{"id":23588,"date":"2026-03-10T09:13:27","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T16:13:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/foodrevolution.org\/?p=23588"},"modified":"2026-08-06T11:32:30","modified_gmt":"2026-08-06T18:32:30","slug":"grass-fed-beef","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foodrevolution.org\/blog\/grass-fed-beef\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Grass-Fed Beef Good for Your Health & the Planet?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cattle (like sheep, deer, and other grazing animals) are endowed with the ability to convert grasses into flesh. Humans can\u2019t do this because we\u2019re missing an organ called a rumen: a 45-or-so-gallon fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into protein and fats.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the U.S., however, <\/span>about<\/span><\/a> 97% of the cows raised for beef spend the end of their lives in feedlots, where they\u2019re fed corn and soy instead of their natural diet. There are two big problems with this arrangement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, land that\u2019s used to grow corn and soy for cattle isn\u2019t available for other, better uses: healthy produce for humans, or wild pastureland or forest.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, cattle are not suited to consume corn or soybeans, so they convert it into themselves \u2014 into our meat \u2014 quite inefficiently. Since it takes anywhere from 4<\/a> to as many as 20<\/a> pounds of grain to make a pound of feedlot-derived beef (depending on who is doing the calculation and what they include), we actually get far less food out than we put in. What we\u2019ve created is effectively a protein factory in reverse. And we do this on a massive scale, while nearly 650 million people on our planet face hunger<\/a>, and over 2 billion experience moderate or severe food insecurity.<\/p>\n

Around the world, people are waking up to the harms of industrialized beef. The United Nations\u2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is calling<\/a> on humanity to eat less meat to help save the planet. Organizations such as the American Heart Association and the National Cancer Institute are urging consumers to eat less (or no) red meat to help fight heart disease<\/a> and cancer<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

A small number of municipal governments have taken action: several UK councils, including Lewisham, Faversham, and Hythe, have committed<\/a> to serving only plant-based food at council events, while some Canadian cities, such as Vancouver, have considered<\/a> similar procurement policies. Health Canada’s national food guide also now recommends<\/a> choosing plant-based proteins more often., while 67 cities globally have signed the Plant-based Treaty<\/a>, aligned with the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change 2015 Paris Agreement, pledging to “halt the widespread degradation of critical ecosystems caused by animal agriculture” and promote shifts toward plant-based diets. Perhaps most significantly, China, which is home to 1.3 billion people (nearly one-fifth of the world’s population), has made<\/a> reducing meat consumption by 50% an official government policy to support both public and environmental health.<\/p>\n

The Rise of Grass-fed Beef<\/span><\/h2>\n

Despite the calls for consumers to eat less meat to fight <\/span>climate change<\/span><\/a> and other environmental harms \u2014 as well as <\/span>research showing<\/span><\/a> that red meat isn\u2019t doing <\/span>your health<\/span><\/a> any favors \u2014 beef consumption in the U.S. has been <\/span>on the rise<\/span><\/a> over the past two decades. This is partly due to the rapid growth in the sales of grass-fed beef.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Advocates for grass-fed beef say it has health and environmental benefits compared to conventionally raised beef. Marketers and enthusiasts praise it as a healthy food rich in protein, B vitamins, iron, and other nutrients. And some environmentalists <\/span>gush<\/span><\/a> over the theory that properly managed grass-fed beef could help sequester carbon in the ground, helping fight climate change while restoring topsoil.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

And consumers are responding. Financial analysts <\/span>estimate<\/span><\/a> the current grass-fed beef market at around $13.5 billion, projecting it to rise to over $21 billion by 2035. The reasons include \u201ca shift in consumer preferences toward healthier\u2026 food choices\u201d and \u201c<\/span>rising awareness surrounding the importance of animal welfare and sustainability in farming practices.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Are those good reasons, or is it industry hype, seeking to soothe the consciences of a bunch of environmentally conflicted burger-lovers? Is grass-fed beef really better for you, the animals, and the environment than conventional beef? Will it save our topsoil and reverse climate change? And what is grass-fed beef, anyway?<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Black
iStock.com\/ablokhin<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Before the 1950s<\/span><\/a>, grass-fed beef was just called \u201cbeef.\u201d That was the way meat cattle were raised. Cows got to live longer back then, sometimes reaching their 3rd birthdays. (For context, cows live 15\u201320 years on average, with the <\/span>oldest known cow<\/span><\/a>, Big Bertha, reaching her 49th year on a farm in lush County Kerry, Ireland.)<\/span><\/p>\n

