Eat "Mor Meet": A Healthy, Environmental, and Ethical Argument for Eating More Animal Products

Emily Davis ('22)

A sure-fire way to virtue signal when going out with your friends is to order something made with tofu, plant milk, or chickpeas. “Look how much I care about my health.” You don’t even have to say it. The rubbery squeaks of your tofu-chomping voice your concerns about cholesterol and saturated fat just fine. “Look how much I care about the environment.” That soy vanilla latte wholly embodies your love for the trees. “Look how much I care about animal welfare.” Again, the crisp crunch of your hummus-dipped carrots packs the punch of your vehement opposal to factory farming better than you could articulate in speech. We automatically associate plant-based diets as healthier, more environmentally friendly, and more ethically sound than diets that contain animal products. This article is one health conscious, tree hugging, and morally concerned girl’s attempt at redemption for the consumption of animal products on all three grounds. 

The Healthy Argument

I recently heard someone try to describe how low something was by comparing it to Gandhi’s cholesterol levels. This made me chuckle for two reasons 1.) it was just funny and 2.) the basis of this joke, that Gandhi’s plant based diet was why he had low cholesterol, is misinformed. The FDA and mainstream nutrition media have been telling us for years that eating meat clogs our arteries and raises our cholesterol levels, and these in turn lead to cardiovascular diseases. Meat has been erroneously labeled as a carcinogen and a culprit to blame for the rise of obesity and diabetes. Hopefully by the end of this, we’ll see why this is nothing short of slander.

The nail on the coffin for a diet rich in meat, particularly red meat, was hammered in 2015 when the World Health Organization released a report classifying processed meats (bacon, ham, sausage, deli meats, etc) as group one carcinogens (right up there with asbestos, tobacco, and arsenic) and declared that red meats in general were probable carcinogens [1]. Functional medicine clinician Chris Kresser sifted through the scientific literature and unearthed some dirty truths about this claim. He discovered in a study published in Obesity Reviews in 2010 [2], that the correlation between consuming red meat and increasing one’s risk of cancer is so insignificant that it could not be distinguished from chance [3]. If that’s not enough, he found another study that showed decreased occurences of colon cancer in women who ate the most red meat [4]. But why would some studies show positive correlations between cancer and red meat consumption? One explanation is that because red meat has be ostracized by health promoting organizations, people who regularly consume red meat are more likely to engage in other unhealthy behaviors like smoking and drinking. If they didn’t heed the warning to cut back on the burgers, they probably didn’t cut back on the cigarettes and alcohol either. This behavior is not just a speculation; it’s a scientific phenomena known as the healthy-user bias, as Kresser notes with references to two studies [5, 6]. Another possible reason for positive correlation is that most people in these studies weren’t eating meat by itself. They were eating it in the form of a burger (loaded with refined carbohydrates), with french fries (drenched in dastardly polyunsaturated vegetable oils) and a coke (saturated in sugary syrups) or other mixed dishes. So was it really the meat? We can’t know.

Another concern with eating meat is that it will supposedly increase our risk of developing heart disease. This myth’s widespread propagation can be traced back to a fellow by the name of Ancel Keys. Keys conducted a study in which he concluded that consumption of saturated fat (of which meat and other animal products are a main source) was related to heart disease. He said that when we eat foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol, we raise our blood cholesterol and high blood cholesterol is what causes heart disease. This conclusion became known as the Diet Heart Hypothesis. Kresser evaluates this erroneous claim too [7]. The data Kresser uses are mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. What does that mean and why is it significant? Meta-analyses are reviews of multiple different scientific studies, and randomized controlled trials are actual scientific experiments that take precautionary measures to reduce bias. This is the apex of reliable scientific evidence. What did these meta-analyses conclude? Compared to a low fat, high carb diet, a low carb, high protein (and most often higher in saturated fat) diet had “favorable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors” [8]. But what about cholesterol? Won’t dietary cholesterol raise blood cholesterol? Some studies have shown that eating saturated fat and dietary cholesterol does raise blood cholesterol, but Kresser notes that these studies are short term [9]. In long-term studies, the association is just not there [10]. 

