than domesticated animals, because animals in the wild are typically more active. In comparison to lean cuts of beef and pork, game meat has about one-third fewer calories (game birds have about half the calories) and quite a bit less saturated and total fat. Cholesterol for wild and domestic meat ranges from 50 to 75 milligrams for a 3-ounce serving — with wild game tending to be in the lower end of the range.
With game there are a few health-related precautions to keep in mind:
- Chronic wasting disease (CWD). Similar to mad cow disease, CWD is found in deer and elk. While human infection is a potential concern, there have been no verified cases. To minimize risk, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that hunters who harvest deer or elk from known CWD-positive areas consider having the animal tested for CWD before consuming the meat. (Information about testing is available from most state wildlife agencies.) In addition, hunters should take precautions such as avoiding animals that appear ill and following good field-dressing practices, such as wearing gloves and minimizing the handling of brain and spinal cord tissues.
- Lead levels. A number of studies have demonstrated that lead ammunition can cause lead contamination of game. Whether this is a concern has yet to be determined. However, the CDC recommends discarding portions of game that contain lead bullet fragments or using non-lead ammunition. For those at highest risk of adverse effects from lead exposure — pregnant women and children younger than 6 years of age — it may be prudent to avoid eating game shot with lead bullets or slugs.
Of course, eating game is a matter of personal choice. After considering all the information, what are your thoughts?
- Jennifer
8 comments posted
October 29, 2011 7:07 p.m.
Just be very happy were on the top of the food chain.
- Joseph
December 5, 2010 5:57 p.m.
cont. - It's ignorance and distortion of reality at it's best. Wild game is absolutely superior to domestic meats. It is leaner and lower in cholesterol, and game is completely free-range. Domestic animals are herded, fenced, and caged only to wade in their own filth for their whole life, injected with growth hormones and anti-biotics which are questionable to theirs and the consumer's health, and fed foods which is purely formulated to fatten the animal and not supply proper nutrition. Domestic animals are also destructive to the immediate, surrounding, and in many cases the distant lands and waters. Their waste promotes an overload of nitrogen in waterways and livestock can increase erosion and soil loss. Obviously altering the natural landscape to support domestic animals also has a negative effect on the environment. Vast amounts of land has to be cleared, upturned, and planted in order to grow crops needed to feed domestic animals, which reduces habitat. On the contrary, wild game lives it's life in it's natural environment, supporting a healthy ecosystem. Game eats natural foods that are healthy and nutritious and unless populations aren't controlled, does not disrupt/destroy the quality of the land and it's environment and biomass. It's easy to see why wild game is a fantastic alternative to domestic meats.
- David
December 5, 2010 5:37 p.m.
"so now we are to start hunting, killing the wonderful wild creatures we have left on this earth" This statement from the first poster shows the ignorance of "armchair environmentalists" and anti-hunters. They fail to realize that if it weren't for hunters and true conservationists, their beloved wildlife would be in rough shape. Hunters put millions upon millions of dollars into habitat restoration and other wildlife projects like refuges and land grants such as the CRP. For instance, if it weren't for waterfowl hunters, the millions of acres of wetlands that have been set aside(through funds from licenses, duck stamps and sporting equipment taxes...PAID BY HUNTERS) would undoubtedly be drained and planted or developed. Conservation efforts of groups like Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl have also set aside hundreds of thousands if not millions of acres of wetlands and completed countless habitat improvement/restoration programs, again PAID BY HUNTERS. The same can be said about upland hunters and big game hunters. Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter of legendary status, and during his hunts he realized the importance of conservation and setting aside tracts of pristine wilderness. Thanks to his efforts, we have the National Park system which supports the well-being of the wildlife found on the land set aside for these areas...which is enjoyed by the "tree huggers" who think hunting is evil and should be eliminated at all costs... It's igno
- David - Homo Sapien/Hunter/OMNIvore
February 10, 2010 5:15 a.m.
I like killing animals for food. but animals use anywhere used. but i think this is false. eating vegetable, fruits, and fit our body.
- Daniel
January 14, 2010 4:57 a.m.
killing animals for food is one thing,killing for the size of the antlers is another.
- Betty
December 9, 2009 11:24 a.m.
The poster of the second comment should read the first. We have been hunting since man was first on this planet and had to eat. I have hunted all my life, enjoy it and eat what I kill. Wild game is not only healthier, but tastes better. I, personally, know no one who is against hunting. I guess either ducks or wild hogs are my favorite eating
- Tom
December 9, 2009 10:57 a.m.
We didn't just "start hunting wild creatures". That started millions of years ago. It is regulated to insure that their population is controlled so they don't starve to death over the winter, but they are not hunted to extinction. The point of the blog was deer, elk, ducks, geese, etc. are healthier to eat because the meat is leaner. Whether you eat a domesticated animal that is shrink wrapped at your grocery store or eat venison the animal had to be killed first.
- Sue
December 9, 2009 8:20 a.m.
We already slaughter millions of domesticated animal to satisfy our desire for meat...so now we are to start hunting, killing the wonderful wild creatures we have left on this earth, "because their flesh is healthier"? Shouldn't you have have mentioned that we neeed to stop the pesticides, growth hormones/antibiotics injections in our farm animals to make their meat healthy for consumption? Oh, maybe you just endorse killing !!
- No name given
8 comments posted