Is Grass-Fed Beef Good for Your Health & the Planet?

Cattle (like sheep, deer, and other grazing animals) are endowed with the ability to convert grasses into flesh. Humans can’t do this because we’re missing an organ called a rumen: a 45-or-so-gallon fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into protein and fats. 

In the U.S., however, about 97% of the cows raised for beef spend the end of their lives in feedlots, where they’re fed corn and soy instead of their natural diet. There are two big problems with this arrangement. 

First, land that’s used to grow corn and soy for cattle isn’t available for other, better uses: healthy produce for humans, or wild pastureland or forest. 

Second, cattle are not suited to consume corn or soybeans, so they convert it into themselves — into our meat — quite inefficiently. Since it takes anywhere from 4 to as many as 20 pounds of grain to make a pound of feedlot-derived beef (depending on who is doing the calculation and what they include), we actually get far less food out than we put in. What we’ve created is effectively a protein factory in reverse. And we do this on a massive scale, while nearly a billion people on our planet live on the edge of starvation.

Around the world, people are waking up to the harms of industrialized beef. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is calling on humanity to eat less meat to help save the planet. Organizations such as the American Heart Association and the National Cancer Institute are urging consumers to eat less (or no) red meat to help fight heart disease and cancer. 

Local and national governments worldwide are taking action: Canada and the U.K. have implemented measures to reduce meat consumption as part of climate emergency responses, while 67 cities globally have signed the Plant-based Treaty, aligned with the UN’s 2015 Framework Convention on Climate Change, pledging to “halt the widespread degradation of critical ecosystems caused by animal agriculture” and promote shifts toward plant-based diets. Perhaps most significantly, China, which is home to 1.3 billion people (nearly one-fifth of the world’s population), has made reducing meat consumption by 50% an official government policy to support both public and environmental health.

The Rise of Grass-fed Beef

Despite the calls for consumers to eat less meat to fight climate change and other environmental harms — as well as research showing that red meat isn’t doing your health any favors — beef consumption in the U.S. has been on the rise over the past two decades. This is partly due to the rapid growth in the sales of grass-fed beef. 

Advocates for grass-fed beef say it has health and environmental benefits compared to conventionally raised beef. Marketers and enthusiasts praise it as a healthy food rich in protein, B vitamins, iron, and other nutrients. And some environmentalists gush over the theory that properly managed grass-fed beef could help sequester carbon in the ground, helping fight climate change while restoring topsoil. 

And consumers are responding. Financial analysts estimate the current grass-fed beef market at around $13.5 billion, projecting it to rise to over $21 billion by 2035. The reasons include “a shift in consumer preferences toward healthier… food choices” and “rising awareness surrounding the importance of animal welfare and sustainability in farming practices.”

Are those good reasons, or is it industry hype, seeking to soothe the consciences of a bunch of environmentally conflicted burger-lovers? Is grass-fed beef really better for you, the animals, and the environment than conventional beef? Will it save our topsoil and reverse climate change? And what is grass-fed beef, anyway?

Before the 1950s, grass-fed beef was just called “beef.” That was the way meat cattle were raised. Cows got to live longer back then, sometimes reaching their 3rd birthdays. (For context, cows live 15–20 years on average, with the oldest known cow, Big Bertha, reaching her 49th year on a farm in lush County Kerry, Ireland.)

In the middle of the 20th century, as the popularity of hamburgers and fast food in the U.S. grew, farmers and ranchers needed a way to fatten up cows faster, so they started feeding them energy-dense grain and soy instead of grass. 

Today, most cattle in the United States start out eating grass, but are fattened — or what the industry euphemistically calls “finished” — on grain and soy for their last 160–180 days of life. While this accounts for barely a third of their lifespan, more than half of their weight gain occurs during this final half-year. Cows that are fattened up in these Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) reach their slaughter weight in around 15 months. 

Grass-fed cows, on the other hand, feed on grass and other forage for their entire lives. Since the grass they eat is much less calorie-dense than feedlot grain, they’re sent to slaughter later, usually between 18 months and 2 years old. Their average weight at slaughter is about 1,200 pounds, compared with about 1,400 pounds for feedlot cows. 

And keep in mind that most of that weight is hoof, hide, bone, excess fat, and inedible body parts. The actual edible meat on a 1,200-pound grass-fed steer might be around 400–430 pounds, whereas the edible meat on a grain-fed CAFO steer might be around 570 pounds.

