• Your life and health are your own responsibility.
• Your decisions to act (or not act) based on information or advice anyone provides you—including me—are your own responsibility.


Grass-Fed Beef Is Indeed Better, and John Stossel And J. L. Capper Appear To Be Shilling for Eli Lilly and Industrial Agriculture

On the one hand, it’s heartening to see that the movement towards eating real meat has become enough of a threat to the hegemony of agribusiness and industrial meat production for the mainstream media to do a hit piece on it (source: Fox News.) On the other hand, it’s dispiriting to see John Stossel pushing a flimsy tissue of falsehoods, thereby misleading people into making unhealthy and environmentally destructive food choices.

The first thing I noticed, upon actually reading what Stossel implied was the supporting scientific data, was that the document he referenced was not peer-reviewed science at all, but a slick PR flyer proudly sponsored by a company called “Elanco”.

Peer-reviewed science doesn't look like NASCAR.

“Who is Elanco, and what do they make?” I wondered.

Answer: they are a subsidiary of the multinational pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly—and they make the antibiotics, hormones, growth promoters, and other chemicals that Big Agribusiness dumps into factory-farmed cattle, chickens, sheep, and pigs in order to keep them from dying in overcrowded, shit-filled feedlots. Yes, the same chemicals that are polluting our waterways, creating antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria…and that we are ingesting unawares.

So right away we know two things:

  • This “paper” isn’t science, it’s an advertisement.
  • Therefore, it’s just as credible as those fake articles you see in the back of magazines that pretend to be a product review (usually of penis enlargement pills), but have “ADVERTISEMENT” printed across the top.

But let’s address their claims anyway, because they’re easy to refute. The first claim is that grass-fed beef is not nutritionally superior to grain-fed beef.

Some advocates of grass-fed beef claim that the more naturally raised animals are healthier to eat. “There is absolutely no scientific evidence based on that. Absolutely none,” she replied. “There is some very slight difference in fatty acids, for example, but they are so minor that they don’t make any significant human health impact.”

This claim is so false as to be laughable, and is most likely a deliberate lie.

S.K. Duckett et al, Journal of Animal Science, June 2009. Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: III. Tissue proximate, fatty acid, vitamin and cholesterol content. (fulltext available here)
Here are just some of the important differences. Compared to grain-finished cows, pasture-finished cows were:

  1. Higher in beta-carotene
  2. Higher in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)
  3. Higher in the B-vitamins thiamin and riboflavin
  4. Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium
  5. Higher in total omega-3 fats, and had a healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids

And here’s a visual representation of the “very slight” difference in fatty acids: a change in n-6/n-3 ratio from over 12:1 to 2:1!

Graph courtesy eatwild.com (click picture for website), from data contained in G.J. Miller, "Lipids in Wild Ruminant Animals and Steers." J Food Qual, 9:331-343, 1986.

Omega-3 (n-3) fats absolutely have human health benefits, as demonstrated by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies. (I hate to point people at Wikipedia, but if I tried to list citations here, they would be many times longer than the article!)

The second claim is that “based on the carbon footprints, grass-fed is far worse than corn-fed.” This is also most likely false, although since Capper’s “paper” is just a press release and not peer-reviewed science, her calculations are not available for analysis.

However, according to the table in the press release, she bases her calculations entirely on the fact that it takes longer for grass-fed cattle to mature, and that they weigh less upon finishing, than cattle fed grains and chemical growth promoters. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the meat is less healthy and contains a bizarre chemical soup, her calculations leave out many impacts of the grain-fed supply chain.

Here’s an incomplete list of environmental impacts apparently unaccounted for by Capper’s and Elanco’s press release:

  • Corn farming requires substantial fossil fuel input—mechanical tilling, planting, harvesting—versus pasture grass
  • Not to mention the carbon impact of making fertilizers and pesticides (the Haber process uses 3-5% of world natural gas production! No, that’s not a misprint) and transporting them to farms
  • Grain must be transported to the elevator and then to the feedlot, using fossil fuels
  • All the antibiotics, supplements, and hormones fed to grain-fed cattle (that Capper’s sponsor Elanco, not coincidentally, makes) must be fabricated, packaged, and transported
  • What is the impact of untreated manure runoff from feedlots decomposing in a lagoon or a stream, versus manure in a pasture being returned to the soil?

And then there is the $7.1 billion–$8.2 billion taxpayers spend every year to subsidize or clean up after our nation’s 9,900 confined animal feeding operations, not to mention the $4.1 billion we’ve spent over the years cleaning up leaking manure ‘storage facilities’.

Again, since Capper’s and Elanco’s press release contains no supporting documentation and I have been unable to find any on the Internet, I can’t analyze their methodology too deeply...but since Capper’s other claim is demonstrably false, I suspect this one will turn out to be false too.

