Markets for natural, organic, and grass-fed beef are growing in many countries. Ranchers serving these markets tend to follow higher environmental standards for managing forests, land, water, and wildlife. They generally work on a smaller scale, treating cattle with more care, using fewer growth hormones and antibiotics, and avoiding both protein supplements from animals or fish and feeds from farms using pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, or genetically modified crops. The cattle tend to live in more sanitary and spacious settings and to eat a more vegetarian diet. And, finally, the beef generally contains fewer chemical preservatives, synthetic ingredients, and artificial colors or flavors.
Producing beef for such markets no doubt casts lighter ecological shadows. Yet the evidence in this chapter shows that the environmentally friendly methods many ranchers use to do so are not offsetting—or even slowing—the escalating global damage from consuming beef. One reason they aren’t is the vague, confusing, and even misleading terms defining these markets. The label “natural beef” in the United States, for example, though sometimes a synonym for “organic beef” or “grass-fed beef,” may, at other times, include beef from feedlot cattle treated with antibiotics and hormones. A second, far more significant reason is that consumption of natural, organic, and grass-fed beef still accounts for only a tiny fraction of the rising global consumption of beef, even where environmental markets are strengthening.
Markets for beef with environmental labels show every sign of growing and are even beginning to emerge in developing countries (sometimes with assistance from donors and nongovernmental organizations). Still, it seems unlikely these markets will appreciably increase their share of total beef consumption anytime soon. For one thing, many consumers are put off by the ambiguous labels, high price tags, and unexpected tastes of much organic beef. For another, government regulations and economies of scale favor big enterprises over niche producers. And, more important, multinational companies can make much bigger profits from selling large quantities of cheap, industrially produced beef to fast-food restaurants, supermarket chains, and the growing global middle class.
The meaning of “organic beef,” as one Montana cattleman put it, is “slippery.”1 This is true, too, for the consumer labels “natural,” “grass-fed,” and “pasture-raised beef.” The term “sustainable beef”—a label some producers are now using to describe a mix of organic, grass-fed, and industrial practices—is perhaps the slipperiest of all. Ambiguities arise for many reasons. These terms take on different meanings in different national and cultural settings. Jockeying among retailers for market shares can contribute to multiple meanings, too. And, finally, loopholes, exceptions, and lax enforcement can make it hard—even impossible—to really know whether a product actually meets the standards of any label. Thus, even in countries with strong regulations, these terms frequently confuse or mislead consumers.
Take the term “natural beef” in the United States. Companies like Coleman Natural Foods—which, after a merger in 2006, became one of the top 30 meat processors in the United States, with over 2,000 employees in 17 locations across 6 states—first began selling natural beef in 1979 as Coleman Natural Meats. The company’s founder, Mel Coleman Sr., worked hard to build a market for his natural beef. Camping in a rented car, he drove from grocer to grocer to convince a few to stock his beef; he also supported a lobbying effort to get the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish labeling standards for natural beef, which it did in the mid-1980s.
The USDA, however, required only that “natural beef” undergo minimal processing and have no artificial ingredients, a standard well below Coleman’s original understanding of natural beef. Today, the company asserts its “products adhere to a higher safety and ethical standard than products qualifying as ‘natural’ by USDA’s definition.” Coleman’s all-natural beef is indeed “minimally processed.” The cattle do not receive hormones, antibiotics, chemicals, or artificial ingredients. They live in “stress-reduced” and “spacious” settings. And they eat a vegetarian diet—“all-natural,” although not organic. The company also imposes “strict environmental standards” for managing water, forests, land, and wildlife. This has been, according to the corporate message, the “Coleman definition of ‘Natural’ for more than three decades.”2
Under USDA rules, “natural beef” demands far less adherence to principles of environmental stewardship. To qualify, it cannot contain artificial colors or flavors, chemical preservatives, or synthetic ingredients; and it must undergo only minimal processing—most notably, ground beef does not qualify. The Food Safety and Inspection Service also requires a brief definition of “natural” on the label. Processors and retailers define it differently, however, creating considerable confusion among consumers. Some, for example, label beef “natural” when the cattle are raised exclusively on a grassy range. Others define it to mean only that the cattle did not receive antibiotics or hormones. Still others use the term “natural” as a synonym for “organic.” The former chairman of the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board calls Mel Coleman Sr. “one of the pioneers to develop a truly natural meat company.” Still, he laments, “the ‘natural’ label has lost its meaning” under current U.S. standards.3
Even though government standards for “natural beef” are fairly easy for industrial meatpacking firms to meet, until recently, most have stayed away from this niche market. This is beginning to change, however, as surveys show increasing consumer interest in healthy foods, and as these markets show signs of expanding. For example, three of the largest meatpacking firms—Tyson Foods, Swift, and National Beef—began to market “natural beef” in 2006.