In the middle of the 20th century, as the popularity of hamburgers and fast food in the U.S. grew, farmers and ranchers needed a way to fatten up cows faster, so they started feeding them energy-dense grain and soy instead of grass.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Today, most cattle in the United States start out <\/span>eating grass<\/span><\/a>, but are fattened \u2014 or what the industry euphemistically calls \u201cfinished\u201d \u2014 on grain and soy for their last 160\u2013180 days of life. While this accounts for barely a third of their lifespan, more than half of their <\/span>weight gain<\/span><\/a> occurs during this final half-year. Cows that are fattened up in these Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) reach their slaughter weight in around 15 months.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Grass-fed cows, on the other hand, feed on grass and other forage for their entire lives. Since the grass they eat is much less calorie-dense than feedlot grain, they\u2019re sent to slaughter later, usually between 18 months and 2 years old. Their average weight at slaughter is <\/span>about<\/span><\/a> 1,200 pounds, compared with <\/span>about<\/span><\/a> 1,400 pounds for feedlot cows.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

And keep in mind that most of that weight is hoof, hide, bone, excess fat, and inedible body parts. Grass-fed cattle carry less finishing fat and proportionally larger digestive organs, so they dress out at a lower percentage of live weight than grain-fed cattle (roughly 53\u201358% versus 60\u201364%). The actual edible meat on a 1,200-pound grass-fed steer might be<\/a> around 400\u2013430 pounds, whereas the edible meat on a grain-fed CAFO steer might be<\/a> around 570 pounds.<\/p>\n

So grass-fed cows live longer and yield less edible meat than their grain-fed counterparts.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Grass-Fed Beef Better than Conventional Beef?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\"Woman
iStock.com\/agrobacter<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

We\u2019ve seen some of the claims that grass-fed beef is better than conventional beef; what does the research tell us? Let\u2019s take a look at the three main areas where grass-fed beef is said to be a better option: nutrition, the environment, and the treatment of animals.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Grass-Fed Beef Nutrition<\/span><\/h2>\n

While grass-fed beef is marketed as nutritionally superior<\/a>, the actual health benefits are marginal. For example, proponents tell us that grass-fed beef contains roughly 3 times more omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef. And it\u2019s true. But according to<\/a> research from Texas A&M University, this “superior” amount is still nutritionally negligible. A 4-ounce grass-fed patty provides only about 55 mg of ALA, which is a tiny 3% to 5% of the daily recommended intake<\/a> (1.1 g for women, 1.6 g for men). Those numbers are tiny compared to a single tablespoon of ground flaxseed (about 2,350 mg of ALA) or chia seeds (about 1,800 mg), or an ounce of walnuts (about 2,600 mg) \u2014 all figures from USDA FoodData Central<\/a>. Fatty fish supply<\/a> the more bioactive long-chain omega-3s EPA and DHA directly: a 100-gram cooked serving provides anywhere from roughly 900 mg (trout, sardines) to just over 2,000 mg (anchovy, herring, salmon), depending on species. Even a single tablespoon of canola oil provides over 1.4 grams. Ultimately, trying to source omega-3s from beef is like trying to hydrate by eating a cracker; the levels are so low that the distinction between grass-fed and conventional beef doesn’t actually make a difference for human health.<\/p>\n