So, I’ve talked a lot about why animal products are not bad for us. Let’s talk about how they’re actually good for us. First, animal products are incredibly nutrient dense. A study from the Journal of Nutrition found that compared to plant sourced foods, animal sourced foods were able to provide more micronutrients to people at lower volumes of intake [11]. Just a quarter of a pound of ground beef provides a day’s worth of protein, vitamin B12, and zinc, and also contains significant reserves of riboflavin and iron [11]. Take that kale! What’s more is that the micronutrients found in animal products are more bioavailable to humans than those in plants. Bioavailability is a fancy way of saying that our bodies can access and utilize the nutrients stored in animal products much easier than the nutrients stored in plants. Human bodies do not contain the enzymes and bacteria necessary to break down cellulose, the main component of plant cell walls. Because of this, some of the nutrients stored in plants are not available to us: we can’t breach the walls and get all the good stuff. However, animals like cows do have the necessary bacteria and enzymes in their stomachs to break down the cell wall of plants and extract the nutrients [12]. They store these nutrients in forms that humans can actually absorb when we consume their meat. We lack the ability to break down the cell walls ourselves, so why not outsource that task to our food? Aren’t we clever! One final note about why animal products are good for us deals with the essential vitamin B12. This vitamin is only available in animal products. Referring again to Kresser, he sums up the importance of B12 in the diet: “Vitamin B12 works with folate to synthesize DNA and red blood cells and assists in the production of myelin, which protects your nerve cells (neurons) and regulates nerve impulse transmission”[13]. It is crucial for proper neurological and cardiovascular functions. B12 deficiencies can manifest themselves in milder symptoms of fatigue and brain fog, but if deficiencies persist, it can lead to anemia, memory loss, and irreversible neurological conditions [13]. Again, vitamin B12 is almost exclusively available in animal products. Tell me now how a vegan diet supports optimal health.

Okay, that was a lot of information; what does this mean for us? 1.) we can ditch the plant milk or skim milk (because we all know it’s just not the same); 2.) we don’t have to eat egg white omelets (Weight Watchers didn’t make eggs worth zero points for the heck of it); 3.) we can stop pretending vegetable oils and margarine taste as good as butter and cook with the real deal; and 4.) we can order a steak and feel just as healthy as our friend who ordered the garden salad. 

The Environmental Argument

Many vegetarians, vegans, and environmentalists tout a plant based diet as more “environmentally friendly.” The penguins in Antarctica would be much better off if we grilled black bean burgers at the family reunion and drank almond milk with our Cheerios. The merits of this claim are mainly related to the amount of energy and resources used to produce meat and animal products, greenhouse gas emissions from production, and the highly publicized concerns about raising ruminant animals. These are valid concerns, but a further analysis will reveal some inconvenient truths for this argument. (Spoiler alert: no we shouldn’t be afraid of cow farts melting the polar ice caps.)

If you were to say “more energy is required to produce a pound of beef than a pound of kale,” you would be correct [1], but who cares? Who measures the nutritional value of food by weighing it? Maybe I am ignorant and uncultured and it is in fact quite common for vegans and vegetarians to boast to their friends the ounces of kale they consume on the daily. For most nutritional purposes though, the energy -or calories- provided by the food are of the most concern. A 2013 study published by the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition concluded that “when expressed per calorie, fruit and vegetables may have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of animal products (excluding ruminant meat)” [3]. So even though meat contributes more greenhouse gases per unit weight, when analyzed in terms of a measurement that actually matters, non-ruminant meat (hold onto your concerns about ruminant meat), does not appear to contribute anymore to greenhouse gas emissions than fruits and vegetables. Another study took dietary changes to the extreme by examining the environmental impact of removing all animals from U.S. agricultural production. This study determined that if animals were eliminated from production, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by a whopping 2.6% [4]. Elimination, in this study’s terms, means that animals were entirely gone, not just sitting around in pastures, but off the face of the Earth. That’s a realistic solution that would definitely have a significant impact on abating climate change (haha).  

Regarding the environmental impact of producing ruminant animals like beef cattle, there are several concerns. 1.) Production is land intensive. 2.) Ruminant animals consume a substantial amount of grains. And 3.) Ruminant animals are large culprits of methane gas production. Approximately 35% of the land area in the United States is used for pasture and range [5 citing 6]; that’s a lot of land. However, most of the land used by pastures and ranges is not suitable for producing plants humans can eat [5 citing 6]. Therefore, although ruminant animal production is land intensive, without the cattle there, that land could not feed anyone. Regarding the consumption of grains by ruminant animals, the concern is that we are feeding grains that humans could be eating to animals that inefficiently convert the grains into proteins for human consumption. However, this is obsolete because according to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 90% of the lifetime feed of grain-finished beef cattle is not grain that could have been eaten by people [5 citing 7]. Therefore, by raising beef cattle, we create a use for plants that would have been thrown out; we turn potential food waste into a useable (and delicious) source of energy for humans. Finally, let’s address the issue of methane production. According to the EPA, methane represents only 10% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions [8]. Within this 10%, manure management accounts for 10% percent of the total and enteric fermentation (fancy term for animal farts) accounts for 26% of the total [9]. So, raising ruminant animals is responsible for only 3.6% of all greenhouse gas emissions, a fraction of a small fraction. 

