It sounds like there is a variety of reports about the subject – some showing that grass-fed beef is healthier, while others (like this Texas Agrilife study) say there is not much difference or that grain-fed beef is healthier.

Hopefully consumers’ interest in knowing the difference in health benefits between grain fed and grass fed beef will drive additional (and more in depth) studies of the subject.

Penny

I also showed the report to “real” nutritional scientists who are specialists in EFAs (ok, Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids) and they say the report is so flawed they were surprised the earlier version ever got published. Not only that, but in published interviews with Dr. Smith he is quoted as saying the only peer-reviewed studies backing health claims for grass-fed meats involve rats. That too is flawed because there are literally thousands upon thousands of studies on Omega-3 fatty aids and low glycemic foods that have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the Big Time health benefits of balanced EFAs and low glycemic foods FOR HUMANS.

The report in question here is a prime example of bad science paid for and promoted by the NCBA. Ironically, it promotes 3-ounce servings of beef. I market grass-fed meats and I eat 2.0 to 2.5 pounds of meat a day and my customers also eat large quantities of meat. Even three ounces of beef for breakfast would be a joke for most women who eat grass-fed meats.

Thanks for your comment and you do bring up an interesting point. I know Blair personally and have sent him an email with a link to your comments on this post, so hope he can provide the information you are looking for.

Thanks again for the comment and let us know what you find out.

Terrell