When it comes to vitamins and minerals, the differences between grass-fed and conventional beef are generally modest. While grass-fed beef <\/span>contains<\/span><\/a> higher levels of vitamins A and E, the concentrations of essential minerals like iron and zinc remain comparable across both types. Ultimately, these minor variations aren’t dramatic enough to significantly alter the overall nutritional profile.<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, switching from conventional to grass-fed beef may slightly tweak the nutritional profile in a beneficial direction. But it doesn\u2019t transform it into a \u201chealth food.\u201d In fact, grass-fed beef is a bit <\/span>higher<\/span><\/a> in saturated fat and in trans fats, which are linked to an increased risk of <\/span>heart disease<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>type 2 diabetes<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Alzheimer\u2019s disease<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s <\/span>cancer<\/span><\/a>. Red meat of all kinds, including grass-fed beef, is labeled a class 2A <\/strong><\/span>carcinogen<\/a><\/strong> by the World Health Organization, meaning that it\u2019s \u201cprobably cancer-causing\u201d to humans.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Recent <\/span>research also suggests<\/span><\/a> that red meat, grass-fed or not, promotes the body\u2019s production of a compound called TMAO, which can contribute to <\/strong><\/span>heart disease<\/a><\/strong> and other chronic lifestyle diseases.<\/strong> And all red meat can be a nasty vector for the spread of pathogenic bacteria, which can sneak into meat during processing, grinding, and packaging, and cause <\/span>foodborne illness<\/span><\/a>. While the risk of dangerous bacterial contamination from grass-fed beef is <\/span>lower<\/span><\/a>, it\u2019s certainly not zero.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While grass-fed beef has a superior nutritional profile on paper, there is a total lack of long-term scientific evidence proving that eating it translates to better health outcomes for humans over time.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grass-Fed Beef & the Environment<\/span><\/h2>\n
\"Grass-fed
iStock.com\/SteveOehlenschlager<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Grass-fed beef advocates claim that it\u2019s better for the environment than traditional beef. But that, in and of itself, is not saying much. After all, conventional beef production is nothing short of an environmental disaster.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Problems With the Cattle Industry<\/span><\/h3>\n

At least <\/span>one-third<\/span><\/a> of the world\u2019s arable land is used to raise livestock. And new areas are constantly being cleared through deforestation to make more room, most alarmingly in the precious and irreplaceable <\/span>Amazon rainforest<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Beef cattle production contributes an enormous amount of <\/span>greenhouse gas emissions<\/span><\/a>, including methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. According to the UN\u2019s Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock supply chains account for roughly <\/span>one-seventh of global human-caused emissions<\/span><\/a>, with cattle the largest source. And that might be a conservative estimate; some experts <\/span>argue<\/span><\/a> that it downplays the significant \u201c<\/span>opportunity costs<\/span><\/a>\u201d of the land if it were freed up for more environmentally responsible uses.<\/span><\/p>\n

Cows eat plants, which is where they receive the nutrients that they capture in their flesh. But they also turn those plants into hoof, hide, bones, energy, methane, and manure (lots and lots of manure, as anyone who\u2019s spent more than 10 minutes at a dairy farm or grazing pasture will confirm). After cows arrive at a feedlot, they gain enough weight to produce about one new pound of beef for every 14 pounds of feed input. The other 13 are essentially wasted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here’s the math behind that number, if you want it. Feel free to skip ahead if you trust us:<\/p>\n

<\/b><\/b>A steer typically enters a feedlot weighing between 600 and 800 pounds. According<\/a> to PennState Extension, bringing a 600-pound calf to a finished weight of 1,400 pounds requires approximately 5,000 pounds of feed (measured on a dry-matter basis). According to <\/span>yield data<\/a> from the University of Nebraska\u2013Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, a 1,400-pound steer yields about 570 pounds of boneless, trimmed retail beef.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>But not all of that beef is the result of feedlot feeding. The animal already carried meat on its frame when it arrived. Applying standard dressing and retail yield percentages to a 600-pound steer suggests it would have yielded roughly 215 pounds of boneless, trimmed beef if slaughtered at arrival weight. (This estimate is adjusted downward slightly to reflect that younger, leaner animals yield a smaller percentage of retail beef.)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

That means the finishing phase adds approximately 355 pounds of retail beef.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Dividing 5,000 pounds of feed by 355 pounds of added beef gives <\/span>roughly 14 pounds of feed per pound of new retail beef produced during the finishing period.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

