Behind the Labels: The Truth About Deceptive Beef Product Labeling

From a steak dinner to a Whataburger, beef is the cornerstone of the American diet and the world I grew up in. Unfortunately, beef faces a crisis that threatens the honor and integrity of the industry as well as the livelihood of millions of Americans.

The 88th State Legislature of Texas recently created a list of state priorities. Among this list of taxes, water and property rights, and rural connectivity lies the truth in labeling. The Texas Farm Bureau’s position is to, quote, “support making it illegal to use deceptive labeling of food products to influence consumers to purchase the product (Wennin, 2022).” But why are Texans so worried about this issue? The fact is that these claims incite emotions that appeal to one’s ethical standards, and although that isn’t wrong on its own, these claims do not mean what those being emotionally provoked, believe they do. In many regards, they’re putting eye black on a polar bear and selling it to you as a panda. By doing this, they are exploiting Texans’ pride in healthy and nutritious food, and they’re charging more for labels that don’t actually mean what a consumer thinks they do nor have an actual effect on the quality of the product. But what claims are these companies exploiting?

The United States Department of Agriculture has two categories of food labeling: mandatory requirements and voluntary claims. Mandatory requirements are heavily regulated and constantly inspected, these are things like a nutrition label, product name, and net weight (University of Minnesota, 2020). On the other hand, voluntary claims are most commonly used to advertise a product's quality, origin, or ethical standards. These claims are more arbitrary and not required by the USDA, thus, barely monitored and enforced. Voluntary claims are the claims that mislead consumers, and the claims I am referring to today.

From the big red sticker reading “ALL NATURAL” to a “WAGYU PRIME” hamburger, meat labeling has become more and more polarizing, but what is the problem with this marketing?

Social media, news, and other media outlets have raised awareness about this issue. These media outlets are guilty of fear-mongering and sensationalizing stories to generate clicks and views, especially about the beef industry. A study by the University of Tennessee at Knoxville found that “consumers felt the information they received on social media about the beef product led to negative perceptions of the industry and changes in their buying and eating habits over short- and long-term periods (Howard, 2017).” Social media has made consumers anxious and confused about the products they purchase and consume, causing companies to make claims to ease our concerns (Wu, Zhang, et al. n.d.). So we know why these claims exist, but are they at least truthful?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. We can see this in “natural” and “grass-fed” claims, which pull at customers' heartstrings while providing no legitimate benefit to the quality or morality of the product. For example, natural, according to the USDA, are “products containing no artificial ingredients or added colors and are only minimally processed (USDA, n.d.)”. Realistically, this means no foreign material has been added, like food dye or added fat, and although that may seem like a big deal, nearly every cut of fresh beef you find at a store or market falls under this. The “natural” label is blatantly misleading, and since 2016, the label “naturally raised” isn’t even a USDA-regulated label (Jacobs, 2021). Similarly, “grass-fed” claims, although outlined by the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, are not monitored or regulated (Kawasaki, 2019). According to the Organization for Certified Humane, “The producer must send documentation to FSIS stating that its animals are raised on an all-grass diet. The claims then have to be verified by USDA auditors, which happens from an office rather than an in-person visit (Lawler, 2017).” This technicality makes it easy for retailers to falsify claims.

Other labels, such as “NO ADDED HORMONES” or “HORMONE FREE”, further mislead customers about the product they purchase. The claim “hormone-free” is misleading in nature, as all cattle produce natural hormones (Loy, n.d.). The major concern with “added” hormones is their possible effect on human health or reproduction. In contrast though, according to the National Library of Medicine, “natural steroid hormones have negligible human health impact”, but even if they did, 500 grams of beef with hormone implants contain only 7 ng of estrogen. This is especially surprising if we compare it to soy flour, which has 755,000,000 ng of estrogen according to Iowa State University. This label realistically does not matter, but even if it did, beef is not the product we need to be worried about (Jeong, Kang, et al. 2010).

So, what can we do? One important step is to demand more transparency from beef companies. Consumers have a right to know what they are buying, and companies have the responsibility to provide truthful and accurate information. (Howard, 2017). As well as implement other resources like third-party certifications and supply chain traceability.

But ultimately, the responsibility lies with us, the consumers. We can choose to support companies that prioritize honesty and transparency in their labeling practices and use our purchasing power against those that engage in deceptive practices. By doing so, we can help create an unbiased and honorable meat section at global chains and local grocers alike, where everyone can make genuinely educated decisions about the food on their tables.