Friday, November 20, 2009

Guilt for eating grass-fed meat? Say it ain't so....

From the Washington Post:

Meat that's raised according to "alternative" standards (about 1 percent of meat in the United States) might be a better choice but not nearly as much so as its privileged consumers would have us believe. "Free-range chickens" theoretically have access to the outdoors. But many "free-range" chickens never see the light of day because they cannot make it through the crowded shed to the aperture leading to a patch of cement.

"Grass-fed" beef produces four times the methane -- a greenhouse gas 21 times as powerful as carbon dioxide -- of grain-fed cows, and many grass-fed cows are raised on heavily fertilized and irrigated grass. Pastured pigs are still typically mutilated, fed commercial feed and prevented from rooting -- their most basic instinct besides sex.


1 comment:

shesthesheriff said...

Thanks for the opening:

There is broad agreement in the environmental community that animal agriculture is worse for the environment than driving cars.
This was backed up by a United Nations FAO study a few years ago.

Kind of crazy when you think about it--for all the commercials you see about hybrid car and wind tech, how many ads do you see promoting vegetarianism or greener livestock raising methods? Compared to the cigarette and oil companies its amazing how much the meat industry has managed to avoid any meaningful criticism in the media aside from the occasional recall of tainted beef.