Mother Jones: Grass Fed Beef Worse for Environment

Is grass fed beef really better for the environment? According to a new Mother Jones piece, the answer is no.

The author explains, “The question is critical, because global demand for animal flesh is on the rise, driven by growing appetites for meat in developing countries, where per capita meat consumption stands at about a third of developed-world levels.

Cows on feedlots are fed a diet almost exclusively of corn and soybeans, which presents a host of environmental problems. The list of concerns ranges from deforestation and climate change to the inefficient use of our natural resources, especially water.

However, grass fed beef only makes matters worse.

“If we switched to all grass-fed beef in the United States, it would require an additional 64.6 million cows, 131 million acres more land, and 135 million more tons of greenhouse gas emissions,” says researcher Judith Capper of Washington State University. “We’d have the same amount of beef, but with a huge environmental cost.”

As other countries move towards a more meat-intensive diet, the global consequences only become more severe, and the move away from meat becomes even more critical.

While eating less meat is certainly a start, the best thing we can do for the environment and animals is to cut meat from our diets altogether.

Click here to order your FREE Vegetarian Starter Guide.