We need to talk about the food justice consequences of “Less Meat, Better Meat”
Access to nutrient-dense, affordable meat is critical for food justice, and it’s important to understand the extremely negative consequences of flawed anti-meat messaging coming from all sides: environmental, nutrition and ethics.
From a public health perspective, it needs to be stated that it's unethical to shame people away from eating meat. While anti-meat messages might be most associated with explicitly vegan or vegetarian agendas, meat shaming also comes from certain pro-meat voices who claim that “grass-fed” is the only acceptable way to raise and consume meat.
First off, nearly all beef raised in the United States is grass-fed. The difference between so-called “better meat” is that it is more often grass-finished, while less lofty conventional meat is finished on grain. There are no significant nutritional differences between grass-finished & typical beef. In fact, the biggest difference is that grass-finished beef is significantly more expensive than grain-finished, and the former is not produced in anywhere near the quantities necessary to achieve food security in the United States.
If we face the facts and check our privilege at the door, we can see that a black and white “less meat, better meat” dictate is just as unscientific and elitist as any anti-meat message. The “better meat” narrative confuses the facts and only shames those who can’t afford grass-finished beef, implying that beef is gluttonous, unhealthy, and morally inferior.
It’s disturbing that even highly-engaged audiences can be profoundly misinformed about the basically identical nutritional profiles of grass-finished and grain-finished beef. During one recent presentation, an audience member argued that eating a typical steak has the effect of consuming a cup of corn oil, a clear misunderstanding of the facts.
When my co-author Robb Wolf and I wrote Sacred Cow, I did a full review of all the peer reviewed literature available comparing grass-finished beef to typical beef. I found no evidence of less “hormones” or glyphosate or higher levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in typical beef vs. grass-finished beef. None. I even hired another independent researcher to do the same review of the literature, and he reached the same conclusion. You can read my full blog post on it here.
Consider omega 3 acids as one example. Some advocates for grass-finished beef argue it is a better source of omega 3s. Yet, the largest study to examine the question found wide and inconsistent variations in Omega-6 to 3 in more than 750 samples of grass-finished beef. Some grass-finished beef producers have sent me their own data showing 2-3 times the omega-3 content of typical beef. Even if we accept that data, here’s the thing: beef is a terrible source of omega 3s.
Even if grass-finished beef could be shown to reliably provide 3 times the omega 3s as grain-finished, you'd still need to eat 8 POUNDS of grass-finished beef to get the same omega 3s in one 3 ounce serving of salmon.
Think of it this way, 2 pennies is twice as many as one, but it’s still not a lot of money.
This scientifically flawed argument about omega 3s, meanwhile, pushes the damaging line that only expensive, grass-finished beef is acceptable. What about the B12, heme iron, and protein critical for healthy diets that all kinds of meat provide. Why should those who can’t afford or access local, regenerative meat be shamed about or discouraged from buying meat wherever they can get it?
People who are pregnant and need good nutrients should eat meat. Women and children suffering from iron deficiency should eat meat. People who are aging and in need of high-quality, easily digested protein should eat meat. If these people can afford and access specialty products that meet their values in other ways, great, but it would be unethical for scientists, doctors and dietitians to only advise eating these higher-end products.
While this view appears controversial in meat debates, consider the parallel regarding organic vegetables. Surely we can all agree it would be nonsensical and unethical to say that people who can’t afford organic vegetables should… not eat vegetables at all?
In a country where 70% of people are overweight or obese, many on the verge of type 2 diabetes, we do not need MORE calories and MORE carbohydrates, we need more nutrient-dense food. PLUS, iron deficiency is the leading nutrient deficiency worldwide and beef (especially liver) is one of the best sources. Yes, it’s better than any plant source of iron.
But, when we say everyone needs to eat less, what exactly is “less”? Less than what? Actually, beef consumption is already pretty low believe it or not. Americans about 2oz of beef per person per day. There’s no strong evidence that meat is the cause of heart disease, diabetes or cancer.
What about the environmental case against meat? First, beef production’s impact on the greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and feed efficiency are often misunderstood, and the benefits of sustainable livestock production underestimated. Grazing animals like cattle can actually improve ecosystem function – something plant-based meat alternatives will never do.
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to champion the clear ethical and health case for eating meat and, at the same time, to advocate for improvements in the meat industry and in our entire food system.
The fact is, we need a better food system overall. We can work to ensure that all parts of our food system use fewer chemicals, provide the best animal care, treat workers well, regenerate the land, and produce healthy food. To demonize only meat production and consumption is not based on science and is not helpful. In fact, plant-based alternatives are often more expensive, highly processed, higher in calories and carbohydrates, lower in nutrients than real meat. They’re also often the result of extractive, fossil fuel and chemically dependent agriculture. These so-called alternatives are examples of exactly the kind of ultra-processed foods containing refined grains, oils and sugars that we should be discouraging, not promoting on the basis of flawed dogmas claiming meat is bad for the environment
Knowing your local farmer, buying hundreds of dollars of high-end meat, buying only organic food - these are privileges and personal choices some people can make. But we should not make food policies or advance food-shaming narratives that drive people away from affordable, nutritious, high protein, low calorie, micro-nutrient dense real food like beef for those who can’t afford those choices.