September 4, 2006

 

Confusion reigns over US definition of grass-fed beef

 

 

The USDA's broad definition of grass-fed beef would affect consumers' confidence in the item, concerned producers of grass-fed beef said.

 

USDA's broad definition of grass could also mean leftovers from harvested crops and that meant literally any farmer can truthfully slap on the label of grass-fed beef. 

 

Grass-fed beef should come from open pasture-raised animals, not confinement or feedlot animals, said Patricia Whisnant, a Missouri rancher who heads the American Grassfed Association. USDA's definition would affect consumers confidence in grass-fed beef, she added.

 

Whisnant said people buy grass-fed beef to avoid antibiotics commonly used in feedlots as they think it's healthier, or that they support local farms and ranches.

 

Grass-fed beef is leaner and fat tends to form around the muscle. With conventional corn-fed beef, the fat streaks the muscle in marble-like patterns. Some also claimed grass-fed beef tastes better.

 

Producers are cashing in on the soaring demand for grass-fed products. The number of farms producing grass-fed beef has ballooned from about 40 seven years ago to around 1,000 today, according to estimates.

 

Subsequently, the definiton of the term grass-fed has become increasingly blurred. Some meat is sold as grass-fed when grass is only part of the animal's diet.

 

A survey by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association found that half of consumers had heard of grass-fed beef, but only a third believed it came from cows that grazed on grass their enitire lives. Sixty percent thought the cows also ate other things, such as oats, corn, hay and alfalfa.

 

Organic producers have asked for clear standards to help sell their beef as truly grass-fed and hope to get across to consumers already confused by multiple terms such as organic, natural, certified humane or hormone-free.

 

In response, officials have twice proposed standards which were rejected by the industry.

 

Authorities are reluctant to regulate a cow's time spent grazing because some parts of the country may suffer weather extremes that would have limited pasture development, said William Sessions, associate deputy administrator of the department's livestock and seed programme.

 

Thus it was proposed that marketing labels say that 99 percent, rather than 100 percent, of a grass-fed cow's diet come from grass forage.

 

A broader definition was also given for forage to include leftover corn stalks from harvest and silage, which is fermented grasses and legumes.

 

This broader definition would have allowed more ranchers to make the claim of grass-fed beef, if they wanted, authorities added.

 

Beef fed on purely pasture could be covered by another standard, such as those for organic meats, authorities said.

 

The creation of sub-categories is what irks grass-fed producers.

 

Furthermore, organic standards do not define the period cows are allowed outdoors, hence large operations have exploited the loophole to call cows confined in barns organic, producers said.

 

Whisant said being organic would have lost its meaning if it is detached from the confinement issue. Grass-fed beef should have been beef from cows fed from the pastures, and not beef from cows fed pastures in feedlots, she added.