An unhealthy animal, treated with antibiotics and synthetic growth hormones in order to fatten it up for quick production, is vastly different from an animal raised eating grass, its native diet, able to move around in a lower stress environment.
Different methods of meat production lead to different effects on the nutritional content of the meat as well as the environmental repercussions. Grouping all red meat into the same category is a practice that needs to end today.
With factory farmed meat, the animals are fed grains in order to cut down costs and quicken the feeding process. This type of meat may contain synthetic growth hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and heavy metals that are used in the industrial farming process.
Aside from health risks, there are also large environmental risks associated with factory farming. UO graduate sociology student Julius McGee has drawn attention to some of these problems in his research.
“Grass-fed meat helps reduce the amount of emissions coming from cows,” said McGee.
He explains that enteric fermentation occurs in grain-fed animals, one of the factors that contributes to the emission of the toxic methane gas. Methane is a large contributor to the global greenhouse gas problem.
The environmental impacts are a whole lot different with animals that are fed grass. The National Trust, a conservation non-profit in the United Kingdom, found that grass-fed beef reduces the carbon footprint, along with increasing the biodiversity of pasture ecosystems. In basic terms: it’s beneficial to the environment.
Grass-fed, organic meat has also been shown to have higher levels of Omega 3s, CLA’s and TVA’s (healthy fats), along with higher carotenoids, which is a signal of nutrient density, compared to grain-fed animals.
The main problem with people’s view on meat is that it appears to be politically based, rather than evaluating the real facts. Vegans and vegetarians are radically against the consumption of meat in general, they seem to pay no attention to the type of farming process involved with the livestock.
People like to make blanket statements blaming meat for many of the environmental problems today. It would be more worthy to direct this animosity against eating meat towards the factory farming process. It’s obvious that large, industrial meat production contributes to many environmental and health problems.
The good news is that the attitude towards red meat is shifting. Demand for grass-fed beef has grown by a rate of 25-30 percent annually in the past decade. People’s requests for meat from healthy, humanely treated animals has even seeped into the fast food sector, the group that is most notorious for using large factory farms.
Carl’s Jr. recently released a grass-fed burger option on their menu and you can even pick up a grass-fed burger from Gastro Burger in Hamilton Dining.
Burgerville, the northwest-based fast food chain makes sure all their beef is hormone free, antibiotic free and comes from humanely treated cows. Burgerville CEO Jeff Harvey is attempting to change the model for fast food production.
“I believe personally, that there are better environmental cost distinctions with local food as a whole when you look at transportation and storage and packaging,” said Harvey.
Most industrial meat in the U.S. comes from the midwest, with large meat packing processors like IBC, Inc., a subsidiary of Tyson Foods, dominating the market. Sourcing meat locally seems like an obvious answer to cutting down costs, leading to a stable business model that could increase businesses’ revenues.
While the political stigma against red meat remains strong in certain corners, as consumers become more aware of the real story on red meat, people’s attitudes will continue shifting.
“We do believe that the desire for these features [organic, pesticide-free, etc.] are going to grow over time, particularly in the Northwest,” said Harvey.