Some small producers of natural beef are now worrying about their capacity to compete with these giants. “They process more cattle in one day,” explained one natural beef producer in 2006, “than we do in one year.” Already, these small producers struggle to get shelf space in supermarkets, and some are now planning to avoid competing with the big meatpacking firms and shift over to producing organic beef. Indeed, companies like Coleman’s are already, according to Mel Coleman Jr., “one grain away from being organic.”4 Still, that one grain is not cheap: organic cattle feed can cost as much as 30 percent more than nonorganic. The result for American consumers is that all-natural beef is cheaper than organic beef—although both are more expensive than “regular” beef.
Defining “Organic” and “Grass-Fed” Beef
Under its2002 National Organic Program, the USDA defines the term “organic” with more exacting standards than the term “natural.” Accredited agents inspect farms and certify producers, handlers, and processors as “organic.” To qualify as 100 percent organic beef, the cattle must not receive growth hormones, antibiotics, or other prohibited medications. A sick animal treated with antibiotics loses its organic status (although vaccinations are fine). Producing organic beef cannot involve “most conventional” pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, or genetic modification. The feed must also be certified as organic—thus the cattle can eat grains like corn, for example, but this corn must come from organic farms.
The USDA’s National Organic Program allows for three other uses of “organic” besides 100 percent organic. Retailers may label a product “organic” when it’s made with at least 95 percent organic ingredients. They may use the phrase “made with organic ingredients” when the product contains at least 70 percent organic ingredients and no sulfites. And, finally, for a product made with less than 70 percent organic ingredients, retailers may use the term “organic” when listing ingredients. Only products that are “100 percent organic” or “organic” are allowed, however, to display the USDA “organic” seal. The rules for organic meat, along with higher prices, have kept the market small in the United States: the Organic Trade Association estimates that organic meat accounts for only 0.22 percent of total meat sales.5
Members of the American Grassfed Association have been trying for years to get the USDA to develop standards and procedures to certify grass-fed beef along the lines of the organic label. Many of these members see this as a higher (and better) standard than organic beef because grazing cattle on open pastures is more natural and appropriate than confined feedlots heaped with organic corn. In 2006, the USDA did propose a voluntary standard for the term “grass-fed,” which would have required a diet of mother’s milk and 99 percent grass, legumes, and forage. This would have still allowed ranchers to confine animals in feedlots so long as they fed them “grass”—defined as including hay, rice bran, and almond hulls. It would have allowed ranchers to use hormones and antibiotics, too. The reasoning, explained the chief of the standardization branch of the USDA, was to avoid diluting “the meaning of ‘grass-fed,” and instead use separate standards for determining the extent of confinement as well as the use of hormones and antibiotics. The proposed standard for “grass-fed” also appeared to create a loophole that would allow farmers to classify “immature corn silage” as “forage.”
The Grassfed Association angrily opposed this definition of “grass-fed.” Because most people think of “grass-fed” as “cattle grazing on a pasture, not in a feedlot,” many ranchers in the association saw such a standard as misleading. Most members oppose “grass feeding” in feedlots except in emergencies; and most also feel grass-fed cattle should remain free from hormones and antibiotics. Some members saw this USDA proposal more as a “logo” “for big companies” than a standard for small farmers trying to manage land sustainably. After first defending its definition and criteria, the USDA decided to withdraw its proposed voluntary standard for further consideration.6
Many ranchers find the standards for organic beef and for grass-fed beef as defined by the Grass-fed Association hard to meet—or not worth the effort. Some of them are, instead, employing a mix of organic, grass-fed, and industrial practices, then labeling the product “sustainable beef.” The Niman Ranch in California is a world leader here. Its motto is meat “Raised with Care.” It works with over 500 independent “family farmers” who raise animals “traditionally, humanely and sustainably.” The “goal” is “great taste.” With a dash of hype, it claims to produce “the finest tasting meat in the world.” The definition of “family” farm is narrow: “an individual or family owns all the animals, depends on the farm for livelihood and provides the majority of the daily labor necessary for the farm’s management and upkeep.” This ensures the participating farms are small enough to allow for sustainable practices. These farms should not, for example, need to liquefy or store waste in cesspools, a common source of noxious gases and water pollution from industrial farms. To qualify as “sustainable,” these small-scale farmers or ranchers must practice “environmental stewardship,” meeting Niman’s “strict” environmental, health, and breeding “protocols,” including passing inspections.7
