“Grass-fed” has now become a food buzz
word. A variety of claims have been voiced about grass-fed beef – the beef
produced from grass-fed cattle. Advocates contrast grass-fed beef to beef
produced by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). In some ways,
grass-fed is obviously greener, more humane and more healthful than CAFO beef.
And the demand for it is growing. Some advocates even recommend grass-fed as an
opportunity for vegetarians to start eating meat! One Vermont farmer named Bruce
Hennessey, himself a former vegetarian, now produces grass-fed beef. He sees it
as a small revolution: “Now we produce meat for recovering vegetarians,” he told
Eating Well magazine
earlier this year.
But I’m not so sure. I think we need to evaluate grass-fed beef from a variety
of angles and by comparing it to several different kinds of meat production,
beginning with the much maligned CAFO mode of production.
There is no universal definition of “grass-fed” at this time,
but we can contrast CAFO beef production with the definition of grass-fed used
by the American Grass-fed Association (AGA). Some of the differences between the
two are striking:
1. CAFO cattle are fed mostly corn and soy during the last
six months of their lives; grass-fed consume only “forage,” which usually means
grass and hay. Production of corn and soy for beef cattle (instead of for
humans) is a very inefficient use of resources. Grass-fed beef is less
resource-costly.
2. CAFO cattle are confined in feedlots, whereas grass-fed
cattle are free-range.
3. CAFO cattle are given antibiotics and hormones on a
regular basis, but grass-fed cattle are not.
4. CAFO feedlots collect vast amounts of manure in a small
area, causing air pollution when the wind blows and water pollution when it
rains, leaching into the groundwater. Grass-fed cattle are natural manure
spreaders and, if not overgrazed, distribute fertilizer throughout the pasture.
5. CAFO beef has high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat
but low levels of omega fats and vitamin E. Grass-fed has less cholesterol, less
saturated fat, more omega fats and more vitamin E. Grass-fed also contains
conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which may be an anticarcinogen.
6. CAFO is readily available in markets and restaurants.
Grass-fed is not readily available and is more expensive.
Grass-fed methods of beef production are clearly better for the environment,
better for the cattle and better for the consumer’s health. Better than CAFO
beef production, that is. We need to take a closer look to determine whether
grass-fed beef is, in itself, a wise food choice.
How Green is Grass-fed Beef?
Consumers tend to mix and blend the terms “grass-fed” and “organic.” The
perception is that grass-fed is enviro-friendly and healthful, so an assumption
is made that it is also organic. Here, we enter the murky waters of
certification and labeling. The sidebar at the end of this article, which deals
with certification organizations and labels, may be helpful in sorting things
out.
Most governmental and independent organizations that deal with these issues
do not equate grass-fed and organic. For the major players in this game,
grass-fed beef is not necessarily organic beef and organic beef is not
necessarily grass-fed beef. The published standards of the AGA are very clear
and quite thorough in many ways, but the AGA Grass-fed label does not mean the
beef is organic. Nor does the Sierra Club see grass-fed as organic. Eatwild does
not require farmers listed as grass-fed farmers to ensure that the beef is
organic.
What about the labels “Organic Beef” or “Certified Organic Beef”? Neither the
Canadian government’s nor the USDA’s organic labels mean that the beef is
necessarily grass-fed. Their published standards explain that organic beef may
be either grass-fed or grain-fed.
The situation is further confused because some food markets do their own
labeling. When I asked for grass-fed beef at the big Sprouts market in San
Marcos, California, the clerk showed me packages of meat which were labeled
“organic.” I repeated that I wanted “grass-fed” and he said “organic” means
grass-fed! The same thing happened at Jimbo’s market in Escondido, California.
How can a grass-fed product fail to be organic? Sometimes herbicides like
Grazon P&D and Redeem R&P are sprayed on the hayfield or on the pasture itself.
