Tag Archives: food

Walmart wants to sell you ugly fruits and veggies — and that’s a good thing

FUGLY

Walmart wants to sell you ugly fruits and veggies — and that’s a good thing

By on Jul 21, 2016Share

Walmart may be best known for low prices — and low wages — but now the company is vying for a new reputation: the nation’s largest seller of ugly food.

Earlier this year, the retail giant started selling “Spuglies,” or ugly potatoes, as part of an effort to cut down on food waste. This week it announced that it will begin selling a line of cosmetically challenged Washington state apples called “I’m Perfect” (a play on imperfect — get it?). The apples will start rolling out in 300 Walmart stores in Florida this week, where they will sell for lower prices than their sightlier sisters.

“One of the challenges growers have is that Mother Nature can throw a curveball such as a hailstorm, high winds, or even a string of very hot sunny days, which can damage the exterior finish of fruits,” wrote Walmart Senior Vice President Shawn Baldwin in a blog post. “While the texture and flavor remain perfect, the exterior damage usually renders these fruits unsellable in the fresh market because they fail to meet traditional grade standards. We’re proud to be the first retailer to bring these apples to you.”

Walmart is also trying to curb food waste by requiring some of its suppliers to standardize their date labels: Instead of the confusing “best by,” “use by,” or “sell by” wording, they’ll be using more understandable “best if used by” language.

Food waste is a huge problem worldwide. Americans throw away an estimated $29 billion worth of food annually. Globally, 40 percent of the food we produce is never consumed. That’s not just wasteful, it’s hugely costly for the planet, squandering water, land, and other resources.

Now, if only Walmart would do something about those slave wages.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Link – 

Walmart wants to sell you ugly fruits and veggies — and that’s a good thing

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Walmart wants to sell you ugly fruits and veggies — and that’s a good thing

Ourharvest: How To Grow Your Own Organic Food

When it comes to the ways in which people obtain organic food, most cases involve actually going to a market. However, there are those who maintain their own organic gardens, which allows them a greater sense of freedom. The likes of OurHarvest will agree, but the ways in which organic food is grown might not be so familiar to you. If you’d like to know how to cultivate your own garden, for this reason, please read on.

The first step to maintaining your organic garden is protection, which is especially important when you think about the various elements that can come about. One of the reasons why greenhouses are created is due to how well they can protect whatever is growing inside of them. Of course, not everyone can make this investment. For those who can, though, you can be certain that the effort will pay off.

You must also keep the right tools at your side so that your organic garden can be made better. The tools in question include – but aren’t limited to – clay pots, soil, and compost. Each of these, as well as others, will ensure that the crops you have in mind will be grown. Leaving even a single one out of the equation will stunt your garden’s growth, as I’m sure that companies such as OurHarvest will be able to attest.

For those who are just starting out, when it comes to organic gardening, make a point to focus on the easiest crops to grow first. If you were to ask questions at a Long Island farmers market in your area, you might be given a number of responses. Some of the most common ones include lettuce and tomatoes, so make it a point to cultivate these first. Your confidence will surely grow, resulting in you being better able to maintain your garden.

Hopefully these tips have helped you kick off your organic garden. What are some of the crops that you’re looking to produce this season? Whatever the case may be, you’re not going to get far without taking the time to learn. After all, organic gardening takes ample work, not to mention a healthy dose of patience, in order to prove viable. By putting forth the effort, though, you’ll see why a garden of this nature is worth maintaining.

For info regarding farmers markets in your location, please visit OurHarvest.. Free reprint available from: Ourharvest: How To Grow Your Own Organic Food.

Posted in organic gardening | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Ourharvest: How To Grow Your Own Organic Food

Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

By on Jul 19, 2016Share

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton may pick Tom Vilsack, President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, as her veep. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and other names come up more frequently, but Vilsack has a good shot according to Politico reporters Gabriel Debenetti and Helena Bottemiller Evich.

What to say about Vilsack? As Vanity Fair put it: “Vilsack is boring, as even his staunchest defenders will admit.”

Vilsack spins his dullness as a virtue. “I’m a workhorse, not a show horse,” he told Politico.