So grass-fed cows live longer and yield less edible meat than their grain-fed counterparts.

Is Grass-Fed Beef Better than Conventional Beef?

We’ve seen some of the claims that grass-fed beef is better than conventional beef; what does the research tell us? Let’s take a look at the three main areas where grass-fed beef is said to be a better option: nutrition, the environment, and the treatment of animals. 

Grass-Fed Beef Nutrition

While grass-fed beef is marketed as nutritionally superior, the actual health benefits are marginal. For example, proponents tell us that grass-fed beef contains roughly 3 times more omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef. And it’s true. But according to research from Texas A&M University, this “superior” amount is still nutritionally negligible. A 4-ounce grass-fed patty provides only about 55 mg of ALA, which is a tiny 3% to 5% of the daily recommended intake. Those numbers are tiny compared to foods like fatty fish (between 1,500 and 4,500 mg per 100-gram serving), walnuts and flaxseeds (around 2,400 mg), and the overall winner, chia seeds (5,000 mg). Even a single tablespoon of canola oil provides over 1.4 grams. Ultimately, trying to source omega-3s from beef is like trying to hydrate by eating a cracker; the levels are so low that the distinction between grass-fed and conventional beef doesn’t actually make a difference for human health.

When it comes to vitamins and minerals, the differences between grass-fed and conventional beef are generally modest. While grass-fed beef contains higher levels of vitamins A and E, the concentrations of essential minerals like iron and zinc remain comparable across both types. Ultimately, these minor variations aren’t dramatic enough to significantly alter the overall nutritional profile.

In other words, switching from conventional to grass-fed beef may slightly tweak the nutritional profile in a beneficial direction. But it doesn’t transform it into a “health food.” In fact, grass-fed beef is a bit higher in saturated fat and in trans fats, which are linked to an increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease. 

And then there’s cancer. Red meat of all kinds, including grass-fed beef, is labeled a class 2A carcinogen by the World Health Organization, meaning that it’s “probably cancer-causing” to humans. 

Recent research also suggests that red meat, grass-fed or not, promotes the body’s production of a compound called TMAO, which can contribute to heart disease and other chronic lifestyle diseases. And all red meat can be a nasty vector for the spread of pathogenic bacteria, which can sneak into meat during processing, grinding, and packaging, and cause foodborne illness. While the risk of dangerous bacterial contamination from grass-fed beef is lower, it’s certainly not zero. 

On the whole, red meat consumption is associated with higher overall mortality rates. This means that in study after study, the more red meat people eat, the sooner they die. 

While grass-fed beef appears to be an improvement over conventional grain-finished beef from a nutritional standpoint, we don’t have any studies demonstrating positive health effects from eating it over time. 

Grass-Fed Beef & the Environment

Grass-fed beef advocates claim that it’s better for the environment than traditional beef. But that, in and of itself, is not saying much. After all, conventional beef production is nothing short of an environmental disaster. 

Problems With the Cattle Industry

At least one-third of the world’s arable land is used to raise livestock. And new areas are constantly being cleared through deforestation to make more room, most alarmingly in the precious and irreplaceable Amazon rainforest. 

Beef cattle production contributes an enormous amount of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock supply chains account for roughly one-seventh of global human-caused emissions, with cattle the largest source. And that might be a conservative estimate; some experts argue that it downplays the significant “opportunity costs” of the land if it were freed up for more environmentally responsible uses.

Cows eat plants, which is where they receive the nutrients that they capture in their flesh. But they also turn those plants into hoof, hide, bones, energy, methane, and manure (lots and lots of manure, as anyone who’s spent more than 10 minutes at a dairy farm or grazing pasture will confirm). After cows arrive at a feedlot, they gain enough weight to produce about one new pound of beef for every 14 pounds of feed input. The other 13 are essentially wasted.

Is Grass-Fed Beef Better for the Environment?

Proponents of grass-fed beef tell us it can actually be good for the planet. Before we get to that argument, it’s worth understanding just how deep a hole conventional beef has dug. A 2011 Environmental Working Group analysis found that beef produces about 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions per pound than chicken or pork, and roughly 100 times more than beans. Meanwhile, some estimates put the water cost of a single pound of conventionally raised beef at over 1,800 gallons, compared to about 220 gallons for wheat and 148 gallons for a pound of corn. So when advocates say grass-fed is better for the environment, the bar they’re clearing is low.