Some weeds are poisonous for cattle and must be eradicated. Herbicides are also
used to control broadleaf weeds that crowd out the grasses. The herbicide toxins
will eventually travel up into the flesh of the cattle as they eat and also down
into the groundwater and eventually into our wells, streams, lakes, rivers and
oceans.
Many grass-fed farmers in Canada and the United States have to grow hay (or
buy it) to feed their cattle. The pasture grasses die back or are covered with
snow during the cold months. Although not as inefficient as growing corn to
produce beef, grass-fed methods are inefficient in that they often require not
only a pasture but an additional field to grow hay. Contrast this to vegetables
like beans, which are somewhat similar to beef in nutritional value for human
consumption: No additional field is required to support the production of beans.
Grass-fed requires a separate crop (hay) which has to be cut, bailed and
transferred to the cattle. So, in many cases, it takes two fields to produce a
pound of beef for us to eat but only one field to produce a pound of beans.
The inefficiency of all beef production – that is, its resource-intensity –
is nowhere more evident than when we take a look at a slaughterhouse. Whether
the animal was “finished” by CAFO methods or grass-fed methods, the slaughtering
and meat packing process involves vast amounts of energy and water. Anyone who
has seen the cleaning crews working at a slaughterhouse knows what a messy
business it is. Workers must wield high pressure hoses that shoot steaming hot
water and chemicals. Automated clean-up requires even more power and water. By
comparison, preparing broccoli or spinach for the market is a simple process.
There are a very few small farmers who are “do-it-yourself” grass-fed
farmers, slaughtering, butchering and selling their own beef. Smaller is often
better, but these farmers still go through the same complex process, but on a
micro scale: heavy use of water and power for slaughter, butchering, clean-up
and refrigeration. The do-it-yourself operations are illegal in most states in
the U.S. In any case, consumers should inspect the facilities for themselves.
Even when legal and due for government inspections, such small operations may
not undergo regular monitoring.
Refrigeration is an essential part of beef production, and the amount of
electricity and fossil fuels required is in stark contrast to getting a product
like pinto beans on your shelf. Once the beans are dry, no refrigeration is
required. Beef has to be refrigerated at the slaughter house and in the truck
which transfers it to the market. The market has to keep it cold and you have to
keep it refrigerated at home until you eat it.
The resource-intensity of slaughter houses and the refrigeration trail from
slaughter house to the dinner plate are not unique grass-fed issues. Both CAFO
and grass-fed beef production involve these issues and more. Another common
problem is methane, a gas emitted from both ends of a cow and a major greenhouse
gas. So, although grass-fed is “greener” than CAFO beef in some ways, grass-fed
and CAFO are both “ungreen” in many ways.
Because grass-fed beef production requires more grazing land for longer
periods of time, it exacerbates the problems that grazing has always caused.
Whereas CAFO cattle are grazed before going to the feedlot, grass-fed require
pasture their entire lives. Thus, grass-fed amplifies existing grazing issues:
loss of rainforests and other lands, erosion, wildlife habitat problems and the
use of public lands for grazing.
Conversion of forests and other land into pasture is an issue that most of us
have heard about, especially as rainforests in South America have been
sacrificed to create McDonald’s hamburgers. McDonald’s now claims it buys no
“rainforest beef.” The realities of the global market are a great temptation to
many: Where land is cheap and the demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise,
the local economy may respond by cutting down a forest to create pasture or by
planting grass where millet or rice has been grown. Importing grass-fed beef to
North America from Uruguay and Australia is not a green solution!
The problem of erosion and, more generally, overgrazing is always an issue
where cattle are involved. No simple assurances can be offered to guarantee
against overgrazing, which leads to erosion, pollution of groundwater and
streams, and loss of wildlife habitat (including insects, birds and wild
animals). It is not simply a matter of the amount of grass covering the ground,
though that is part of the issue. Natural drainage ditches, low areas and
streams are especially vulnerable, and cattle can quickly degrade and pollute
these crucial lifelines. The AGA cannot possibly inspect all these matters and
so it simply warns against overgrazing by advising that 80 percent of a grazing
area must be “unbroken” or plant-covered. This may alert an AGA certified farmer
to the complex problem, but it will not necessarily spare the land and its
wildlife from the ravages of overgrazing.