The former governor of Iowa is the longest serving member of Obama’s cabinet. People seem to like him on both sides of the aisle. His record is squeaky clean, except for one real scandal. In 2010, he fired a USDA employee and all around admirable person, Shirley Sherrod, after Breitbart News made allegations about her that turned out to be false. He apologized a couple of days later and said he’d made a mistake.

Vilsack has pushed programs to fight poverty and worked closely with Michelle Obama on school lunch standards. He’s also overseen a big increase in funding for local and organic farm programs — too much according to some row-crop farmers, and not enough according to some activists. He’s a reformer, working within the system rather than tearing it down, much like a certain presidential candidate.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Read original article:

Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Safer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

Is Zero Waste Just for the Young and Affluent?

Many online commenters complain about the fact that Zero Waste blogs tend to be run by primarily young, affluent females who have the time and money to run around town, visiting numerous stores in order to source their favorite local, organic ingredients in fancy glass jars and stainless containers, before heading home to DIY everything from bread and yogurt to toothpaste and body wash. (I realize I, too, am guilty of giving this impression.)

For many, Zero Waste has become synonymous with privilege and wealth because there is so little online discussion about how people who donotfit those categories can possibly attain Zero Waste standards. This is hardly fair.

Just because someone has very little money or lives with disabilities doesnt mean they dont care about the environment, nor have the willpower and desire to implement waste reduction in their personal lives. More bloggers should be asking, “How does Zero Waste benefit people with disabilities and low incomes? Is it even realistic for those with limited physical access and tight budgets?”

Ariana Schwarz addresses this topic in an excellent article called Is Zero Waste Unfair to People with Low Incomes or Disabilities? Schwarz believes that Zero Waste is not ableist or discriminatory toward the poor. In fact, it provides great opportunities to improve quality of life.

Take packaging, for example.So often we think of single-used packaging as convenient, and yetlesspackaging is typically more accessible. Imagine opening plastic blister packs, Tetrapaks, and Tupperware or other food storage containers, with their one-handed peel motion; twisting up deodorant tubes and toothpaste lids; and opening rigid plastic packaging (such as the type toothbrushes come in) or Ziplocs while suffering from arthritis or ALS. Compare that to cotton mesh drawstring bags, wide-mouth Mason jars, and flip- or swing-top glass bottles, where access is easier overall.

In terms of cost, Zero Waste can save precious money.Investing in reusables that require an initial investment can save significant amounts of money down the road, i.e. cloth diapers, a menstrual cup, safety razors, etc. Buying in bulk quantities reduces cost and the number of shopping trips. Many bulk stores have low-positioned bins with lids that are easier to open and access from a wheelchair than reaching the tops of supermarket shelves.

Having tight budgets encourages people to grow their own food in abandoned or under-utilized spaces to save packaging and cost. There are many farmers markets in the U.S. that accept SNAP cards and food stamps; in Georgia, aspecial programeven doubles SNAP at markets.

Health can improve through implementation of Zero Waste practices. One commenter on Schwarzs blog wrote:

Zero waste has been a savior in cost and mental peace of mind. My apartment building is falling apart and the carpet full of allergens, but cleaning with vinegar, baking soda, and soap have gone a long way for my health and wallet (cloth towels instead of paper help too). Our allergies are much improved. We’re hoping to get a bidet soon; there’s one on Amazon for barely more than a jumbo pack of toilet paper. Same for being mostly vegan life is much improved and costs are way down.

Keep in mind that embracing small challenges, such as saying no to single-use plastic containers, utensils, and grocery bags, sends a powerful message to whomever has offered it to you, regardless of physical or financial challenges, and its important not to underestimate that power.

Zero Waste practices can benefit everyone, but responsibility does lie with those who do not struggle with barriers to accessibility to push this lifestyle more into the mainstream and make it even easier for everyone to participate.

Schwarz writes: Could you volunteer to collect food that would otherwise go to waste and redistribute them to the needy? Petition local shops for more accessible bulk bins? Or assist handicapped or elderly persons in your community with the grocery shopping?

What are your experiences with Zero Waste living? Do you live with a disability or on a low income that makes it difficult to implement environmental practices? Please share any thoughts in the comments below.

Written by Katherine Martinko. Reposted with permission from TreeHugger.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Read this article:  

Is Zero Waste Just for the Young and Affluent?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Zero Waste Just for the Young and Affluent?

