Animal Agriculture Ethics: Getting to the Meat of it

by Nate Widom

According to the USDA, stress is a primary culprit of low-quality meat and animal disease.¹ In other words, proper animal welfare leads to increased animal happiness, which makes for better products and improved food safety. You’ve seen the labels on the products you buy— “free range,” “grass-fed,” and “organic,” just to name a few. All of them paint a positive picture for consumers of the treatment of the animals that produced those products. But what do these labels actually mean, and are they just marketing fodder?

Pasture-Raised & Free-Range vs. Animals in Confinement

Farmed animals are typically raised in inhumanely confined conditions. Pasture-raised and free-range labels imply that animals live a lifestyle closer to that of their natural habitat. For example, hogs in these scenarios may be raised in woodlands and cattle in environments like their natural range.² However, current regulations do not define how long animals shall roam these environments to qualify for this label.

Chickens are among the most well-known examples of animals raised with these approaches. In addition to free-range chickens touted as more humane, they are generally healthier. A 2014 study found free-range poultry meat to have lower fat and higher protein than conventional ones.³

According to Healthline, if a chicken is pasture-raised, their eggs have higher amounts of vitamins A, E, and omega 3’s. Eggs from hens who spend long periods out in the sun also have been found to contain much more significant amounts of vitamin D.⁴

In general, free-range and pasture-raised products are more expensive. However, you get what you pay for. The products are generally healthier and more humane.

Do you know the difference between caged, cage-free, free-range, and pasture-raised?

The answer could be more precise, and the current guidelines vary based on the source. According to the USDA, “producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside for at least 51% of their lives” to qualify as “free-range.” However, this applies to animals raised for meat only and does not include animals raised for non-meat products. No regulatory government organization oversees the use of the terms “pasture-raised” or “cage-free.”⁵

One US News article outlines the conditions generally expected for each term, but different farms and animal welfare organizations follow different standards.

Grass-fed vs. grass-finished vs. grain-fed

In addition to the style of shelter the animals are raised in, their diet also affects the nutrition of the food they produce. Grain-fed animals are conventional for farming and typically eat a diet of soy and corn. Meanwhile, grass-fed animals are raised on a pasture and never eat those mentioned grain mixtures. Grass-finished products imply that the animal ate grains at some point during its lifetime.

Grass-fed animal meat tends to be leaner and contain fewer calories as well as higher amounts of omega 3’s and vitamins A and E. Regarding beef, grain-fed beef has more marbling. High amounts of marbling may be the preference of high-quality steak fans. Still, there’s no consensus that grass-fed beef is dramatically better for your health despite having better nutritional composition.^7,8,9

Marbling is the intramuscular fat in meat. It resembles a marble-like pattern and affects the meat’s flavoring and juiciness. The USDA’s highest-level steak grade requires a large amount of marbling.¹⁰

If we examine milk, grass-fed whole milk has slightly more sodium, cholesterol, and calories. Meanwhile, regular whole milk has a tad more potassium. Grass-fed butter also has healthier unsaturated fatty acids like omega 3’s and more vitamin K2.¹¹

Like free-range products, grass-fed products are generally more expensive than their grain-fed counterparts. Grass-fed beef also takes up a very small percentage of the market, making up about 4% of sales.¹²

Farm Raised vs. Wild Caught Fish

The fun continues with fish—although both fishing methods are reminiscent of industry problems. Most fish at the supermarket are not caught naturally in bodies of water but are, in fact, farmed. Generally, this results in cheaper fish, but they are given a processed, high-fat, high-protein diet with antibiotics. Additionally, both wild-caught and farmed fish may contain mercury no matter what, thanks
to pollution.

One of the most frequently consumed fish in the US is salmon. Farmed ones contain more fat and slightly more protein, while wild-caught ones have more vitamins.¹³ Bon Appetit says farm-raised salmon has a soft-pink, orange hue, while wild salmon is more colorful and flavorful.¹⁴

Overfishing

If you think farming fish would ease overfishing and is less problematic than catching them wild, think again. Conditions on fish farms are generally confined and can spread waste and disease to the fish.¹⁵ Also, it’s argued that farming fish still contributes to overfishing since other fish are used to feed the farmed fish.¹⁶

FoodPrint recommends buying fish from local fishermen, with the most sustainable fish being ones most populous in your region.¹⁷ The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch also lists an in-depth guide on its website. Based on your region, they recommend fish to buy and ones to avoid. Interestingly, different fish span across both categories for the Delaware area, whether farmed, wild-caught, local to our waters, or not.¹⁸

rBST vs. no rBST

Perhaps you’ve seen products labeled “no rBST.” Bovine somatotropin (bST) is a natural hormone that regulates milk production in cows. In 1993, the FDA approved a synthetic bST product called “recombinant” bST or “rbST.” Once rbST is injected into cows, the cow’s milk
production increases.^19,20

The FDA considers products derived from cows treated with rbST safe to eat, and the American Cancer Society concludes that no current evidence supports claims that rbST increases cancer risk.²¹ Still, many consumers assume the synthetic hormone poses a risk and demand dairy products without rBST. Dannon decided to phase out the use of rBST-treated cows in their products in 2009,²² and Lucerne did the same in 2011.²³ For many brands that include “no rBST” or similar claims on their packaging, some states require the packaging also note that the FDA has found no significant difference between the products from rbST and non-rbST cows.²⁴

Organic

Organic items share a similar goal to many previously mentioned products—they are touted as more natural and humane. Thankfully, the regulations around organic food are more clearly defined.

According to the USDA, products labeled as organic contain no GMOs and do not receive any antibiotics. When processed, the products cannot contain preservatives, artificial colors, or flavors. They must also be packaged to prevent cross-contamination with non-organic products. If an organic good happens to be sourced from an animal, it must be raised in an environment with healthy soil and one supportive of its natural behavior to meet USDA Organic certification standards.²⁵

Regarding nutrition, many studies report organic foods contain more antioxidants, omega 3’s, and vitamins. It’s suspected that since organic plants do not rely on chemical pesticides for protection, they produce more of those antioxidants for their safety. However, other studies find mixed results and cannot definitively conclude if organic products have an advantage. Furthermore, certain unhealthy and processed foods can qualify as organic. Therefore, not all organic foods are nutritionally recommended. And because of this, not all organic products are necessarily grass-fed, free-range, or pasture-raised either. For example, organic milk doesn’t necessarily mean the milk comes from grass-fed cows. Organic cattle can still eat grain if it’s organic.²⁶

Public Impact

Many of these more ethical farming practices are costly and pose logistical challenges, especially for small farms. Regarding the effects on consumers, these products are more expensive because of the increased labor demands. Also, industrialized farms benefit from large-scale production. As an example of cost, pastured beef is 33% more expensive than its industrialized counterpart, while pastured chicken is four times the price of its industrialized counterpart.²

Ultimately, it’s up to consumer preference whether it’s worth shelling out the extra dough for the products discussed. Many who spring for the organic, grass-fed, and free-range options at the supermarket do so not for the marginal vitamin and nutrient gains but for environmental reasons or peace of mind their food is as “natural” as possible. Thankfully, if you’re concerned about the foods you eat—whether for dietary, nutritional, or humane reasons—there are more choices and resources than ever.