‘Grass-fed’ beef first got its definition on the virtue of being pasture-fed and being free of chemicals. Now the status of the definition is at stake as it is reported to undergo a change by U.S. Department of Agriculture to include legumes and corn stalks left over from harvests. This expansion of the diet of beef would change the definition of grass-fed for the sole reason of the diet being adulterated by things other than grass.
A feature in MSNBC reports refute in changing the definition of grass-fed beef by the opponents of the proposed rule. They claim that an alteration in the definition of grass-fed beef would reduce the appeal of grass-fed beef thereby reducing the consecutive revenue that it was bringing to the farmers.
Well the generalization of the term grass-fed and the restriction of the same is not a matter of joke, more of a matter of ethics of labeling for the benefit of the consumers.
The consumers are buying grass-fed beef because they trust what the meat delivers them, inspite of the fact that it is expensive and geographical limitations in some ranchers cannot make or break what grass-fed beef stands for consumers.
USDA should seek to label legume-altered, grass-fed beef with a better definition and functionalities to secure the interests of both farmers and consumers.