Advertising to kids isn’t good, it’s grrreat!

Advertising to kids isn’t good, it’s grrreat!

By on Jul 6, 2016Share

Advertising works even when we know someone is trying to manipulate us into buying commemorative coins, banana slicers, and anything ever sold in an inflight magazine. And it works even better on kids, who may not understand they’re being pitched.

In perhaps the best proof yet that advertising has frightening power over children, researchers have shown that a little marketing can convince kids to eat their vegetables. A new study, out of Cornell, found that 239 percent more students chose salad in a lunchroom when the salad bar was covered with pictures of vegetable cartoon-characters and nearby TVs played videos with those same characters — you know Brian Broccoli, Suzy Sweetpea, and the rest of the Super Sprowtz — extolling the virtues of veggies.

“The results of this study highlight how the persuasiveness of marketing media can be leveraged in a positive way by encouraging children to make more nutritious choices,” said Drew Hanks, the study’s lead author and a professor at Ohio State University, in a statement.

Yes, it’s a bit creepy that advertisements — even good ones — can hack the minds of children, but the sooner we get over the idea that we always act rationally the better. Once we accept that our environments influence our actions we can use that knowledge to encourage the good influences and shut down the bad, like marketing junk food to toddlers.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See more here: 

Advertising to kids isn’t good, it’s grrreat!

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Advertising to kids isn’t good, it’s grrreat!

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

By on Jul 5, 2016Share

Remember that time the George W. Bush administration tried to sneak a new gas tax onto the books and sort of succeeded?

You probably don’t, because not even those fighting over this measure in Congress understood what was going on. As far as I can tell, the only person who knows the full story is Hanna Breetz, a political scientist at Arizona State University who wrote a dissertation on U.S. alternative fuel policy back in 2012. It’s a dissertation that — mirabile dictu — broke news. But, because it’s a dissertation, no one noticed.

Breetz’s research provides a rare glimpse inside the political sausage factory that churns policy proposals into laws for the good old US of A. In this episode, nobody saw the full picture, and nobody was pushing for the thing that emerged in the end. It’s a story that shows how sometimes there is no guiding plan behind this country’s policy. The politicians weren’t rational planners — they were more like ants tugging a leaf in haphazard directions until they reached a destination.

Back in January 2006, Bush held a one-man intervention with the United States, telling the country that it was “addicted to oil.” To help wean us off our addiction, he called for us to increase our alternative fuel consumption to 35 billion gallons by 2017. Where did this number come from? Conventional wisdom held that Bush pulled it from thin air.

“Tellingly, not one of the industry lobbyists, environmental advocates, Department of Energy analysts, or Congressional staff that I interviewed seemed to know where the 35 billion gallon goal came from,” Breetz writes. “Many of them derided it as a number made up for political purposes.” The people she interviewed described the target as “arbitrary,” “mythical,” and “mind-boggling.”

It’s tempting to believe that some young speechwriter suggested this number after Bush initially wrote “62 squigilliam gallons!”

In fact, the number had a purpose, and it wasn’t plucked from a hat. But the Bush administration seems to have kept silent about its rationale so that no one would figure out what it was actually proposing: doubling the federal gas tax.

Before the speech, Bush had asked his advisors for a proposal that could make dramatic change without dramatic government intrusion. Bush wanted to work with the market, not pick winners and losers. His advisors suggested a gas tax. Make gas a lot more expensive and people will start choosing other fuels. Of course, this would never fly because most members of Bush’s political party had sworn not to raise taxes of any kind. I imagine someone in the Council of Economic Advisors standing up to say, “Clearly, the best solution would be to tax oil but … we’re Republicans.”

Then, one of these advisors, Benjamin Ho, “reached into the economics literature for an almost subversively clever alternative,” Breetz writes. That alternative: Tell oil companies that they must use an unrealistically high quantity of alternative fuels or pay a penalty — in this case $1 per gallon. It’s functionally equivalent to a gas tax, but it doesn’t look like one. If that doesn’t make sense, you can read how it works here, but remember this is incomprehensible by design. The Bush administration didn’t expect the alternative fuels to emerge out of thin air — it chose a number so big that it would force companies to pay a penalty and push gas prices up. Setting a mandate for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels would add about 20 cents to the price of gas, on top of the existing 18.6 cent federal gas tax.