The point of this environmental argument is not to claim that eating meat or animal products has a positive environmental impact, or even no environmental impact. The point is to show that if you are vehemently opposed to eating meat based on an environmental argument, you would have a much more significant impact if you channeled your hatred toward other sectors of the economy. For instance, carbon dioxide is responsible for a much larger share of the greenhouse gas emissions [10], and animal raising does not even register as a major contributor to carbon dioxide production. Transportation is a huge chunk of carbon dioxide though. So maybe you shouldn’t make mermaid smoothie bowls in the dead of winter because all of those fruits have to be imported from South America. Enjoy a nice ribeye sourced from right here in midwestern USA instead. 

The Ethical Argument

The feedlot, factory-farming method of producing cattle is crucified by advocates of a plant-based diet. Thinking about this method conceptually, this crucifixion seems justifiable. Where is the humanity in crowding such docile animals into tiny lots, shoveling grains into their messy troughs day after day, and pumping them full of mysterious concoctions that make them gain weight faster before squeezing them onto trucks like sardines to be slaughtered and sold in supermarkets? It is a nightmarish image, and disgraceful for such intelligent and advanced beings like humans to treat other living creatures in this manner. A quote by Sirius Black of the Harry Potter series reads “If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals” [1]. Animals are a gift from God to humanity. Genesis 1:26 reads “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” (NIV) [2]. Animal welfare is absolutely an important moral issue. Our treatment of animals is a reflection of how we appreciate a wonderful gift our Creator has given us. How, then, can we reconcile this atrocious feedlot method? The reality is that this method is not as atrocious as vegan propaganda would have us believe. 

Robert Kunzig, a journalist for National Geographic, documents his visit to Wrangler Feedyard (operated by Cactus Feeders, the world’s second largest cattle feeding company) in his article titled “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” He says:

“When I tell friends I spent a week on a cattle feedlot, they say, ‘That must have been awful.’ It wasn’t. The people at Wrangler appeared competent and devoted to their work. They tried to handle cattle gently. The pens were crowded but not jammed—the cattle had around 150 to 200 square feet each, and since they tend to bunch up anyway, there was open space. I spent hours riding around the lot with the windows open and standing in pens, and the smell wasn’t bad.” [3]

This description is typical of feedlots in America. Perhaps, because of the passionate vegans and vegetarians who advocate for animal welfare, large meatpacking corporations have received the message that consumers really do care about how the animals we eat were treated. Here are a few quotes from the websites of two of the largest meatpacking companies in America regarding their responsibility to ensuring animal welfare:

1. 1. Tyson (on raising poultry): 

“On the farm, birds are kept in enclosed barns to protect them from bad weather, extreme temperatures, diseases, and predators. No cages are used and birds can move freely within the barn. Stocking density, the number of birds within the available space in the barn, is carefully calculated to comply with national standards and to ensure that all birds can easily move to access feed and water and to express normal behavior.

Barns are equipped with specially designed equipment to deliver a balanced feed portion and fresh water to ensure the birds receive the correct nutritional requirements to meet the growth and production needs throughout their lives.” [4]

1. 2. JBS (on raising cattle):

“There is an Animal Welfare Team at each beef facility comprised of Team Members from quality assurance, operations and procurement that ensure that the policies and procedures required by the Animal Welfare Policy are being correctly implemented and followed at all times.

JBS USA has installed cameras in all animal handling areas at all nine beef plants. Arrowsight, a remote video auditing firm, conducts daily handling audits and provides feedback to the JBS USA beef plants. This program complements the existing animal welfare program." [5]

I looked up the websites of four of the largest meatpacking companies in the United States, and every single one of them had an entire section dedicated to sustainability and or animal welfare. [4, 5, 6, 7,] Transparency in operation is a pillar on which these American meatpacking corporations stand. Again, maybe we have to credit the militant vegans and vegetarians- with their “Meat is Murder” signs and trips to the grocery stores plastering stickers with things like “This used to be Clover and she would be really sad to know that she had to die to satisfy your glutinous desires” on pounds of beef- for opening our eyes and imploring us to consider where our food comes from. Whatever the means, the end result is that this feedlot, factory-farming method of meat production is concerned with ethical treatment of animals. If we want to nourish the world and its growing population, we must adopt modern methods of meat production; and modern meat production and animal welfare are not mutually exclusive. 

