An Orwellian proposal by the Agriculture Department to allow animals to be labeled “grass-fed” even if they were raised in a feedlot and fed grain, antibiotics and hormones, is making our stomachs churn.
Everyone but the federal government seems to understand that today’s savvy and health-conscious consumers want as much information as they can possibly get about the food they eat, not less. And they want straightforward, helpful information to make informed choices, not gobbledygook government labeling.
Food producers also want clear-cut rules. The USDA is still working on standards for use of the terms “all-natural” and “free-range.” Definitions exist for “certified organic” and “standard” beef. The New York Times reported that the American Grassfed Association suggested this definition for “grass-fed” beef: The rule should require that an animal be fed on pastures except in emergency circumstances where its life would be threatened and that the animal should be free from antibiotics and hormones.
The Ag Department took that advice, reversed it and came up with: Require that the animals be fed a diet that is mother’s milk or 99 percent grass, legumes and forage, which is anything taken by browsing or grazing. The rule doesn’t mention pastures, and as noted, would allow antibiotics and hormones.
Grass-fed producers also worry that the “forage” language would create a loophole that would allow cattle to eat grain – the main difference between grass-fed and standard beef.
Meat from grass-fed cattle is gaining popularity because it is lower in fat than conventionally-raised cattle. It also has more omega-3 fatty acids, thought to prevent heart disease and bolster the immune system, than standard beef. These differences are important, and if consumers can’t count on standards that protect the real meaning of “grass-fed” cattle, then there’s no point in government labeling at all, except “buyer beware.” Grass-fed cattle producers, who charge more for their meat than conventional producers, need standards they can point to that guarantees their product is what is says it is and justifies their price.
Part of that price reflects that the cattle spend their lives grazing on grass in a pasture, not crowded into a feedlot. That the proposal doesn’t even mention pasture is troubling.
“We know when most consumers think of grass-fed they think of cattle grazing on a pasture, not in a feedlot,” said a spokesman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
The agency’s proposal of disinformation is appalling. Perhaps federal officials can chew on the fact that seemingly everyone, except the Ag Department, knows exactly what “grass-fed” cattle is supposed to mean.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