When the Senate took up this proposal, however, it morphed into something different. Instead of allowing the market to choose the alternative fuels, senators picked the winner: biofuel — ethanol and biodiesel grown in the Midwest. Instead of creating a mandate for a wide variety of alternative fuels, senators expanded a mandate exclusively for biofuels — gas from plant juice — they had passed two years before. Environmentalists, concerned about the amount of land that we’d need to grow all these biofuels, successfully lobbied to get a mandate for cellulosic ethanol — which can, in theory, be produced without any additional land — into the law.

Along the way, lawmakers eliminated the $1-per-gallon penalty, the key feature required to make this policy an incognito gas tax. They replaced it with fines for companies that failed to meet the impossibly high oil displacement goals. These fines have driven up the price of gas, Breetz told me, but the entire process is inefficient and punitive. In the past, the companies have paid fines for failing to buy cellulosic ethanol that didn’t exist. The courts struck down that practice in 2013, but the EPA still requires oil companies to buy biofuels or pay a fee. Now the fees and volumes are much lower than Bush advisors envisioned, and probably too low to significantly budge the price of gas.

The bill President Bush signed into law on Dec. 19, 2007, Breetz writes, bore little resemblance to what most analysts thought was achievable, or what anyone had wanted to begin with (including the industry it purportedly helped).

The Bush administration deserves more credit than greens generally give it for passing an incognito gas tax. Of course, it didn’t exactly work, but it’s still interesting to see how factions with shared interests pulled this proposal in opposite directions. This case study challenges the notion that democratic governments make deliberate, rational choices. Perhaps we should think of public policy as emergent phenomena, like the formation of geometric patterns in snowflakes and the movement of schools of fish. Maybe democracies plan their political fate only to the same degree that termites plan the architecture of their mounds. For this termite, spending his days scribbling away about what ought to be done, that idea is at once terrifying and liberating.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to original:

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

IPOP pops

The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

By on Jun 30, 2016Share

The skyrocketing global demand for palm oil is devastating forests in Southeast Asia, and now a group that was created to stop the destruction has been cut down, too — razed by political forces that opposed the push to end deforestation. But all is not as dark as it might look.

Palm oil is everywhere: it’s in most processed foods, not to mention shampoos, soaps, and cosmetics. The Indonesia Palm Oil Pledge, or IPOP, was created at the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit as a means to allow sustainable-minded business interests and responsible palm oil companies to work with and influence government leaders, in an effort to preserve forests and stamp out human rights abuses by bad operators. But IPOP and its member companies became punching bags for their political opponents, who want to keep clearing land (more on the factions here).

The organization itself has not confirmed its dissolution — at least as of June 30 — but corporate members have said it is shutting down. “Cargill supports the dissolution of IPOP,” an associate vice president of the giant U.S.-based agribusiness wrote in a letter to stakeholders, explaining that the Indonesian government had stepped in to fill the role IPOP was originally supposed to perform. The government has instituted a moratorium on new palm oil plantations, protected areas with big trees and high biodiversity, and established an agency to restore carbon-rich peatland.

But the government will need industry support to bring these policies to fruition. Responsible companies should look to the successful strategy used to reduce soy and cattle deforestation in the Amazon, which involved blocking rogue companies from access to the market, said Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. That strategy allowed agricultural production to double even as forest clearance was reduced to one third of what it had been.

The Amazon example shows that there’s plenty of room for Indonesia to grow its agriculture businesses without burning more trees. But to achieve that, responsible companies will have to engage in politics and fight for sustainability, Hurowitz said. Now business leaders will have to do that in some other form than IPOP.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit source: 

The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The group that was supposed to make palm oil sustainable just disappeared

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As recently as two weeks ago, the food industry was preparing to place labels on food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. But if a bi-partisan deal cobbled together last Thursday in the Senate Agriculture Committee gets signed into law, widespread labeling likely won’t come to pass. Instead, food companies will have the option of disclosing GM ingredients on their products with QR codes that can be read by smartphones, accompanied by only the words “scan here for more food information”—without direct on-package mention of GMOs.

