Grass Fed
Contents
Introduction
Animal products packaged with a generic grass-fed label are often thought to represent a better life for animals, a smaller footprint for our planet, and a healthier alternative for human consumption. But as shown below, any claims for animal welfare are meaningless for the generic label, and the claims for sustainability and better health are highly questionable.
In 2016, the USDA stopped regulating the label, leaving producers to use the label no matter how much or little grass was used in feeding. And given that "most all beef cattle spend at least a portion of their lives on grass,"[1], the notion that the grass-fed claim confers something special and unique is questionable.
The private American Grass Fed Certified seal also makes dubious claims. This standard requires inspections every 15 months, but we can find no evidence the inspections are unannounced—a key provision for meaningful audits. Records of inspections are not public, so we do not know if there are violations or how they are handled. Also, it may be difficult to find products with this seal in your area, More specific claims for this label are discussed below.
Animal Welfare Claims
Generic Label
Some may suppose that grass-fed infers a better life for ruminants because they are eating their natural diet and doing so in roomy pastures. This is true only to the extent they are fed appreciable amounts of grass and they are spending time in roomy pastures, neither of which are conferred by this label. Also, being feed grass does necessarily mean their feeding is done in pastures.
Also, the label says nothing about other injustices the animals may experiece. It had few implications for animal welfare even before the USDA dropped enforcement in 2016, as it didn't prohibit routine cruelties such as dehorning and castration with anesthesia, harsh living conditions, rough handling, lack of veterinary care, and, of course, slaughter. The designation had only to do with feeding. Now that the label is not regulated it remains meaningless for animal welfare.
American Grass Fed
The standards for this private certification include an often vaguely worded section on animal welfare that might provide a marginally better life for animals if the stipulations were strictly interpreted and enforced, which seems unlikely. Even so, the standards neither prohibit nor require anesthetics for routine cruelties such as dehorning and castration. And of course, the animals are sent to slaughter at an early age.
Sustainability Claims
Human Health Claims
Animal Welfare Claims
Counter Claims
Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture, 2017. This study written by one poultry science professor and one dairy science professor purports to show that a world without animal agriculture could not sustain itself and human health would suffer. The claims are countered by two environmental scientists in one letter, and two public health and one natural resources scientist in another letter. Truth or Drought[2] wrote a point-by-point breakdown of fallacies in the study.
Temp: Research
Generic Grass-Fed Labelling. Even before the USDA dropped their regulation of the grass-fed label in 2016,[3] the designation had only to do with feeding and did not prohibit routine cruelties such as dehorning, castration, harsh living conditions, rough handling, and lack of veterinary care. No on-site inspection was required,[4] and animals could still slaughtered at an early age.[5]
Now, without even a definition of grass-fed provided by the USDA, producers are free to use the label no matter how much grass an animal has been fed. The designation is virtually meaningless.
Beef Magazine, the "the beef cattle industry’s authoritative source,"[6] says that "most all beef cattle spend at least a portion of their lives on grass,"[1]. This calls into question the notion that the grass-fed claim confers something special and unique.
In addition to animal welfare claims, two other claims are often made about grass-fed livestock—that they are raised more sustainably and that they are healthier to eat.
Regarding sustainability, in the same article Beef Magazine says that " the grain-fed model actually has the smallest footprint."[1] For more information on the sustainability of grass-fed livestock see this article from One Green Planet our own article on Grazing.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Beef Magazine. “What’s More Sustainable: Grain-Fed or Grass-Fed Beef?,” December 8, 2016. https://www.beefmagazine.com/agenda/what-s-more-sustainable-grain-fed-or-grass-fed-beef.
- ↑ https://www.truthordrought.com/food-supply-myths
- ↑ USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. “Grass Fed Marketing Claim Standard.” Accessed November 15, 2019. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/beef/grassfed.
- ↑ “Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submissions.” USDA FSIS, n.d. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf170761-33e3-4a2d-8f86-940c2698e2c5/Label-Approval-Guide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
- ↑ Whisnant, DVM, Patricia. “FAQ Grass Fed Beef.” American Grass Fed Beef (blog). Accessed October 25, 2018. https://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/faq-grass-fed-beef.asp
- ↑ Farm Progress Agricultural Marketing. “BEEF.” Accessed November 16, 2019. https://marketing.farmprogress.com/brands/livestock/beef/.
