Cows that feed solely on pasture perform a valuable service: they transform what's inedible to us -- grass -- into a rich source of protein and other nutrients. And when such cows are raised in moderate numbers, they can actually improve the health and biodiversity of grasslands. Moreover, cows evolved to eat grass, so the pasture model is clearly the most animal-friendly way to create beef.
To me, the grass-fed concept exemplifies responsible agrarianism: it's energy efficient (it relies on no vast, petroleum-guzzling corn fields), it enhances rather than degrades the ecosystems it relies on, and it forces us to eat mindfully and in season.
If we insisted on raising all of our beef on ample pasture, every American would be able to savor the privilege of eating beef only, say, every couple of weeks -- and less during the grazing season, when cows are fattening up.
Which sounds about right to me.
Leave it to the USDA -- that hothouse of food-industry flackery -- to attempt to screw it all up.
Let's look at the USDA for a second. Its director, Mike Johanns, is a former governor of Nebraska, the nation's top beef-producing state. Its deputy chief is Chuck Conner, former flack for uber-agribiz giant Archer Daniels Midland -- which provides much of the corn that gushes into the nation's feedlots.
Its chief of staff is Dale Moore, the former top lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association -- which views concentrated feedlots and cheap corn as the proper elements of beef raising. Its undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, Kate Coler, previously served as chief lobbyist for the Food Marketing Institute -- a trade group for supermarket chains. (Before that, she represented the American Bankers Association in its lobbying efforts before the USDA and Congressional ag committees).
Shot through with food-industry shills, it's no wonder that the USDA has come out with an industry-friendly proposal for defining "grass-fed beef."
Think beef labeled "grass-fed" should come from cows that graze outside on grass? You're wrong, says the USDA. According to a recent AP story, the USDA's latest proposal on the grass-fed label would cover confined cows fed hay and leftover corn stalks.
The agency's official reasoning for proposing this loose standard sounds reasonable enough, at first glance. A USDA functionary explained to AP that:
With the geographic diversity found in the U.S., a farmer or rancher in Minnesota is going to have a little bit different grass-fed scheme than, say, one that's located in Alabama, in the South where year-round grazing is available. What we tried to do with this grass-fed claim is make it where anyone in the U.S. that wanted to make this claim could.
But that's bunkum. Sustainable agriculture -- the movement that reintroduced grass-fed beef in the first place -- respects geographical differences; it doesn't try to paper them over. If grass-fed beef is easier to produce in Alabama than it is in Minnesota, then grass-fed steaks should be cheaper and more abundant in Alabama than Minnesota. Period.
Brazenly, the USDA man added that "insisting on access to pasture could be covered by another standard, such as the department's rules for organic meat," AP reported. Of course, the agency is already letting so-called "organic" cows be confined in feedlots as well.
The USDA's endless shell games with labels like "organic" and "grass fed" will fool some consumers but not all. The best way to avoid being flummoxed by government bureaucrats doing industry's bidding is to seek out farmers whose practices you know and trust.
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
Heidi Posted 5:40 am
06 Sep 2006
But I refuse to just accept that food labels are meant to be meaningless. With so much information being pelted at us, it is very important that consumers be able to use easy-to-identify labels to help them make decisions. How can the government get away with this? If the USDA isn't setting standards that are meaningful, then who is?
Is there a letter-writing or lobbying campaign on the horizon? Do I need to start one?
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
meander Posted 6:42 am
06 Sep 2006
The report is "Greener Pastures: How grass-fed beef and milk contribute to healthy eating", and can be found here.
The key findings, summarized in the Executive Summary:
"We reviewed all the studies published in English we could find that compare levels of [beneficial] fatty acids in pasture-raised milk and meat with levels in conventionally produced milk and meat, and converted these levels into amounts per serving of milk, steak, and ground beef. The resulting analysis found statistically significant differences in fat content between pasture-raised and conventional products. Specifically:
Steak and ground beef from grass-fed cattle are almost always lower in total fat than steak and ground beef from conventionally raised cattle.
Steak from grass-fed cattle tends to have higher levels of the omega-3 fatty acid ALA.
Steak from grass-fed cattle sometimes has higher levels of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA.
Ground beef from grass-fed cattle usually has higher levels of CLA.
Milk from pasture-raised cattle tends to have higher levels of ALA.
Milk from pasture-raised cattle has consistently higher levels of CLA."
ALA, EPA, DHA, CLA are defined in the Exec Summary.
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:53 am
06 Sep 2006
I'm hoping that even if the USDA gets away with watering down the "grass fed" definition, websites like this one will be diligent in letting the consumer know exactly what they are buying, even if you cannot visit the farm in person.
I haven't eaten beef in many years, but I recently threw an End of Summer BBQ party at my place and decided I should serve hamburgers. The Eat Well guide has a handy-dandy search engine to locate local stores, farms, and on-line purveyors of all sorts of organic, pasture-raised, heritage, etc., foods. I ordered ground beef from Sweet Grass Farm in Vernon, NY. Ground beef was $3 a pound (!!), shipped overnight, and, according to my boyfriend, made burgers that were "amazingly good."
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:08 am
06 Sep 2006
Also, there is a lot of talk in small-farm circles about new, non-USDA labels. Here is an example from the celebrated Maine grower Elliot Coleman.
I should have added in the post that the whole impetus behind the move is to give large-scale industrial producers access to the premium awarded by the market for grass-fed beef, without having fundamentally to change their practices -- as is happening with "organic" milk. Agreed that it's unacceptable.
Permalink
Mike Frew Posted 8:37 am
06 Sep 2006
Industry players have excerted pressure in order to have goods made abroad, but designed in NZ and with NZ sourced material included under a "Kiwi Made" labelling system. An iconic NZ company that manufactures in China has been particularly vocal.
Aims of the Kiwi Made program include supporting local manufacturing and reducing our external dependance (as a remote country) in an energy constraned world. So Kiwi Made means just that. Similarly, I'm sure the intentions of a "Grass Fed" label is to inform consumers just that. Like many similar issues, this is one of local sustainability.
It seems that for both NZ and the US the issue has become one where a group of interested industry players (bound to be excluded) rally to have the rules changed in order to protect their positions. Most often their position is one based on "un-sustainable" practices, and a labeling regime that excludes them would tag them as "un-sustainable".
If the punters want "Corn Fed" meat, or indeed "Made abroad" clothing they have a right to buy them. But if its corn fed or made abroad and labelled otherwise its plain misleading.
So, Heidi, stay strong. These are important issues. The average consumer is (and maybe will allways be) unaware of what sits behind the label. Getting rules right from the get-go is crucial.
Permalink