Does eating grass-fed beef help the planet? Research says not so simple

ABC News - Mar 17th, 2025

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that grass-fed beef produces similar levels of carbon emissions as industrial beef, contradicting the common belief that it is a more environmentally friendly option. The study, led by Gidon Eshel from Bard College, suggests that the slower growth and smaller size of grass-fed cattle lead to increased emissions per unit of meat produced. This challenges the narrative that grass-fed beef is a sustainable choice for environmentally conscious consumers.

The implications of this study are significant, as it highlights the complexities involved in sustainable beef production and consumption. While grass-fed beef may offer benefits in terms of animal welfare and local environmental pollution, its carbon footprint remains a concern. Experts, like Richard Waite from the World Resources Institute, emphasize the importance of considering the broader environmental impacts, including deforestation in regions like South America. The study also prompts further discussion on the balance between beef consumption and alternative protein sources, as well as the prioritization of climate change mitigation in agricultural practices.

Sustainability Climate Change Environmental Impact Carbon Emissions Grass Fed Beef Gidon Eshel Bard College Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and balanced exploration of the environmental impact of grass-fed versus industrial beef production. It effectively presents the findings of a recent study while acknowledging the complexities and differing perspectives within the debate. The use of credible sources and expert opinions enhances the article's reliability and engagement. However, it could benefit from more detailed explanations of the study's methodology and a broader range of industry perspectives. Overall, the article succeeds in informing readers about an important environmental issue, encouraging thoughtful consideration of consumer choices and agricultural practices.

Accuracy

The article presents a study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, claiming that grass-fed beef produces similar carbon emissions to industrial beef. This claim is supported by experts like Gidon Eshel and Richard Waite, who are cited in the article. However, the article also mentions that other scientists argue grass-fed beef has benefits in animal welfare and local environmental pollution, which may not directly relate to carbon emissions but are relevant to the overall environmental impact. The article accurately reflects the study's findings and includes expert opinions, but it could benefit from more detailed comparisons with other studies that might show different results.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting both sides of the debate over grass-fed versus industrial beef. It includes the study's findings and acknowledges the complexities involved in assessing the environmental impact of beef production. The inclusion of perspectives from other scientists who highlight the benefits of grass-fed beef in terms of animal welfare and local pollution adds depth to the discussion. However, the article could have included more voices from the grass-fed beef industry to offer a fuller perspective.

Clarity

The article is clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively communicates the main findings of the study and the complexities involved in assessing the environmental impact of beef production. The language is accessible, and the inclusion of expert quotes enhances understanding. However, some technical terms related to emissions and carbon sequestration could be further simplified for a general audience.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, including a study published in a reputable journal and expert opinions from recognized institutions like Bard College and the World Resources Institute. The inclusion of external experts who were not involved in the study, such as Randy Jackson and Jennifer Schmitt, adds credibility. However, the article could improve by providing more information about the methodology and funding of the study to address any potential biases.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the study's findings and the experts' affiliations. It mentions the financial support for the Associated Press' climate coverage, which adds to the transparency. However, the article could improve by providing more details about the study's methodology and any potential conflicts of interest among the researchers involved.