Carbon Sequestration and Rotational Grazing

The earth has lost enormous reserves of soil carbon as humans have converted forests and grasslands into cropland and cattle pasture. The idea of soil carbon sequestration is that carbon can be returned to the ground through practices that restore degraded soils and build soil carbon pools.

One approach is called carbon farming, in which farmers use plants to capture carbon dioxide and lock it into the soil through long-rooted crops, adding organic matter, and reducing tilling.

Another is rotational grazing, where a pasture is divided into multiple paddocks and livestock are moved from one to the next on a planned schedule. This rest-and-recovery cycle lets grazed areas regenerate, encouraging grasses to rebuild deeper root systems. Those roots feed soil microbes and deposit organic matter underground — producing soil that is healthier, more water-retentive, and genuinely richer in carbon.

The climate benefits are real, but limited. One meta-analysis found rotational grazing can increase soil organic carbon by 21% in its first 3 years. The catch is that those gains are front-loaded: Sequestration slows significantly after 5–20 years as the soil approaches a new equilibrium — it can only hold so much. Results also vary widely by region, climate, and how carefully grazing intensity is managed. And rotational systems require significant land — land that, devoted to growing plant foods instead, could feed far more people per acre.

Most importantly, better soil carbon doesn’t close the climate loop on its own. Cattle still belch methane, which accounts for roughly 37% of global methane emissions. Methane is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame. With the higher fiber content in grasses than grains, grass-fed cows may produce even more methane than grain-fed ones. And with grass-fed cattle living up to twice as long as feedlot cattle, they produce methane for longer, too.

Research consistently shows that soil carbon gains from even well-managed grazing typically don’t fully offset those ongoing emissions. Rotational grazing is meaningfully better than continuous or intensive grazing: It restores degraded land, improves ecosystem health, and delivers real, if partial, climate benefit. But it’s an improvement, not a solution.

If you’re looking for more powerful ways land can capture carbon, check out the eight solutions in this article. (Spoiler: the word “beef” does not appear.)

The Rest of The Environmental Picture

Even if grass-fed beef could achieve carbon neutrality in the long run, is that a reason to chow down on beef? Nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land is used for beef production. And all that land yields less than 2% of humanity’s calories. What else could be done with that land that might more effectively regenerate soil and sequester carbon? What if we used it to grow cover crops? Or used it to grow trees? 

In some ways, grass-fed beef might actually be worse for the planet than feedlot beef. The biggest reason for this is that grass-fed cows take longer to fatten up, so they live an average of 18–24 months, whereas feedlot cows are typically killed at around 15 months. This extra longevity necessitates more cows roaming around — and more land on which to grow their (grass) food. If we moved all cows out of feedlots, and we didn’t reduce our beef consumption dramatically, we’d find ourselves with a severe shortage of grazing land. According to a 2012 study published in the journal Animals, if all the U.S. beef produced in 2010 were grass-fed, the industry would have required an additional 200,000 square miles — an area larger than all the land in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio combined. Of course, we’d free up some of the land currently growing corn, soy, and other feedstuffs for cattle feed. But not nearly enough to provide for all those cows roaming around for all those additional months. 

Amazonian Deforestation

For a look at the worst possible environmental impact of large-scale, grass-fed beef production, we need look no further than Brazil, where an environmental nightmare of epic proportions is unfolding. In 2009, Greenpeace released a report titled “Slaughtering the Amazon,” which presented detailed satellite photos showing that Amazon cattle were the biggest single cause of global deforestation. And in turn, they are responsible for 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Since then, the situation in Brazil has only gotten worse. Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter and home to the planet’s largest commercial cattle herd. According to Brazil’s own official statistics agency, the country’s cattle herd exceeds 230 million head. Multiple analyses — including statements attributed to Brazilian government sources — have found that cattle ranching is responsible for roughly 80% of deforestation in the Amazon region, making beef production the single largest driver of forest loss there. 

As global demand for beef has grown, so too has pressure on one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth. Much of the remaining 20% is for land to grow soy, which is not mostly used to make tofu. Instead, three-quarters of Brazil’s soybeans are exported to China, where they are primarily crushed into soymeal for livestock and aquaculture feed, along with soybean oil. 

Amazonian cattle are free-range, grass-fed, and possibly organic, but they are still a plague on the planet and a driving force behind global warming. And because U.S. supply can’t keep up with demand, the vast majority of what is sold in the U.S. as “grass-fed beef” is actually sourced from Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, and Australia. Thanks to a labelling loophole, it’s typically sold as a “product of the USA.”

