Hi Max, We’re sorry this one didn’t land well for you. We try to hold every article, including this one, to the same evidence-based standard, and we know that sometimes means presenting information that complicates a popular narrative, in either direction. We appreciate you saying so directly rather than just moving on, and we’ll take the feedback into account for future coverage of this topic. –Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Hi Donna! Thank you for sharing your perspective. We didn’t set out to demonize grass-fed beef. In fact the article states plainly that grass-fed is arguably better than feedlot beef on health, environmental, and ethical grounds. Our aim was to look honestly at the marketing claims versus the research, which sometimes means pointing out that “better than conventional” doesn’t automatically mean “health food.” We’re glad to hear pushback when something reads as one-sided, and we’ll keep that in mind. -–Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Hi CJ–thank you so much for your candid feedback! We’re sorry to hear you felt this way! We don’t take losing your respect lightly. Regenerative grazing and the Savory Institute’s work on soil health are actually addressed in the article, in the “Carbon Sequestration and Rotational Grazing” section. We tried to represent that the benefits are real but limited, not that they don’t matter at all. We’re always open to a closer look if you think we’ve misrepresented something specific. -–Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Hi Gordon, thank you so much for weighing in here! We hear you on wanting to trust the numbers here. That statistic comes from a 2011 Environmental Working Group analysis, which we’ve linked directly in the article if you’d like to see their methodology. We always aim to source claims like this rather than just asserting them, so we welcome you digging into it yourself. -–Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Thanks for engaging so thoroughly with the article, Chris. A few of the points you raise, like the grass-fed versus grass-finished distinction and GMO feed in conventional cattle operations, are worth more attention, and we’ll pass that feedback to our content team. We’d gently push back on the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol have been fully cleared as heart disease factors. The research is more nuanced than a single study or doctor’s opinion on either side, and we try to reflect the weight of the evidence rather than any one voice. We appreciate you taking the time to write this out. –Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Hello Re, Thank you for such a thoughtful comment, and for sharing your own farming background. You raise fair questions. Plant-based agriculture isn’t free of environmental tradeoffs, and water use, land use, and processing all deserve honest scrutiny too. This article focused mainly on comparing grass-fed to conventional beef rather than doing a full plant-vs-animal environmental accounting, which is a fair limitation to point out. We’ll keep your questions in mind for future articles that look more directly at that comparison. -–Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Hello again Kathy–your information was forwarded to Ocean and the blog team, and they will be making appropriate adjustments to the article. Thanks again for giving us this valuable information! –Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Hello RCAlberta–Thanks so much for your comment. You’re right that “grass-fed” and “grass-finished” aren’t the same thing, and that distinction matters a lot. The article actually covers this under the “What Grass-Fed and Organic Beef Labels Actually Mean” section, including why 100% grass-finished is the more meaningful label to look for. Thanks for making sure that point doesn’t get lost in the comments. -–Ina, Food Revolution Network Team

Well stated Tom… the ideology behind so-called excessive methane production by cattle in one of the silliest and ridiculous claims ever…especially claiming it is a major contributor to global warming… which they now call climate change.

The WHO did their best countering all the lies and misinformation about a lab leak origin. Tedros did make a big mistake in not fully embracing the results of the WHO Mission, which correctly found Sars-CoV-2 most likely originated from an animal spillover from the Huanan market. WHO could have announced human-to-human transmission sooner, but this was a very new virus.

Thank you for this feedback, BWJ! We appreciate your opinion and honesty. –Ina, Food Revolution Network Team