US Naturally Raised Beef Standards - Meaningless As Proposed
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 03.11.08
With feed-grain prices escalating due to government ethanol production incentives, commodity beef producers are all scrambling to control their input costs. However, since "organic beef" producers are not sending their cows to be doped up and corn-fattened in feed lots, they, at last, are moving toward a competitive edge on price. What's a factory rancher to do to keep the corn costs in control and compete on brand image? Label the beef "Natural," of course.
US Department of Agriculture, through the Agricultural Marketing Service has issued a proposed voluntary standard for achieving this "Natural Beef" label back in January of 2007. Must have 'gored someones' ox' with it because the comment period was extended to March 3, 2008. Review is underway. Here's a taste of it.
AMS is proposing that animals that have been naturally raised have been raised without growth promotants and antibiotics and have never been fed mammalian or avian by-products.That would be the good news. The bad news is no one would be held accountable, and it is non-uniform.
The proposed standard for a naturally raised marketing claim, if adopted, would be part of the voluntary U.S. Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims which may be used in conjunction with a USDA QSVP, and naturally raised marketing claims may be verified, as provided in 7 CFR Part 62. However, since this would be a voluntary marketing claim, if adopted, [Food Safety and Inspection Service] FSIS would not establish a new provision limiting the use of the term naturally raised to labels in which participants meet this standard with a USDA QSVP.
As this reads, it is sure to confuse everyone involved. Seems like there are two definitions of "Natural Beef." One is what non-organic ranchers, feedlots, and processers have been doing, and the other is what USDA "suggests" they should do.
To meet the growing consumer demand, U.S. meat and poultry companies have developed and marketed ``natural'' meat and meat products. An AMS naturally raised marketing claim standard, if adopted, would remain independent of the FSIS use of the term ``natural'' and would separate claims about livestock production practices on product labeling.
Labeling anything for health or environmental reasons in the USA is such a black hole. The only reason that the term "organic" has any meaning at all here is that the original organic producers flew under the lobbyist radar for so long - sort of sneaking up on the market share that they worked so hard for. Now that the lobbyists have caught onto how serious consumer demand is for greener foods and products, common sense is out the door.
Thank goodness we have the established Organic label and farm markets featuring people who make their own labels that make sense. Lets keep them that way.
Via::USDA, United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Naturally Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat and Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock, Image credit::Times Union, Eat Local, Farm Market point of sales sign "Natural Beef, Local & Source Verified,..." etc.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Spring for Organic Dairy, Save Money Elsewhere
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Green Your Bikini Waxing Routine with Soy, Pine Sap and Organic Bikini Wax
- Why Grass Fed Beef? Emeril Answers (Video)
- How to Make Your Own Infused Vodka
- Zero Waste—The Newest Eco-Fashion Innovation?
This is along the same lines as Carbon Neutral Beef, an organization started in Canada to begin the process of offsetting the carbon footprint of ranch beef production.
It all comes down to brand awareness, and the public's willingness to 'buy in' to the government or industry's 'stamp of approval'
With feed-grain prices escalating due to government ethanol production incentives,....
Cows are remnants – they have 4 stomachs and can digest cellulose. Fermentation removes the sugars – the cellulose, protein, fats, vitamins and minerals still remain. Dried distillers grains are a commodity – they are what’s left after making alcohol. Cows gain more weight from the dried distillers grains than from eating raw corn. 70% of US corn is feed to US cattle – 20% to European cattle. We could be making alcohol with that corn and still feeding livestock. Or, we could grow energy crops that produce magnitudes more sugars per acre than corn if we really want to make alcohol for cheap.
In India they grow energy crops, make alcohol, then use a methane digester to make biogas with the left over’s from making alcohol. They get enough methane to fire the still for the next round and to make electricity that gets sold to the grid. They clean up the biogas by bubbling it through water. They grow algae in the co2 rich water and then feed that to fish. The fish emulsions are then used to fertilize the next energy crop. We need to close some loops in this country – consider ‘waste’ as surpluses and look for uses.
sigh... it's always sad to see big business trying to take advantage of the good will generated by the smaller honest people.
It just goes to show, if you want to eat well, drive efficiently, or be responsible you'll always have to look deeper into the label and the company selling the product. Otherwise it will be likely that you'll get duped by some big business trying to pass themselves off as a good and honest company.
I guess everything of this world is natural in some sense. "Natural beef"... guaranteed to be free of evil spirits, no exorcism required before cooking. Though no one ever claimed everything in nature is ok to eat.