Grass Fed

Introduction

Animal products packaged with a 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 dubious for the generic label and unencompassing for the other label we examine. The claims for sustainability and better health are highly questionable for both labels even if the ruminants were mostly grass-fed.

The reason the claims are dubious for any generic labeling is that in 2016 the USDA stopped regulating the label, allowing 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,", the notion that the grass-fed claim confers something special is questionable.

The American Grassfed Association, hardly an animal rights organization, agrees, saying that after the USDA announcement " grassfed will become just another feel-good marketing ploy used by the major meatpackers to dupe consumers into buying mass-produced, grain-fed, feedlot meat."

This association's label, American Grass Fed also makes dubious claims. Their standard requires inspections every 15 months, but the standards do not require the inspections be unannounced—a key provision for meaningful audits. Records of inspections are not public, so we do not know if there are violations, how they are handled, or if penalities have been levied. More specific claims for this label are discussed below.

Animal Welfare Claims

Generic Label

Some may suppose that a grass-fed label 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 grass and the extent to which they are spending time in commodious pastures, neither of which are conferred by this unregulated label. Also, being feed grass does not necessarily mean their feeding is done in pastures.

In addition, the label says nothing about other injustices the animals may experience. It had few implications for animal welfare even before the USDA dropped enforcement in 2016,, as it didn't prohibit any 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 insignificant for animal welfare.

American Grass Fed

The standards for this private certification include sometimes vaguely worded stipulations on animal welfare that would provide a marginally better life for animals if the standards were strictly interpreted and enforced.

As one example of this vagueness, the standard says that "all livestock production methods and management must promote animal health, safety, and welfare..." Without explicit prohibitions on the mutilations mentioned earlier as well as the systemic cruelties in the industry, and in light of the pressures of production and profit. it seems unlikely that producers would incur the costs involved.

And of course, the animals are not only deprived of their lives—lives they value, they are also subjected to other forms of systemic cruelty and must endure the violence of slaughter at an early age.

Sustainability Claims

The notion that a grass-fed livestock economy is sustainable is based on ideas known as regenerative grazing and holistic land management. In our article on grazing we show the claims have little scientific foundation.

Perhaps most damaging to the idea of sustainability is the realization that we simply don't have enough land. A 2018 Harvard study concluded that the US has enough pasture to support only 27% of the current beef production."

The same study concluded that "a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including a 43% increase in methane emissions" which the EPA says have 28 to 36 times more global warming potential than carbon.

Perhaps the Center for Biological Diversity sums it up best in saying that "grazing wreaks ecological havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike — causing significant harm to species and the ecosystems on which they depend.

As a side note: While the beef industry is not the source of our assertions, it's interesting that even Beef Magazine "the beef cattle industry’s authoritative source," says that "the grain-fed model actually has the smallest footprint."

Human Health Claims

There are studies that show grass-fed beef has higher levels of some nutrients, but keep in mind, as detailed above, there is no standard definition of grass-fed. So the cattle may have eaten only a small percentage of grass in relation to their total diet. Also, we can find no evidence that these sometimes small increases in certain nutrients are enough to mitigate the health risks of red meat, as discussed below.

One study from Texas A&M reported that "there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that ground beef from grass-fed cattle is a healthier alternative to ground beef from conventionally raised, grain-fed cattle. While the particular study was for ground beef, we can find no studies that show appreciable health benefits of grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef.

All animal protein, red meat or otherwise, carries risks that are not associated with plant protein. A review by Dr. Sofia Ochoa cites 42 studies showing that animal protein:

• elevates hormone-insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which stimulates cell division and growth in both healthy and cancer cells and "has been consistently associated with increased cancer risk, proliferation, and malignancy"

• "results in us having higher circulating levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)," which "injures the lining of our vessels, creates inflammation, and facilitates the formation of cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels"

• causes the overproduction of the hormone fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), which damages our blood vessels, can "lead to enlargement of the cardiac ventricle, and is associated with heart attacks, sudden death, and heart failure"

• can result in the overabsorption of heme iron, causing the conversion of other oxidants into highly reactive free radicals that "can damage different cell structures like proteins, membranes, and DNA" (heme iron "has also been associated with many kinds of gastrointestinal cancers")

• can result in a higher incidence of bone fractures because of animal protein's high concentrations of sulfur

• contributes to atherosclerosis—plaques of cholesterol that accumulate in the lining of our vessels; this condition is far less common on a vegan diet because absorbable cholesterol is not found in plants

It’s easy to find carefully worded statements such as "red meat contains numerous vitamins and minerals that are essential for a healthful, balanced diet." But it's the nutrients that are essential, not the red meat, and these nutrients can easily be found in plants without the associated health risks of animal protein and red meat in general.