In many countries, including the U.S., beef production involves the use of
public lands like National Parks for grazing. Ranchers pay a small fee for this
privilege but, obviously, the real issue is not money. Environmentalists have
been battling against this governmental policy for decades without success. If
the demand for grass-fed beef increases, we will likely see more cow pies in our
public lands.
To summarize the contrast between CAFO beef and grass-fed beef on green
issues: Grass-fed does not create the air and water pollution problems caused by
CAFO manure in feedlots and grass-fed spares us the ominous presence of
antibiotics and hormones, some of which cattle urinate into the ground and some
of which they retain in their flesh.
So, is grass-fed beef green? By my reckoning, CAFO beef is not green at all,
so I hesitate to say grass-fed is “greener.” Grass-fed is not organic and its
production is inefficient because of the large amounts of land, water, power and
fossil fuels required. It means methane in the air, more danger of overgrazing
and more loss of habitat for wildlife.
All analogies are somewhat faulty, but we need to compare the
CAFO-to-grass-fed change to a parallel change. Arrowhead’s pint-sized plastic
drinking water bottles have a new “Eco-Shape” – they are “designed with an
average of 30 percent less plastic, to be easier on the environment.” Is this a
real green contribution, or is it a small change to a product that is still
fundamentally unfriendly to the environment? Perhaps grass-fed cattle are cows
with a new “Eco-Shape” but still a serious problem for the environment.
Is Grass-fed Beef Humane?
Our current high level of awareness of and concern about food animal abuse is
at least partly a reflection of media coverage. When the Humane Society released
video clips showing non-ambulatory cows (not able to stand or walk) being jabbed
with an electric prod at the Hallmark Slaughtering Plant in Chino California,
people in the U. S. and Canada were outraged. A public outcry went up, calling
for humane treatment. Court cases ensued and the government initiated a meat
recall.
The full concept of humane treatment of livestock covers a wide variety of
issues such as confinement, diet, drugs and stress levels. Handling questions
include prodding, castration and identification (branding and tagging). Transfer
(as in trucking cattle to the slaughter house) and method of slaughter are
perennial issues. Surely, we would hope the beef we buy comes from cattle that
are treated well throughout the production process, not just in regard to
confinement and feed issues.
Grass-fed beef production is clearly more humane than CAFO production,
especially because the animals are not confined in a feedlot. Cattle are
ruminants; confinement in a crowded dirt plot with hundreds or thousands of
other animals stifles their natural behaviors. The “C” in CAFO stands for
concentrated and, indeed, the feedlots are concentration camps. In addition,
some studies of CAFO cattle indicate that the grain diet causes liver damage and
acidosis (acid indigestion).
Finally, windy conditions in a feedlot can cause dust pneumonia. Thus CAFO
cattle are frustrated by suppression of their instincts and sickened by the
conditions and by their diet. Because the animals are stressed and crowded
together, antibiotics are administered on a regular basis.
Apart from the comparison to CAFO beef, is grass-fed beef a humane food
choice? The first red flag I saw when researching the certification standards of
grass-fed organizations was the brief mention of humane treatment in the
published materials from the AGA. The AGA standards statement devotes several
pages to feed issues but only two lines deal with humane treatment. AGA says
grass-fed farmers should “support” humane handling, transfer and slaughter.
(Standards Statement 3.3.1) These three aspects of humane treatment are
complicated processes and such cursory reference to these issues means that
little importance is attached to them.
An example of an issue relating to humane treatment is the problem of
transferring cattle in trucks or trains. Almost all beef production involves the
transfer of cattle to the slaughterhouse, usually by truck. No matter how
careful the driver, the animals are liable to suffer from extreme stress, thirst
and exhaustion.
