The Department of Agriculture has proposed some changes to the standards currently in place for grass fed beef. At the moment, there really are no specific guidelines, and farmers who produce at least 99% grass fed beef want labels that indicate that their beef is exactly what it sounds like: from cows that live in pastures and eat only grass. The proposal has no provisions that state that the cows must be kept in pastures and it defines "grass" to include "leftovers from harvested crops," including corn and silage, which feedlot finished cows are already fed. It means that some conventional beef, feedlot beef, could be labeled "grass fed."
Understandably, the farmers who have pasture-raised cattle don't like the proposal because it devalues the "grass fed" label, barely separating it from conventional beef as far as consumers are concerned. They propose a more specific definition of "grass" and a minimum amount of time that the cows must spend grazing in pasture each day. The Agriculture Department says those rules are too strict and that their standards put less strain on ranchers, particularly in years of bad weather or drought when pastures may suffer.
Under the Agriculture Department's standards, more beef labeled "grass fed" will reach the market. But will consumers want it, or be willing to pay a premium for it, if it has no distinction from conventional?
Last fall, Congress passed legislation that ceased federal, tax-generated funding for the
inspections of facilities used to slaughter horses for human consumption. Because all facilities must be inspected to
operate, this effectively shut them down. They could not pay the inspection fees themselves. While not illegal in the
US to eat horse meat, it is a disgusting idea to many diners, so the horse meat produced was typically exported to
Japan or European countries, like France, Belgium and Italy.
A report 










