All Beef Is Grass-Fed

Thanks to Caron Golden, a San Diego based food writer and radio host (@carondg on Twitter), on December 29, I was alerted to a news story covering a taste test in a Portland, Oregon-area elementary school comparing burgers from grass-fed vs. grain-fed cattle.

I found the story disheartening, so much that I’ve spent the last week trying to track down the author or other participants in the study to clarify what I saw as significant flaws. Today I spoke with Cory Schreiber of the Oregon Department of Agriculture – what a great person - who confirmed some of my fears.

The two-part study, funded by the USDA but managed by Oregon State University, had two key findings. The first was that the school children could tell the difference between the grass-fed and grain-fed patties. The second was that about half (45 of 91) preferred the grass-fed burgers.

Based on these results, the school district elected to stick with commodity beef, with a representative explaining, “For now, since there was not a strong preference for the grass-fed patty, and it is more expensive, we will not be able to afford to serve the grass-fed patty on a regular basis."

So what’s wrong with this picture? Too many things to count but let’s just focus on the big one.

These kids were NOT, I repeat, NOT comparing grass-fed with grain-fed beef.

Actually, the burgers were both created using grain-fed beef. The article even says this up front, citing the "grass-fed" beef supplier as saying: “[The patties are] made from Angus steers in Oregon and Washington that are raised on grass, but for the last four months of their lives are fed grain and corn to fatten them up.”

How could the journalist get this wrong?

Oh wait, it gets worse.

The study was not set up to determine the relative merits of grass-fed vs. grain-fed hamburgers in the first place. The grant program that funded it was created to help interested parties evaluate the merits and costs of investing more into locally produced food.

It’s simple and unfortunate. This is a complicated category of food and there are a heck of a lot of fuzzy definitions floating around out there (and frankly, a fair amount of obsfucation, too, but that’s a whole other conversation). However, if you’re a reporter covering this news, I think it’s worth taking the time to ask questions, to clarify and confirm. And then keep an eye out for any editing that might inadvertantly change the meaning of the story.

Unfortunately, this story is being widely circulated. Not only is this hurting the prospects of those who do produce grass-fed or naturally raised beef, but it also underminessupport of the promotion of locally sourced products in our nation’s schools.

How can you help? Help others understand the differences between grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Here's something easy to remember:

ALL Beef Is Grass-Fed.

Yes, all. It’s just that some beef is fed only grass right up to their last day. The other 98 percent or more may be fed grass early in life but are finished on a diet of grasses and grains. This is an important distinction as the diet has a huge affect on taste and texture. In addition, a grass-only diet is a more natural diet for cattle and a proper grass-only program can keep land healthy and even help fight global warming.

If you know me at all, you know that I am a strong proponent of grass-fed beef. But I take a practical view, knowing that it will take years, even decades, to transition the industry to a grass-fed only system. So, I’m willing to support top-notch grain-finishers who meet or exceed my company’s minimum (and quite high) standards, thinking of it as like supporting a farm in transition to organic. But, there is a difference and consumers (as well as journalists) should know and understand this.

If you want the benefits of grass-fed beef -- Eat Wild is an excellent reference -- ask your butcher or grocer or farmer or online purveyor if it is GRASS-ONLY beef.

Don’t be surprised if the seller doesn’t know what you’re talking about but ask anyway. We need to create transparency in this category. Consumers have a right to know what exactly they’re eating and sellers should be more interested in providing consumers what they want, as well as educating themselves. It’s their business after all.

ps Sorry for the more strident tone. Perhaps I'll be smart enough to come back and edit this at a later date ;-)

Too Much Anxiety

Because I read a lot of blogs on food and occasionally write a related one myself, just about every day I learn about someone anxiously trying to make intelligent decisions about what food to feed him or herself and family. Buy local? Organic? Grass-Fed? Vegan? What is my carbon footprint?

I am personally thrilled that this conversation is taking place and believe it will eventually lead to a more balanced playing field, resulting in better tasting, better quality, even personalized food for consumers, recognition and more equitable financial rewards for top-notch producers, and a cleaner environment.

What troubles me is the tone I see emerging from all sides of the debate, a sometimes subtle and sometimes overt air of self-righteousness or moral superiority.

Most of us are pretty new at this and many haven’t yet entered the discussion. People need to feel safe while they learn and make decisions. Plus, there is so much information about food and health, much of it conflicting or emphasized at the the expense of others by one group or another to support their own bias.

Let’s cut people a little slack and act as mentors to each other rather than critics. Transparency and courtesy are a great place to start.

Jay from TheLinkery in San Diego set a perfect example in his response, titled "The Opposite of Universal" to a blog by the founder of WoolyPigs, farmer Heath Putnam, in a blog titled "The Opposite of Universal." Heath had expressed a few counterpoints to the local food movement that proved relatively, er, unpopular. In short, he expressed disappointment that his hand-crafted heritage pork had been turned away from some restaurants or markets because it wasn't deemed "local" enough (he is from Washington, he speaks of some restauranteurs in California).

In my view, what's inane is eating raspberries from California in Toronto and then seeing raspberries from Toronto for sale in California later the same week. Jay takes the conversation to a new level by providing a definition of local that transcends geography and instead supports the idea that eating local means eating food that "comes from somewhere, that introduces you to someone." I like that kind of thinking.