Currently, the U.S. government has not set standards for sustainable farming, but ranchers, distributors, retailers, and chefs elsewhere in the United States are apparently following similar principles of management. The aim of some in this network—in the words of one chef serving “sustainable beef”—is to leave the “smallest and lightest footprint” possible.8
Yet what defines “sustainable” on these family farms is even more ambiguous than the terms “organic” and “grass-fed.” Some common characteristics do exist. The cattle tend to spend less time in feedlots: ranchers breed them later in the season than traditional farms to ensure plentiful spring grass for the calves. Ranchers tend as well to allow these calves to roam more freely to reduce both stress (improving the quality of the beef) and the chance of contracting diseases. They do not use growth hormones, and the cattle tend to live about six months longer than on industrial farms (large packinghouses tend to slaughter cattle at 12 to 14 months). A small number of these ranchers market the beef as “free-range and grass-fed.” Some, too, use organic feeds or maintain organic pastures. But most, after 14 to 16 months of grass feeding, fatten their cattle for 4 to 5 months on nonorganic grain diets in feedlots. Ranches like Niman do not produce government-certified organic beef, primarily because, according to its owners, feeding cattle organic grain (in short supply in the United States) would increase the cost of production by as much as 50 percent.9
In the case of Niman Ranch, however, feedlot cattle have access to shade and sprinklers and more room to move around than cattle in industrial feedlots. The workers also make efforts to ensure what the ranch calls a “humane end” for the animals—in part, because adrenaline from anxiety and stress during slaughtering can make their meat tough. In addition, there’s a commitment to “vegetarian” feeds even though the USDA allows some animal by-products in cattle feeds like chicken feathers and fish meal (bone meal was banned in 1997). Moreover, unlike organic farmers, sustainable ranchers do not forgo all fertilizers and pesticides. Some might choose, for example, to spray a pesticide to kill weeds in ditches rather than take the time to pull them by hand. When pressed, some might also feed cattle hay grown with chemicals or fertilizers. Sustainable ranchers will treat sick cattle with antibiotics, but will not put antibiotics into the feed or water as a preventive measure or to stimulate weight gain.
Raising “sustainable beef,” ranches like Niman stress, allows ranchers a way of leaving the smallest and lightest footprint that is simpler and more practical than raising organic beef—by avoiding pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics whenever feasible. Niman Ranch also labels its beef “natural” even though it admits the term has little real meaning for consumers: the USDA’s focus on the degree of processing and use of preservatives is at odds with common sense, allowing, for example, meat from animals fed antibiotic feed to receive this label. Niman Ranch stresses that, when applied to its beef, however, “natural” means something different—a promise to use “all-natural” feed and a commitment to allow animals to experience “natural behaviors.”10
Over the last decade, consumer demand for sustainable, grass-fed, and organic beef has been growing in wealthy countries. The revenues from producing sustainable meat at Niman Ranch, for example, jumped tenfold from 1997 to 2003. Over 1,000 farms in the United States now specialize in raising grass-fed cattle in pastures—a twentyfold increase from 2001. In 2005 alone, natural and organic beef sales grew in the United States by 17.2 percent—to almost $120 million—compared with an average growth of 3.3 percent for total beef sales. That same year, retail organic beef sales earned $49 million, up from $10 million in 2003. Still, all of this represents fewer than 1 percent of the 33 million cattle consumed in the United States each year.11
The organic beef market in Europe would seem like one with even more potential to expand. The European Union provides a common definition of the term “organic,” requiring a license from a government-approved certifier to produce or sell products with this label.12 Countries like Germany are encouraging the use of organic labels to help reorient agriculture away from industrial “agrofactories” and toward organic farming.13 The middle classes of Europe are also well educated and wealthy by world standards. Governments in Europe—compared to, say, those in the United States—tend as well to proactively manage environ-mental and health risks from food (by banning hormones in beef and genetically modified organisms in cereals, for example).14 Moreover, mad cow disease, which began in Britain in the 1980s, has been undermining consumer trust in “regular” beef across Europe for decades now. One Danish butcher, following a crash in business after the surfacing of mad cow disease in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy in 2001, lamented: “No one even asks for red meat anymore. Shoppers are terrorized.”
