Townhall.com posted an article by John Stossel about some of the myths involved in eating ‘free-range’ beef. 

The article reports:

“Don’t believe me? Dr. Jude Capper, an assistant professor of dairy sciences at Washington State University, has studied the data (http://tinyurl.com/36492d8).

“Capper said: “There’s a perception out there that grass-fed animals are frolicking in the sunshine, kicking their heels up full of joy and pleasure. What we actually found was from the land-use basis, from the energy, from water and, particularly, based on the carbon footprints, grass-fed is far worse than corn-fed.”

“How can that be?

“”Simply because they have a far lower efficiency, far lower productivity. The animals take 23 months to grow. (Corn-fed cattle need only 15.) That’s eight extra months of feed, of water, land use, obviously, and also an awful lot of waste. If we have a grass-fed animal, compared to a corn-fed animal, that’s like adding almost one car to the road for every single animal. That’s a huge increase in carbon footprints.””

The article further states:

“But what about those hormones the cows are given? Surely that cannot be good for us.

“”What we have to remember is every food we eat — whether it’s tofu, whether it’s beef, whether it’s apples — they all contain hormones. There’s nothing, apart from salts, that doesn’t have some kind of hormone in them.”

“So the next time you reach for that package of beef in the grocery store tagged with all the latest grass-fed, free-range lingo, remember: Not only does it often cost twice as much, but there’s no evidence it’s better for the environment or better for you.”

The bottom line here is simple–if eating free-range beef or chicken makes you feel better, then go to it, just don’t think you are really doing anything significant for the environment or yourself.  Free-range may (or may not) be kinder to the animals (I suspect that depends on the farm), but it really doesn’t make a positive difference in the long run!