To be clear about what this figure does and doesn’t show: It reflects total feed inputs during the feedlot phase compared to the additional edible beef produced in that stage. It is not a lifetime feed conversion ratio, and it differs from the live-weight ratios commonly cited by the beef industry. Put simply, it takes roughly 14 pounds of feed to produce one new pound of beef at the feedlot. That’s the number worth keeping in mind.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Is Grass-Fed Beef Better for the Environment?<\/span><\/h2>\n

Proponents of grass-fed beef tell us it can actually be <\/span>good<\/span><\/i> for the planet. Before we get to that argument, it’s worth understanding just how deep a hole conventional beef has dug. A 2011 Environmental Working Group <\/span>analysis<\/span><\/a> found that beef <\/span>produces<\/span><\/a> about 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions per pound than chicken or pork, and roughly 100 times more than beans. Meanwhile, some <\/span>estimates<\/span><\/a> put the water cost of a single pound of conventionally raised beef at over 1,800 gallons, compared to about 220 gallons for wheat and 148 gallons for a pound of corn. So when advocates say grass-fed is better for the environment, the bar they’re clearing is low.<\/span><\/p>\n

Carbon Sequestration and Rotational Grazing<\/span><\/h3>\n

The earth has lost enormous reserves of soil carbon as humans have converted forests and grasslands into cropland and cattle pasture. The idea of <\/span>soil carbon sequestration<\/span><\/a> is that carbon can be returned to the ground through practices that restore degraded soils and build <\/span>soil carbon pools<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

One approach is called <\/span>carbon farming<\/span><\/a>, in which farmers use plants to capture carbon dioxide and lock it into the soil through long-rooted crops, adding organic matter, and reducing tilling.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another is <\/span>rotational grazing<\/span><\/a>, where a pasture is divided into multiple paddocks and livestock are moved from one to the next on a planned schedule. This rest-and-recovery cycle lets grazed areas regenerate, encouraging grasses to rebuild deeper root systems. Those roots feed soil microbes and deposit organic matter underground \u2014 producing soil that is healthier, more water-retentive, and genuinely richer in carbon.<\/span><\/p>\n

The climate benefits are real, but limited. One meta-analysis <\/span>found<\/span><\/a> rotational grazing can increase soil organic carbon by 21% in its first 3 years. The catch is that those gains are front-loaded: Sequestration slows significantly after 5\u201320 years as the soil approaches a new equilibrium \u2014 it can only hold so much. Results also <\/span>vary widely<\/span><\/a> by region, climate, and how carefully grazing intensity is managed. And rotational systems require significant land \u2014 land that, devoted to growing plant foods instead, could feed far more people per acre.<\/span><\/p>\n

Most importantly, better soil carbon doesn’t close the climate loop on its own. Cattle still belch methane, which <\/span>accounts<\/span><\/a> for roughly 37% of global methane emissions. Methane is <\/span>28 times<\/span><\/a> more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame. With the higher fiber content in grasses than grains, grass-fed cows may produce even more methane than grain-fed ones. And with grass-fed cattle living up to 60% longer as feedlot cattle, they produce<\/a> methane for longer, too.<\/span><\/p>\n

Research consistently shows that soil carbon gains from even well-managed grazing typically don’t fully offset those ongoing emissions. Rotational grazing is meaningfully better than continuous or intensive grazing: It restores degraded land, improves ecosystem health, and delivers real, if partial, climate benefit. But it’s an improvement, <\/span>not a solution<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

If you’re looking for more powerful ways land can capture carbon, check out the eight solutions in <\/span>this article<\/span><\/a>. (Spoiler: the word “beef” does not appear.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The Rest of The Environmental Picture<\/span><\/h3>\n

