Lee Simmons

Sophia Pathways ENG1020

July 23, 2021

Where’s the Beef?: Ethics and the Beef Industry

Americans love their beef. According to a 2005 study on beef consumption,

between 1994 and 1998, Americans consumed an average of 67 pounds of beef per

year, the equivalent of approximately three ounces of beef per day (Davis & Lin, 2005).

Despite this high rate of consumption, in recent years people in the United States have

grown increasingly concerned about where their food comes from, how it is produced,

and what environmental and health impacts result from its production. These concerns

can be distilled into two ethical questions: is the treatment of cattle humane and is there

a negative environmental impact of beef production? For many, the current methods of

industrial beef production and consumption do not meet personal ethical or

environmental standards. Therefore, for ethical and environmental reasons, people

should limit their beef consumption, and the beef that they do eat should be humanely

raised, locally sourced, and grass-fed.

The first ethical question to consider is the humane treatment of domesticated

cattle. It has been demonstrated in multiple scientific studies that animals feel physical

pain as well as emotional states such as fear (Grandin & Smith, 2004, para. 2). In

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), better known as “factory farms” due

to their industrialized attitude toward cattle production, cattle are often confined to

unnaturally small areas; fed a fattening, grain-based diet; and given a constant stream

of antibiotics to help combat disease and infection. In his essay, “An Animal’s Place,”

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

Michael Pollan (2002) states that beef cattle often live “standing ankle deep in their own

waste eating a diet that makes them sick” (para. 40). Pollan not only describes

Americans’ discomfort with this aspect of meat production. He also notes that they are

removed from and uncomfortable with the physical and psychological aspects of killing

animals for food as well. He simplifies the actions chosen by many Americans: “we

either look away—or stop eating animals” (para. 32). This decision to look away has

enabled companies to treat and slaughter their animals in ways that cause true suffering

for the animals. If Americans want to continue to eat beef, alternative, ethical methods

of cattle production must be considered.

In addition to the inhumane treatment of animals, CAFOs also raise ethical

questions in terms of the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Because cattle

raised on factory farms are primarily “grain-fed,” meaning that their diet largely consists

of corn and/or soy rather than grass or other forage, huge amounts of grain are required

to provide the necessary feed. This grain comes primarily from “monocropping,” an

agricultural practice that involves planting the same crop year after year in the same

field. Although rotating crops to different fields each season helps to retain the natural

balance of nutrients in the soil, mono-cropping is considered to be more efficient on an

industrial scale, providing larger yields of grain even though it also requires the use of

more chemical fertilizers to provide adequate nutrients for the plants. According to

Palmer (2010), these chemicals can leach into the groundwater, polluting both the

surrounding land and the water supply.

The emphasis on a grain-based diet, and therefore a reliance on mono-cropping,

also contributes to the inefficient use of available land. The vast majority of grain

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

production (75-90% depending on whether corn or soy) goes to feeding animals rather

than humans, and cattle alone account for a significant share. As a result, a majority of

land available for agriculture also goes to producing livestock, whether actually housing

the animals or growing grain to feed them (Lappé, 2010, p. 22). This inefficiency means

that a disproportionate amount of agricultural, food, and monetary resources are poured

into a type of cattle production which has been demonstrated to be inhumane and to

have negative environmental consequences.

Other environmental issues include the amount of manure produced by factory

farmed cattle. Traditionally, cattle graze a large area and distribute their waste

accordingly. In contained situations such as CAFOs, however, animal waste builds up in

a relatively small area and the runoff from rainstorms can potentially contaminate the

groundwater (Sager, 2008, para. 7). Furthermore, because closely contained animals

are more prone to disease, factory-farmed cattle are routinely treated with antibiotics,

which can also leach into the local ground and water, potentially affecting humans.

According to Brian Palmer, a man who has done extensive research on the topic (2010),

“Based on some estimates, we spend more than $4 billion annually trying to clean up

CAFO manure runoff. In addition, the long-term, low-dose antibiotics CAFOs give

livestock can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, further undermining our dwindling

supply of useful medicines” (para. 12). The negative impacts of antibiotic runoff, manure

contamination, fossil fuel use, and mono-cropping indicate that sourcing beef from

CAFOs is neither an ethically responsible nor an environmentally sustainable decision.