The fight centers on a Vermont law, due to go into effect on July 1, that would require labeling in that state. Rather than go through the trouble of segregating out and labeling products destined for a state with a population 626,000, many huge food companies had instead resigned themselves to labeling nationwide. In recent months Mars, General Mills, Kellogg, ConAgra and Campbell Soup all announced plans for labeling.

The looming prospect provoked a massive legislative effort, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, to pass a bill in Congress to nullify state labeling initiatives, full stop. Ever since that bill failed to gain traction in the Senate in March, Senate Ag Committee Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) began working to cobble together a compromise. Under their bill, products that contain GM ingredients will only have to include a QR code, which in-the-know consumers with smartphones can scan.

This week, Roberts and Stabenow began pushing hard for the full Senate to consider their compromise bill, reports Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich. They have industrial agriculture interests at their backs, Evich adds, noting that the American Soybean Association urged its members to email and call their senators “repeatedly until this legislation passes.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), meanwhile, has vowed to “do everything I can to defeat this legislation.”

The Senate deal is widely viewed as a defeat for labeling advocates and a victory for the seed/pesticide industry. Andrew Kimbrell, a long-time industry critic and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, denounced the bill in an emailed statement. “This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” he wrote. “Clear, on-package GE food labeling should be mandatory to ensure all Americans have equal access to product information.” Meanwhile, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a deep-pocketed trade group called funded by major food processors as well as agrichemical/GMO titans like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, praised it as the “commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses.”

If the proposed QR-code solution passes, it will preempt Vermont’s law. Whether it will pass the full Senate and House and be signed by President Obama remains to be seen. Stabenow had opposed previous efforts to preempt state labeling laws, so getting her on board was a big step closer to putting a halt to GMO labeling.

Source:

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Posted in FF, food processor, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

No peaches or apricots? Blame the Northeast’s warm, wacky winter.

fruitless effort

No peaches or apricots? Blame the Northeast’s warm, wacky winter.

By on Jun 19, 2016 7:06 am

Cross-posted from

Modern FarmerShare

In the Northeast, lovers of stone fruits — peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums, and cherries — are in for a tough summer, thanks to a very weird season for Northeastern farmers.

A strange warm spell in mid-winter followed by two brutal deep freezes have, according to surveys and several farmers we spoke to, completely decimated the stone fruit crops in the Northeast, from roughly central New Jersey on north through New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Here’s what happened: An unusually strong El Niño cycle in late 2015 through 2016, likely with the assistance of climate change’s unpredictability, resulted in a string of about a week in February of mid-50-degree-Fahrenheit days in this region. It was, at that point, the most unusually warm month in recorded history, according to NOAA. “Things like peaches, apricots, they start to come out pretty quick as soon as it gets warm out,” says Steven Clarke of Prospect Hill Orchards, in Milton, New York.

Those crazily warm days tricked the Northeastern stone fruit trees to think spring had arrived, and to begin putting out buds, which would eventually flower and become fruits. But then two absurdly cold spells, one in mid-February and one in early April, froze and damaged nearly every single bud. Some apple varieties were hit as well, though apples tend to bud later and be a little more tolerant of bad weather; Clarke says his Cortland, Mutsu, and Jonagold apples were hurt badly.

Farmers have some methods to deal with cold spells; typically cold air sinks to the ground and pockets of warm air sit on top. That’s called an inversion layer, and farmers can raise the temperature on the ground by mixing the cold bottom air with the warmer air. The techniques for doing that are pretty crazy; some will hire helicopters to hover just above their trees, blasting the warm air downwards, and others have gigantic stationary fans for the same purpose.

But this year, the wind was also incredibly intense during the cold snaps. “Helicopters will work if there’s an inversion layer, but this wasn’t a frost; this was a freeze,” says Rick Lawrence, of Lawrence Farms Orchards, in Newburgh, New York. “There was no warm air to push down; it was just cold, cold.” Even these expensive tactics couldn’t fight the weather. “There was absolutely nothing you could do about it,” says Clarke.

There are no full surveys of farmers in the Northeast, but most believe that in this region, at least 90 percent of the crop has been lost. A study in April found that viability of the peach blossoms was as low as 22 percent. Worse than that, some of the actual trees didn’t survive. “We lost quite a few peach trees ourselves,” says Lawrence. “I know some of the other growers were hit pretty hard.” New peach trees can take years to produce fruit, so it’s likely that the weather this year will have lasting effects in years to come.