Many of the consumers worried about mad cow disease were not, however, necessarily forgoing meat, but were replacing beef with pork, chicken, lamb, and fish. Sales in exotic meats—such as ostrich, emu, kangaroo, and bison—began to rise, too. Some consumers were turning to organic beef to avoid eating any cattle fed bone, brain, or spinal scraps of other cattle (widely reported as a source of mad cow disease). “The mad cow crisis,” explained one Parisian greengrocer experiencing rising sales in early 2001, “has been a real shot in the arm for organic producers.”15
The United Kingdom was far and away hit hardest by the mad cow disease, with more than 175,000 cases. Over 80 people died of the terrifying human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, where the brain wastes away. The United Kingdom would therefore seem like a particularly promising market for organic beef. Yet this has not been the case. The mad cow panic sweeping the European Union in 2001, which caused beef consumption across the region to plunge 27 percent in the first month of 2001, did little to rattle UK consumers. Beef purchases actually went up by 3 percent in January 2001.16 Organic beef sales have gone up modestly since then: for example, about 2,250 organic cattle were sold in 2003, up 250 from 2002. But, as in the United States, this remains a tiny portion of the meat market, in part because, according to the managing director of the UK Organic Livestock Marketing Co-op, many consumers are not willing to pay the current “premium for organic meat.”17 That premium is often steep, with many organic cuts in the United Kingdom costing as much as twice their nonorganic equivalents. Organic beef sales in the United Kingdom are not even keeping pace with the more robust increase in sales of organic foods more generally—and of imported organic fruits and vegetables in particular.18
Consumers in the United Kingdom seem unwilling to pay a premium for organic beef for many reasons. The quality of industrial beef is now higher than during the mad cow days; and “farm assurance” programs have reassured consumers that industrial beef is now safe. Some consumers, too, are wary of paying up to twice as much for beef just because of a “label” or a butcher’s promise. Documentaries like the 2006 West Eye View series exposing butchers who are selling “regular” beef as “organic” have further undermined public trust in such claims. More-over, because the government doesn’t allow farmers to use growth hormones, many consumers in the United Kingdom continue to perceive industrial UK beef as “green.” Some would go so far as to argue that it’s “better to buy non-organic from the United Kingdom rather than something organic from round the world.”19
Other factors besides consumer preferences or a willingness to pay premiums are impeding organic beef sales, too. Supermarkets are the main outlets for organic beef sales in the United Kingdom: about 85 percent of organic beef and lamb sales go through large retailers. Many supermarkets are only willing to sell top cuts (such as sirloin steaks or roasts) with guarantees of consistent supplies (some require suppliers to promise future deliveries). Many are unwilling to carry organic burgers—in part, because supplies are too small for the turnover necessary for profits. This barrier is so arduous the UK Organic Livestock Marketing Co-op estimates that 60 percent of organic forequarter meat for sausages, mincing, or stewing is still sold into the industrial meat market without an organic label.20
Similar barriers to expanding sales of organic and pasture-fed beef exist in other markets as well. Regulators everywhere tend to design standards that are easier for big companies to meet. It’s harder, too, for small organic ranchers to find buyers. Large slaughterhouses and processing facilities prefer to work with large numbers of cattle. Small ranchers, whose meat-processing facilities are also small, struggle to compete against industrial farms processing thousands of cattle a week.
Small ranchers in the United States find it difficult to meet the government standards for “organic” beef because less than 2 percent of U.S. grain is organic. The cattle bred for the feedlots, moreover, do not always fare well on grass, and bad weather can disrupt feeding plans. The grass also needs a chance to grow back, and, without careful management, the quality of both land and cattle can deteriorate over time. Much of this grass-fed beef is also sold frozen because of the focus on local sales in small quantities; much of it is from cattle slaughtered in the autumn before less optimal grass conditions slow the rate of weight gain. The result can be beef that North American consumers find neither “tender,” “juicy,” nor “tasty,” used, as so many of them are, to corn-fed beef.21 “It doesn’t even taste like beef,” a Vancouver chef remarked in a 2005 interview. “It tastes like eating grass.”22
Still, despite all of these hurdles, organic ranching is beginning to emerge even in developing countries, in part, because of various efforts to assist small ranchers. The organization Heifer International, for example, is helping communities build processing facilities and working to convince consumers and farmers of the benefits of producing and eating local beef.23 The World Bank, too, has put in place policies to support small farmers and organic food in developing countries. In a program funded by the nonprofit organization Conservation International and Brazil’s Biodynamic Beef Institute, six cattle ranches— covering 160,000 hectares (about 400,000 acres)—now raise certified organic beef on native grasses in the Pantanal region of Brazil’s Mato Grosso. To qualify, the ranchers must raise native breeds without antibiotics or growth hormones and must prevent cattle from overgrazing or destroying local vegetation.24
Grazing on native grasses can reduce the ecological and energy reserve costs both of growing corn and soybeans with chemical fertilizers and of transporting grain to feedlots. But, as the analysis of Brazil in chapter 16 shows, “grass ranches” can also cause deforestation. Moreover, over-grazing can cause soil erosion, loss of productive agricultural land, and eventually desertification. And even though, on balance, raising beef in environmentally friendly ways does lighten the shadow effects of consuming beef, as the analysis in this chapter shows, the growing markets for sustainable, organic, and grass-fed beef still serve only a tiny proportion of consumers—a trend unlikely to change anytime soon.