For a focus on humane treatment issues we have to look to the Humane Farm
Animal Care organization (HFAC), which is virtually governed by the Humane
Society. It is no surprise that the videos of downed cows in Chino, California
were part of an undercover Humane Society investigation of a slaughterhouse.
HFAC spells out detailed guidelines for humane handling, transfer and slaughter,
and attempts to monitor those producers who receive their “Certified Humane”
label. HFAC deals more effectively with a wider range of humane issues then any
other organization that relates to livestock. But, to my surprise, HFAC
certifies both grain-fed and grass-fed producers, and it gives only sparse
attention to green issues. Here, again, we see the pattern we glimpsed earlier:
Some organizations deal with some issues; others with other issues. No one
covers the whole field.
Let us look at one more humane treatment topic as addressed by HFAC – the
method of slaughter. HFAC inspects slaughterhouses and will not certify a farmer
who uses a slaughterhouse that fails to meet HFAC standards. Cattle are usually
stunned with a captured bolt pistol. If that does not render the animal
unconscious by the time it reaches the bleed rail (the next stage after the
kill), it has to be re-stunned. HFAC rules state that if more than two animals
in 1,000 are still sensible when they reach the bleed rail, the slaughter plant
receives a warning and must re-evaluate its pistol or handler. Plants often
apply a head restraint before stunning and sometimes this apparatus is faulty.
In general, the moral issues relating to slaughter involve both the problem
of the pain caused to the animal in this process and the issue of the right to
deprive the animal of its life. For some of us, a two in 1,000 error margin is
too big a risk; the animal may agonize in the throes of dying. There is also
this general moral position which cannot be ignored: Taking the life of an
innocent sentient being is never right. For a person holding this principle,
slaughter is never humane.
Is Grass-fed Beef a Healthful Food Choice?
Nutritional descriptions of grass-fed by its advocates read like a health
food ad: Grass-fed beef contains vitamins A, D, B complex and E, iron, calcium
and a range of minerals. Like all meat, it offers a healthy dose of protein. It
contains no antibiotics and no hormones. In addition, it contains the omegas
(essential fatty acids) and it has CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) which fights
cancer and supports the immune system.
Grass-fed beef does contain these nutrients, although some of them in small
amounts. It is definitely lower in cholesterol and saturated fat than CAFO beef.
By comparison to CAFO, grass-fed is like a health food, but one would think a
health food would be organic; as we saw, grass-fed is not necessarily organic.
Grass-fed does contain cholesterol and saturated animal fat, which most people
try to avoid. Perhaps these flaws offset the advantages offered by the iron,
vitamins, omegas, etc.
In fact, the advantages – the “good contents” of grass-fed – can be found in
other products, even in non-meat ones. There is abundant iron in beans and
lentils; for iron and many other nutrients, try quinoa. Nuts, dark leafy greens
and whole grains are rich in vitamin E (a vitamin supplied by grass-fed beef)
EEssential fatty acids are available in flax, avocados and many oils such as
olive, safflower and sunflower. Of course, we do not need to consume all of
these foods at one sitting or even in one day; our bodies use the nutrients as
needed, storing some of them for future use. Research on CLA (conjugated
linoleic acid) is still sparse but, in any case, there are well-known cancer
fighting vegetables readily available, notably the Brassicaceae family of plants
which includes broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower. Modern researchers affirm that
a well balanced vegetarian diet provides adequate nutrition, including all the
“health food” nutrients of grass-fed enumerated above.
The Media Spin
My students tell me that one grass-fed beef producer has an ad on YouTube,
the popular website that originally featured amateur rock stars performing their
songs. My computer search requests for information about grass-fed returned so
many results I could not begin to exhaust them.