Even if grass-fed beef could achieve <\/span>carbon neutrality<\/span><\/a> in the long run, is that a reason to chow down on beef? Nearly 60% of the world\u2019s agricultural land is <\/span>used<\/span><\/a> for beef production. And all that land yields less than 2% of humanity\u2019s calories. What else could be done with that land that might more effectively regenerate soil and sequester carbon? What if we used it to grow cover crops? Or used it to grow trees?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In some ways, grass-fed beef might actually be worse for the planet than feedlot beef.<\/b> The biggest reason for this is that grass-fed cows <\/span>take longer to fatten up<\/span><\/a>, so they live an average of 18\u201324 months, whereas feedlot cows are typically killed at around 15 months. This extra longevity necessitates more cows roaming around \u2014 and more land on which to grow their (grass) food. If we moved all cows out of feedlots, and we didn\u2019t reduce our beef consumption dramatically, we\u2019d find ourselves with a severe shortage of grazing land. According to a 2012 <\/span>study<\/span><\/a> published in the journal <\/span>Animals,<\/span><\/i> if all the U.S. beef produced in 2010 were grass-fed, the industry would have required an additional 200,000 square miles \u2014 an area <\/span>larger<\/span><\/a> than all the land in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio combined. Of course, we\u2019d free up some of the land currently growing corn, soy, and other feedstuffs for cattle feed. But not nearly enough to provide for all those cows roaming around for all those additional months.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Amazonian Deforestation<\/span><\/h4>\n

For a look at the worst possible environmental impact of large-scale, grass-fed beef production, we need look no further than Brazil, where an environmental nightmare of epic proportions is unfolding. Multiple analyses \u2014 including Greenpeace’s own reporting \u2014 have found that cattle ranching is responsible for roughly 80% of deforestation in the Amazon region, and the Brazilian Amazon cattle sector alone accounts for about 14% of the world’s total annual deforestation. Greenpeace estimates<\/a> that deforestation driven by cattle ranching worldwide releases about 340 million tons of carbon annually \u2014 roughly 3.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n

Since then, the situation in Brazil has only gotten worse. Brazil is the world\u2019s largest beef exporter<\/a> and home to the planet\u2019s largest commercial cattle herd. According to Brazil’s official statistics agency (IBGE), the country’s cattle herd stood<\/a> at about 239 million head in 2023 \u2014 though USDA estimates<\/a> put it closer to 187 million head by 2025 as the sector moves<\/a> through a herd-contraction phase, a reminder that even a headline livestock number shifts year to year. . Multiple analyses \u2014 including statements attributed to Brazilian government sources \u2014 have found<\/a> that cattle ranching is responsible for roughly 80% of deforestation in the Amazon region<\/strong>, making beef production the single largest driver of forest loss there. <\/span><\/p>\n

As global demand for beef has grown, so too has pressure on one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth. Much of the remaining 20% is for land to grow <\/span>soy<\/span><\/a>, which is not mostly used to make tofu. Instead, three-quarters of Brazil\u2019s soybeans are<\/span> exported<\/span><\/a> to China, where they are primarily crushed into soymeal for livestock and aquaculture feed, along with soybean oil.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Amazonian cattle are free-range, grass-fed, and possibly organic, but they are still a plague on the planet and a driving force behind global warming. And because U.S. supply can\u2019t keep up with demand, the <\/span>vast majority<\/span><\/a> of what is sold in the U.S. as \u201cgrass-fed beef\u201d is actually sourced from Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, and Australia. Thanks to a labelling loophole, it\u2019s typically sold as a \u201cproduct of the USA.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Grass-Fed Beef Better for Cows?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\"drone
iStock.com\/Paralaxis<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Cows that graze for their whole lives are healthier, and almost certainly happier, than conventional cows that are finished in feedlots. Feedlots such as California\u2019s Harris Ranch routinely<\/a> cram more than 100,000 cattle onto roughly 800 acres \u2014 about 1.25 square miles. But the cows aren\u2019t potty trained, and they don\u2019t pay for sewer hookups, either. So they live their entire lives in a mess of their own excrement.<\/p>\n