An alternative to the grain-fed cattle raised in CAFOs is cattle which are allowed

to range and forage for grass and other greenery as their primary form of nourishment.

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

This “grass-fed” beef is, almost by definition, more humane than grain-fed beef because

the animals are allowed to move freely and eat a more natural diet. There is also some

evidence that grass-fed beef is healthier than grain-fed beef for the humans who

consume it: it is higher in cancer fighting, vitamin-A producing beta-carotene; it is much

lower in fat, including having half the saturated fat as grain-fed beef; and it contains

many more omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which prevents cancer

growth, and vitamin E, which prevents cancer as well as heart disease (Ruechel, 2006,

p. 235). Due to the benefits of a grass-based diet, as well as the benefits of being raised

in pastures rather than feedlots, grass-fed cattle themselves tend to be healthier. Taken

altogether, grass-fed cattle production is better physically for both the cows and

humans.

It is important to note that grass-fed does not inherently mean organic, which is a

separate, legal category with its own requirements. It is possible to find grain-fed beef

from cattle raised or slaughtered in inhumane conditions that is labeled “organic”

because the cattle were fed organic grain, whereas grass-fed beef may come from

cattle that have been raised on land that does not meet the requirements for organic

labeling (Sager, 2008, paras.10-15). However, in a guide to raising grass-fed cattle,

Julius Ruechel (2006), notes that “Raising [cattle] in a pasture reduces or even

eliminates the use of toxic pharmaceutical pesticides to control parasites and all but

eliminates residues of high doses of antibiotics used on cattle in feedlot conditions” (p.

236). Even though it may not always be organic, choosing grass-fed beef reduces or

eliminates many of the environmental and ethical concerns raised by factory farming.

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

Grass-fed beef also comes with some benefits to the environment. As noted

earlier, most grain-fed beef relies on environmentally damaging mono-cropping. This

problem is not an issue with grass-fed beef, which relies primarily on forage and does

not require the same crop to be planted year after year. Further, if the grass-fed beef

that one eats comes from local farms and ranches, it lessens the environmental impact,

whereas the long-distance shipping required by factory farming practices consumes

fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming. Lappé (2010) explains the massive

effects that industrial food production has on the environment, noting that throughout

the life cycle of production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste, our food

chain may be responsible for as much as a third of the factors causing global climate

change (p. 11). However, as Pollan (2002) argues by the end of his essay, farms which

focus on traditional agricultural practices are both more humane and more

environmentally friendly than CAFOs. Ultimately, food decisions should be made with an

eye to sustainability and humane treatment, ethical stances that are both supported by

local farms focused on sustainable diversity.

Despite grass-fed beef scoring better on an environmental impact level than

grain-fed beef, it is still not perfect, a fact that highlights the problems of eating beef at

all if one is concerned with environmental ethics. Most notably, to assuage Americans’

rapacious appetites for beef, landowners in South America often clear cut rainforest in

order to create grazing land. “The realities of the global market are a great temptation to

many: Where land is cheap and the demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise, the local

economy may respond by cutting down a forest to create pasture or by planting grass

where millet or rice has been grown” (Sager, 2008, para. 21). This practice has negative

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

environmental impacts on the local landscape and the planet as a whole, since losing

vast swathes of rainforest increases the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere,

contributing to ozone depletion. In their article for Science magazine, scholars Molly

Brown and Christopher Funk (2008) examine how climate change will affect food

security and find that people in the developing world are at particular risk for a lack of

food due to climate change. Mono-cropping and mono-grazing practices, designed to

snag American dollars in the short term and not to sustain the local population in the

long term, will only exacerbate these effects (p. 580–81). Furthermore, the rise in the

market for grass-fed beef has meant that much grass-fed beef is shipped to the U.S.

from South America and Australia. Even if these animals are raised in a humane and

sustainable manner, the long distances they travel to reach American bellies has

significant, negative environmental impact, again due to the use of fossil fuels (Sager,

2008, para. 21). This reinforces the importance of buying beef which has been locally

produced, reducing the impact of long-distance shipping and potential mono-grazing in

other countries.