If you want to know more about this issue, try Eat Wild for the consumer side, and CSU Chico for a more producer-oriented perspective. And if you have additional information, factual corrections, or better sources, please leave a comment!

Bookmark and Share


Permalink: Grass-Fed Beef Is Indeed Better, and John Stossel And J. L. Capper Appear To Be Shilling for Eli Lilly and Industrial Agriculture
  • Rachel

    FANTASTIC response! Love the debunking of this crazy claim! Thank you!

  • pjnoir

    I know this is a bit late but here goes ( Im new to your site and have been reading it all for the last few days- I am 80/20 Paleo for about 18 mts and have been working the last four to be 99.9 % paleo) What time of the season is grass fed really grass fed as some farms have little or no grass in the spring yet still sell sides and quaters. Have you read STEAK by Mark Schatzker? Talks a lot about grass fed beef ( Tallgrass )

  • pjnoir:

    Most farms will harvest hay to feed their cattle during seasons with no fresh forage…but grass-finished beef will have its best flavor and nutrition when it's been fed on fresh, green grass for at least 90 days, and preferably 120 (this from a Nevada rancher).

    Exactly when this happens is dependent on the growing season for grass in your area.

    No, I haven't read “Steak”…I'll look into it.  Thanks for the tip!



  • This comments is VERY late coming but I think you’ll find the problem of grass-fed versus corn-fed beef has just been solved….they’re going to feed cattle candy instead.

    High price of corn forcing farmers to feed candy to livestock

    Ex Veggie

  • ExVeggie:

    Something about this forum software is screwing up links: it tries to put an ellipsis in the middle to truncate it, but that causes the link itself to truncate.  If you want links to work, you have to format them as HTML.


  • It looks like I need leading by the hand as despite having some knowledge of html I couldn't get my attempt to work. It still truncated the address while leaving all around it okay.


    The address in my second post was deliberately split by me. If they are joined together they will get you to the article.


    [Edit: I fixed the link in your original -JS]

  • david.gibson

    While I agree with your overall assessment on health issues, I disagree with your “environmental impacts”. With regard to your negative impact notes (placed in quotes below with my response in non quotes:

    “Corn farming requires substantial fossil fuel input—mechanical tilling, planting, harvesting—versus pasture grass”
    Fossil fuel input is not an environmental impact. It is an economic impact. My diesel truck has exhaust that is totally clean. The air right now is so clean that some doctors think that its very cleanliness may be causing the radical increase in asthma that children are suffering. Nor is the source of the fuel an environmental impact in and of itself. Windmills kill birds and require backup natural gas backup systems, photovoltaics use metals that are toxic. Water power blocks streams and rivers. However, wealth allows society to preserve the environment better then poverty. Look at Africa where they use the alternative fuels of wood and dung. An alternative impact to be considered is the economic impact that fuels cost money. This increases the farmers cost of doing business. My cousin switched to no-till farming and cut his output by half. However, he cut his use of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and fuels. He started making significant money for the first time in his career. (His prior career was as a grass fed dairy farmer and he lost money in that because of government regulation)

    “Not to mention the carbon impact of making fertilizers and pesticides (the Haber process uses 3-5% of world natural gas production! No, that’s not a misprint) and transporting them to farms”
    -Carbon impact or CO2 impact. Read the discussions on WattsUpWithThat and http://www.co2science.org
    The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were significantly higher at many points in the past. CO2 science is run by a father and son team that ran the CO2 research at the Dept of Agriculture for about 40 years prior to CO2 being politicized. They have a lot of information on CO2 that is being ignored in the “human caused catastrophic global warming” is going to destroy the biosphere discussion.

    “Grain must be transported to the elevator and then to the feedlot, using fossil fuels”
    This is the same as the first point in its essence. This is an economic impact but a minimal environmental impact. An alternative economic impact is that instead of growing the grain, the farmer could be growing something else.

    By the way, a direct positive economic and environmental impact, is documented by Dept of Agriculture. Crops are about 50% more productive at current CO2 levels then they were at 1950 CO2 levels. We would have to use a lot more farmland and fertilizer to produce those crops without the increased CO2.

    Keep up the good work with your web site. I am a recent discoverer of it and am still exploring it.

    Trust but verify

    Walk in Peace

  • David.Gibson:

    Saying “CO2 levels were higher, earlier in the Earth’s history” is true. It’s also true that the oceans were hundreds of feet higher, and the entire Midwest was under water, from Kansas to the Appalachians.

    You can also look up “anoxic event” to see what happens during quick CO2 spikes – everything in the deep ocean dies as the oceans stop turning over, and the entire planet smells like a rotting swamp for several hundred thousand years. An eyeblink in geological time, but I”m pretty sure we don’t want to live in one!

    Furthermore, even if you wish to discount CO2, the raw environmental impact of extracting fossil fuels (e.g. fracking) can’t be discarded.


Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe me to the sporadic yet informative gnolls.org newsletter! (Your email will not be sold or distributed.)