What’s even stranger about all this is that none of the farmers I’ve talked to have ever seen this kind of destruction before. “We’ve never had anything like this, as long as I can remember,” says Lawrence. “I’m 60 years old and I can’t remember anything like this.” Though he notes that peaches are not generally a primary crop in this region, Clarke agrees. “I’ve never seen a wipeout like this,” he says.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original article here: 

No peaches or apricots? Blame the Northeast’s warm, wacky winter.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Northeastern, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No peaches or apricots? Blame the Northeast’s warm, wacky winter.

What Do Meat Labels Really Mean?

If you’re a meat eater and want to get the healthiest, tastiest cuts, how do you know what to buy?

Most labels today carry some kind of certification from the USDA (US Department of Agriculture), which basically acknowledges that the meat came from a facility that is supposed to meet the USDA’s standards for health and safety. But you might see other words on the label as well, such as “natural,” “fed vegetarian feed” or “no hormones or added antibiotics.” Some of these terms are significant, but others are essentially worthless.

Here’s a guide to the most common labels you’ll see on packaged meat and what they mean.

Grain-fed: These words indicate that at some point in its life, the animal was fed grain. The animal may have been raised in a factory-farm type operation or on a small family farm. Grain-fed doesn’t tell you that information. It only indicates that the animal ate corn, soy, brewers grain or another grain-based feed.

Grass-fed: Rather than being cooped up in a barn eating grain, grass-fed cows roam outdoors eating nothing but grass from the time they’re weaned until the time they go to market. The term does not guarantee that the animals weren’t treated with antibiotics nor confined. Grass is closer to the actual native diet of cows than grain, but that in and of itself might not be a reason to buy meat labeled this way.

AGA-Certified Grassfed: This label has some teeth to it. It says that the cows verifiably ate only grass, that they were not confined in a feed lot, and that they’ve never been given antibiotics or hormones. Unlike other grassfed meat, that which is AGA-Certified Grassfed is guaranteed to have been born and raised in the U.S.

Grass Finished: According to American Grassfed, this label is completely meaningless. It does not meet any standards set by the USDA and is used primarily for marketing purposes rather than to indicate superior quality.

Natural: In this context, “natural” does not refer to how the animal was raised, but rather how its meat was processed and packaged. According to the USDA, describing meat as “natural” means that it contains no artificial ingredients or added color and was minimally processed (such as ground into beef or trimmed into steaks). The word natural does not refer to the animal’s diet or how it was raised.

Naturally-raised: An animal that is “naturally raised” was not fed animal byproducts (like ground up parts of other animals), nor was it administered growth hormones or antibiotics. Other than that, the animal could have eaten either grain or grass and could have spent its life outdoors roaming or confined in a factory-type feedlot.

Organic: The U.S. Department of Agriculture has established a set of standards that farmers must meet if they are to label their meat organic. Those include that the animal was given no antibiotics or synthetic hormones, ate a pesticide and herbicide-free vegetarian diet, and was was fed or ate no food that was tainted with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Cows may either be fed organic grain or eat organic grass, and they may be confined rather than allowed to roam free.

Pasture-Raised: This is a term that sounds nice, but like “natural,” means essentially nothing. There’s no federal definition for what pasture-raised means, and not much industry cohesion behind the term either. Any producer can put it on any package at any time.

Certified Humane: This label primarily attests to how animals were treated as they were raised. It says that “Livestock must have access to fresh water and a diet formulated or assessed to maintain full health and promote a positive state of well-being. Feed and water must be distributed in such a way that livestock can eat and drink without undue competition.” It prohibits treatment with hormones and antibioticsother than to selectively treat disease and mandates that feeding and watering troughs be kept clean. This label also requires that calves be able to suckle for 24 hours after they’re born and not be weaned for 6 months after birth.

Of all these labels, the ones that mean the most are Certified Humane, Organic and AGA-Certified Grassfed. Don’t waste your money on “natural” or “pasture-raised” beef.

Related:
Five Myths About Grass-Fed Beef
With These Veggie Burger Ideas, You’ll Never Crave Beef Again

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

More here – 

What Do Meat Labels Really Mean?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Do Meat Labels Really Mean?