Almost always, when I talk to scientists and farmers about food supply issues — whether it’s farm size, organic methods, animal welfare, GMOs, climate impact — the answer is complicated. When it comes to feeding people, there is never one right answer. It depends on the farm, the area, the animal, the crop, the weather, the market and a bazillion other things.
Grass-fed beef is the meat of the moment. The image of cattle dotting green hillsides is an appealing counterpoint to the thought of herds corralled in crowded, grass-free feedlots. Advocates claim a trifecta of advantages: Grass-fed beef is better for you, for the animal and for the planet.
Is it?
“No matter what strategy you choose,” says Rattan Lal, director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University, “there are always trade-offs.”
What the grass-fed vs. grain-fed debate really tells us is how inadequate labels are to differentiate good from bad in our food supply. Yet those labels are regularly embroidered on flags and hoisted over intractable positions. Grass-fed beef is better! Buy organic! Only GMOs can feed the world!
What I wouldn’t give for a certificate of prudence, attesting to sound management, humane standards and responsible stewardship on any kind of farm. It’s worth working toward, and lowering the flags would be a good start.
Read full, original article: Is grass-fed beef really better for you, the animal and the planet?
