John Stossel‘s latest column posted at Human Events pokes at the notion that “all-natural” items are better for us:
Restaurants serving burgers supposedly made from grass-fed beef self-servingly claim their foods are healthier for the planet. The American Grassfed Association — surprise, surprise — says its cattle are better for the environment because harmony is created between the land and the animals.
People believe. Nobody likes the idea of cattle jammed into feedlots. When we asked people which kind of cattle were better, we got the expected answers:
“Free roaming.”
“Cows should be outside.”
“Free-roaming grass-fed cows, because you’ve got happy cows. They’ve lived a happy life out in sunshine.”
It’s logical to think that grass-fed steers might be better for the environment, but so often what sounds logical is just wrong.
Don’t believe me? Dr. Jude Capper, an assistant professor of dairy sciences at Washington State University, has studied the data.
Capper said: “There’s a perception out there that grass-fed animals are frolicking in the sunshine, kicking their heels up full of joy and pleasure. What we actually found was from the land-use basis, from the energy, from water and, particularly, based on the carbon footprints, grass-fed is far worse than corn-fed.”
How can that be?
“Simply because they have a far lower efficiency, far lower productivity. The animals take 23 months to grow. (Corn-fed cattle need only 15.) That’s eight extra months of feed, of water, land use, obviously, and also an awful lot of waste. If we have a grass-fed animal, compared to a corn-fed animal, that’s like adding almost one car to the road for every single animal. That’s a huge increase in carbon footprints.”
Once again, modern technology saves money and is better for the earth.