Is Grass-Fed Beef Better for Cows?

Cows that graze for their whole lives are healthier, and almost certainly happier, than conventional cows that are finished in feedlots. Feedlots such as California’s Harris Ranch routinely cram up to 100,000 cattle into 1 square mile. But the cows aren’t potty trained, and they don’t pay for sewer hookups, either. So they live their entire lives in a mess of their own excrement.

Feeding cows grain in feedlots can cause health problems, too, including liver abscesses, which is one reason that grain-fed cows are typically given antibiotics right in their feed.

Author Michael Pollan describes what happens to cows when they are taken off of pastures and put into feedlots and fed corn:

“Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal’s lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal’s esophagus), the cow suffocates.”

Feedlot beef as we know it today would be impossible if it weren’t for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These new “superbugs” are increasingly rendering our antibiotics ineffective for treating disease in humans.

In comparison, cattle experience greater well-being and better health when they’re able to eat the diet for which their digestive systems were designed, and when they have access to more outdoor space. 

Still, the life of all cows, whether grass-fed or grain-fed, does come to an end. And there’s still nothing cheery about their deaths. A better life is worth a lot. But it doesn’t change the final chapter. 

What Grass-Fed and Organic Beef Labels Actually Mean

Grass-fed and organic beef command what economists term premium prices. (Translation: They’re expensive.) But the meaning of the phrases is poorly regulated, leading to misunderstandings among often well-meaning consumers. Technically, grass-fed should mean that a cow lived its entire life on pasture, without confinement, eating grass. But keep in mind that most cows are grass-fed for at least part of their lives, until they weigh 600 to 800 pounds, at which point they are shipped off to a feedlot for fattening. 

The government’s regulation of “grass-fed” beef is complicated and often unclear. While the USDA withdrew its formal standard in 2016, companies must still seek approval from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) by providing their own records. The most recent FSIS guidance (2024) relies heavily on producer documentation. It has varying enforcement, which may allow some meat to be legally sold as “grass-fed” even if the cattle spent part of their lives in feedlots eating grain and soybeans.

Consumers who care about this critical distinction need to make sure they’re getting 100% grass-fed beef, which is sometimes called “grass-finished beef.” 

The USDA organic certification guarantees that the animals were raised on pesticide-free food and were never given hormones or antibiotics. But beef labeled “organic” can still come from animals that were cooped up in feedlots and fed (organic) grain and soy for the latter part of their lives. 

Anyone looking for truly organic, 100% grass-fed meat needs to look carefully at what they’re actually getting. 

The American Grassfed Association (AGA), which advocates for grass-fed producers and offers a certification program for cattle farmers, assures that beef bearing its seal comes from cattle raised on a 100% grass-fed diet. And they add further specifications, including that the cattle are raised by family farmers on pastures without confinement and are never fed antibiotics or hormones. There appear to be a few hundred member farms across the U.S. that currently carry the AGA certification. 

There are other certifying bodies, too, including the Food Alliance Grass-Fed Certification and the USDA’s Small & Very Small Producer Program. 

The Best Beef? None At All

Conventional feedlot-finished beef is nothing short of a health, environmental, and ethical disaster. And grass-fed beef is arguably better on all three fronts. So if you’re going to eat beef, then there are good reasons to choose grass-fed and organic beef over the products of feedlots. And if you’re concerned about climate change, then regenerative is a step better yet.

But if you want to save money and do a good turn for your health, the planet, and the animals, there are plenty of plant-based options to choose from. (For our article on how to get rolling on a whole food, plant-powered diet, click here.) 

There are also plant-based meats, of course. Not all of them are highly processed (though most are). But don’t forget about beans. If the whole world started swapping beans for beef even some of the time, we could take a huge bite out of climate change. We could save what’s left of the Amazon rainforest. We could spare the lives of tens of millions of cows. We could restore the fertility of our soils. And we could prevent countless heart attacks, too. 

Tell us in the comments:

• Do you eat grass-fed beef? Why or why not?
• Do you think that grass-fed beef can be part of the climate change solution?
• What are some of your favorite beef-free food alternatives?

Feature image: iStock.com/adamkaz

Read Next:

• Veggie Burgers and Plant-Based Meat: Pros and Cons
• What’s All Wrong About Annals Of Internal Medicine’s Red and Processed Meat Advice