Feeding cows grain in feedlots can cause health problems, too, including liver abscesses, which is one <\/span>reason<\/span><\/a> that grain-fed cows are typically given <\/span>antibiotics<\/span><\/a> right in their feed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Author Michael Pollan <\/span>describes<\/span><\/a> what happens to cows when they are taken off of pastures and put into feedlots and fed corn:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cPerhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal\u2019s lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal\u2019s esophagus), the cow suffocates.<\/span><\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Feedlot beef as we know it today would be impossible if it weren\u2019t for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These new \u201csuperbugs\u201d are increasingly rendering our antibiotics ineffective for treating disease in humans.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In comparison, cattle <\/span>experience<\/span><\/a> greater well-being and better health when they\u2019re able to eat the diet for which their digestive systems were designed, and when they have access to more outdoor space.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Still, the life of all cows, whether grass-fed or grain-fed, does come to an end. And there\u2019s still nothing cheery about <\/span>their deaths<\/span><\/a>. A better life is worth a lot. But it doesn’t change the final chapter.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What Grass-Fed and Organic Beef Labels Actually Mean<\/span><\/h2>\n
\"organic
iStock.com\/subjug<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Grass-fed and organic beef command what economists term <\/span>premium<\/span><\/a> prices. (Translation: They\u2019re expensive.) But the meaning of the phrases is poorly regulated, leading to misunderstandings among often well-meaning consumers. Technically, grass-fed should mean that a cow lived its entire life on pasture, without confinement, eating grass. But keep in mind that most cows are grass-fed for at least part of their lives, <\/span>until<\/span><\/a> they weigh 600 to 800 pounds, at which point they are shipped off to a feedlot for fattening.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The government’s regulation of “grass-fed” beef is complicated and often unclear. While the USDA withdrew its formal standard in 2016, companies must still seek approval from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) by providing their own records. The most recent <\/span>FSIS guidance<\/span><\/a> (2024) relies heavily on producer documentation. It has varying enforcement, which may allow some meat to be legally sold as “grass-fed” even if the cattle spent part of their lives in feedlots eating grain and soybeans.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consumers who care about this critical distinction need to make sure they\u2019re getting 100% grass-fed beef, which is sometimes called \u201cgrass-finished beef.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The USDA organic certification guarantees that the animals were raised on pesticide-free food and were never given hormones or antibiotics. But beef labeled \u201corganic\u201d can still come from animals that were cooped up in feedlots and fed (organic) grain and soy for the latter part of their lives.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Anyone looking for truly organic, 100% grass-fed meat needs to look carefully at what they\u2019re actually getting.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>American Grassfed Association<\/span><\/a> (AGA), which advocates for grass-fed producers and offers a certification program for cattle farmers, assures that beef bearing its seal comes from cattle raised on a 100% grass-fed diet. And they add further specifications, including that the cattle are raised by family farmers on pastures without confinement and are never fed antibiotics or hormones. There appear to be a few hundred member farms across the U.S. that currently carry the AGA certification.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There are other certifying bodies, too, including the <\/span>Food Alliance<\/span><\/a> Grass-Fed Certification and the USDA\u2019s <\/span>Small & Very Small Producer Program<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Best Beef? None At All<\/span><\/h2>\n
\"Prepping
iStock.com\/Serenethos<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Conventional feedlot-finished beef is nothing short of a health, environmental, and ethical disaster. And grass-fed beef is arguably better on all three fronts. So if you\u2019re going to eat beef, then there are good reasons to choose grass-fed and organic beef over the products of feedlots. And if you\u2019re concerned about climate change, then regenerative is a step better yet.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if you want to save money and do a good turn for your health, the planet, and the animals, there are plenty of plant-based options to choose from. (For our article on how to get rolling on a whole food, plant-powered diet, <\/span>click here<\/span><\/a>.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There are also <\/span>plant-based meats<\/span><\/a>, of course. Not all of them are highly processed (though most are). But don\u2019t forget about <\/span>beans<\/span><\/a>. If the whole world started swapping beans for beef even some of the time, we could take a huge bite out of climate change. We could save what\u2019s left of the Amazon rainforest. We could spare the lives of tens of millions of cows. We could restore the fertility of our soils. And we could prevent countless heart attacks, too.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Tell us in the comments:<\/h4>\n