No matter how ethically sourced, one can still identify some serious ethical

problems with the raising and slaughter of beef, and those ethical quandaries are

passed on to consumers. While grass-fed beef is clearly an ethical improvement over

grain-fed beef in terms of humane treatment and potentially in terms of environmental

impact, “No matter how you slice it, eating beef will never be the greenest thing you do

in a day. Scientists at Japan’s National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science

estimate that producing 1 kilogram of beef emits more greenhouse gas than driving 155

miles” (Palmer, 2010, para. 2). A kilogram of beef is about the equivalent of two

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

generously sized rib-eye steaks. Multiply this by the amount of beef consumed by

Americans in a year and the impact of these greenhouse gasses cannot be ignored.

However, as compelling as this argument is, it is not reasonable to expect that

Americans will stop eating beef altogether. In the short term, it is more practical to

encourage Americans to eat humanely raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, which

will ultimately lessen the ethical and environmental consequences.

If consumers are truly concerned about the ethical treatment of animals and the

environmental impact of agricultural production, then the logical action is to stop eating

meat altogether. If Americans are not willing to do this, then the next best action is to

focus on humanely raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, while acknowledging that

this may affect our beef consumption at many levels. Pollan (2002) concludes his essay

by acknowledging that more humane treatment of animals would likely cause higher

prices and lower consumption. However, he states, “maybe when we did eat animals,

we’d eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and respect they deserve” (para. 82).

This emphasis on the respect for and well-being of the animals cultivated for food

benefits both the animals and the consumer, acknowledging the desire to be true

omnivores while satisfying our need for ethical clarity.

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

References

Brown, M., & Funk, C. (2008). Food security under climate change. Science, 319

(5863), 580-581. doi: 10.1126/science.1154102

Cook, C. (2004). Diet for a dead planet: How the food industry is killing us. New York,

NY: New Press.

Davis, C., & Lin, B.H. (2005). Factors affecting U.S. beef consumption. Retrieved from

https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=37389.

Grandin, T. & Smith. G. (2004). Animal welfare and humane slaughter. Grandin.com.

Retrieved from http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html

Lappé, A. (2010). Diet for a hot planet: The climate crisis at the end of your fork. New

York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Palmer, B. (2010, December 21). Pass on grass: Is grass-fed beef better for the

environment? Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_

science/the_green_lantern/2010/12/pa ss_ on_grass.html

Pollan, M. (2002, November 10). An animal’s place. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html

Ruechel, J. (2006). Grass-fed Cattle: How to produce and market natural beef. North

Adams, MA. Storey Publishing.

Sager, G. (2008). Where’s your beef from?: Grass-fed Beef: Is it green, humane and

healthful? Natural Life Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.naturallifemagazine.

com/0812/grass-fed_beef_green_humane_healthful.html

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

Reflection Questions

1. How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did

you use and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)

I spent about an hour and a half revising my draft. I spent a lot of time going over each

of the critiques I was given, and thinking about how I can implement those in a way that

will truly make my essay better. Creating unity and coherence was the most satisfying to

me, because it allowed me to put everything together in a way that made me proud.

2. List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them.

What problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be unity,

cohesion, rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received

constructive feedback. (4-5 sentences)

One I came up with was moving the paragraph on how the production of meat can raise

questions in terms of environmental impacts. This helped increase the flow and

effectiveness of how the information was being presented. Another critique I made was

including a more focused thesis statement. This helped include all of the points I made.

Another revision I made was adding more appeals to my claim that chemicals can leach

into the groundwater, polluting both the surrounding land and the water supply. This

helped add legitimacy to my argument.

3. What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has

your understanding of the research process changed as a result of taking this

course? (2-3 sentences)

I learned that writing a truly good Argumentative Essay is way more than just writing

and research. You need to dig deep into your sources, and really learn about both sides

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.

of the arguments are you taking on. The entire process is important to make your

argument a solid and supported one.

© 2021 Sophia Learning, LLC.