The Eatwild website includes directories of stores, farms and companies that
sell grass-fed beef, and scrolling through these gives the impression that we
are looking at a “revolution in beef production.” The Chipotle fast food chain
has announced that it purchases millions of pounds of grass-fed. Online and
telephone ordering of grass-fed seems to be flourishing; La Cense Beef tells me
they can send me Montana grass-fed by UPS-air in special dry ice containers.
But, amid this apparent proliferation, Time/CNN recently announced that
grass-fed constitutes only one percent of the beef supply in North America.
The first time I read a magazine article about grass-fed beef, it seemed
wonderful. The journalist had visited a small farm in Vermont where the cattle
consumed only mother’s milk and grass (and, I am sure, hay in the winter, though
this was not mentioned in the article). The farmer divided his pasture into
paddocks and rotated the herd periodically – Management Intensive Grazing, it is
called. The beef is sold at local farmers’ markets, natural food stores and
restaurants. The writer stressed the ways in which this product is superior to
CAFO beef. Although the rest of the article delivered some facts that tempered
the beauty of this image, I was left with the impression that this is the way
all grass-fed farmers operate. I imagined that all issues were somehow solved
and that this is the solution to the many problems I had heard about concerning
modern beef production.
The media spin can make us sometimes lulled into a stupor and sometimes
dizzy. Much of the information is partial and confusing. Some articles or
websites stress health, some green issues, others the economics of the alleged
revolution. What we need is a level-headed approach which looks at grass-fed
from many different angles. Surely what we would hope for is assurance that the
beef is organic, grass-fed, green in the local and global senses and certified
humane. My research sheds serious doubt on this hope. Can there be a label that
covers all of this?
I am afraid the bottom line is this: Beef production is a complex, messy and
inefficient business. Compared to producing vegetables and grains, beef
production involves much more energy and other resources, including the power
for refrigeration of the product; and if grass-fed production grows, we face a
global problem of grazing space, as it replaces other land uses. Finally, we
have to consider a range of issues about humane treatment, issues that arise
only in relation to animal products. So we need a comprehensive approach to
grass-fed beef – one that asks: “All considered, is grass-fed beef a wise food
choice?”
Learn More
American Grass-fed Association (AGA): Leading independent organization that
certifies farmers for a fee. Beef bearing the AGA label comes from cattle which
have not been confined and have not been given antibiotics or hormones. AGA
certified beef is from cattle which have been fed only forage (basically grass
and hay). AGA does not emphasize green issues or humane treatment issues.
www.americangrassfed.org
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Government department that
has struggled to define “grass-fed” with no clear result. AGA has strongly
criticized USDA’s definitions. USDA has a recognized “Certified Organic” label
which indicates the product is free of herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics and
hormones. All feed is to be vegetarian and may include grains. The detailed USDA
standards statement for “organic” mentions biodiversity, confinement and soil
issues but the impact is softened by loopholes such as “insofar as is
practicable.” Biodiversity is to be “supported.” “Severe confinement” is to be
avoided. www.ams.usda.gov
Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC): Respected NGO backed by the Humane Society
and other organizations. Under guidance of revered scholars like Temple Grandin,
HFAC focuses mainly on humane treatment issues, not green issues. It has a
rigorous system of inspection, certification, and labeling. HFAC’s “Certified
Humane” label covers both grass- fed and grain-fed beef
products.www.certifiedhumane.com
Eatwild: NGO which aggressively promotes grass-fed beef production. Eatwild’s
electronic and hardcopy publications detail the problems with CAFO beef
production and argue for grass-fed in copious detail. The Eatwild website
includes directories of and descriptions of farms that raise grass-fed in Canada
and the United States. Some farmers are very conscientious, thus producing an
idealistic image of grass-fed methods.
www.eatwild.com
Gene C. Sager is Professor of Environmental Ethics at Palomar
College in San Marcos, California.
This is one of a
limited number of articles from Natural Life Magazine presented on
this website for free. To read more,
please
subscribe.