Coda

Here, I want to include my personal ponderings and the little tidbits that didn’t make it into my argument, but are still relevant and important in this discussion. 

In the studies I cited for the health benefits of meat and saturated fat consumption, the best results were seen with those who limited carbohydrates in addition to increasing saturated fat. So if you take my advice and run with it (which I don’t recommend doing, as I am not an expert), know that I do not suggest eating cheeseburgers and meat-lovers pizza as a means to include more animal products in your diet. These studies simply show that animal products and saturated fat on their own do not increase risk of cardiovascular diseases. There is plenty of research to show that when combined with sugars and refined carbohydrates, saturated fats behave quite differently. Also, with any diet, the focus should be on real food. If most of what we’re eating comes prepackaged, it doesn’t matter if it’s high carb, low carb, high fat, or whatever- it’s probably not the best for us. And, if we can’t pronounce most of the ingredients or the list is longer than Santa’s, we might want to leave it on the shelf. 

As far as environmental concerns go, I think there may be something in the fact that animal sourced food is more nutrient dense than plant sourced food. Perhaps if we made meat and animal products the main focus of our meals, we would eat less food overall. We could get more nutrients with smaller plates: eating less without forfeiting health and deliciousness. Produce that is not in season is often transported into the U.S. from South American countries, or from California where water shortages and droughts are environmental issues of their own significance. If our meals are animal product focused, there is potential to greatly reduce the energy used to transport our fruits and veggies to us, and as we saw above, transportation is the main culprit of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Also, some food for thought (if I may be allowed to make such a pun) is the methane produced in landfills when produce is thrown away. How many times have we bought a salad mix and let it wither in the back of the crisper? Or let bananas go spotted and mushy? And that is just on the individual level. Do you ever think about what happens to all the bruised apples at the grocery store? I would be interested to see how much methane is produced from fruits and vegetables rotting in landfills and how those numbers compare to the methane produced by cow farts. Maybe if we reduced our demand for fruits and vegetables, much less would go to waste and end up in landfills. 

Finally, I have several afterthoughts on the ethical argument for eating more animal products. First, I think about what the lives of the animals would be like if we did not raise them for human consumption. If animals like cows and chickens were permitted to roam freely, they would be ruthlessly devoured by predatory animals like wolves and coyotes (or possums, if they’re my like one of my chickens back home- R.I.P). These animals are not designed to sustain themselves in the wild. They exist because we eat them, and that is actually a beautiful thing. Rather than spending their whole lives scouring the woods for food, fighting to stay alive, dying a brutal death at the hands of a bloodthirsty predator, and having their body rot all alone in the woods where it might provide some nutrients for a scavenger or a fungus; these animals are nurtured and provided for their entire lives, protected from predators, and when it does come time for their lives to end, they are killed instantly and painlessly, and their meat provides us with rich stores of vitamins and nutrients. That cow does not die in vain because the nutrients in its meat now make up your own cell walls and permit your body to function healthily. What a beautiful image of symbiosis! I will leave this argument with one final thought on ethics. After having researched the incredible health benefits of consuming animal products, I have ethical reservations in promoting plant-based diets. How can we reconcile promoting diets that almost always lead to serious nutrient deficiencies in people if they do not properly supplement and track everything they eat? Plenty of anecdotal evidence shows that lives have been changed and health has been exponentially improved by eating diets rich in saturated fats and animal products. Why is this not addressed in mainstream nutrition? 

I don’t expect this to change anyone’s mind right away. Food is almost a spiritual part of us, and discussions about it are deep and important. At the very least, I hope this sparked questions, interest, and a desire to know more. I hope you’ll check out the other resources down below, and start forming your own opinion on what about your diet is most important to you. 

-->

If You Want to Know More, Check These Out:

*Note: this list is in no way comprehensive. The links and references provided are only ones I have actually used, listened to, and read. This is just meant as a jumping off point if you’re interested in what I discussed here. If you find something else, I would love to hear about it.*

Podcasts:

The Joe Rogan Experience

1. #1037- Chris Kresser
2. #1050- Dr. Shawn Baker
3. #1058- Nina Teicholz
4. #1175- Chris Kresser & Dr. Joel Kahn
5. #1164- Mikhaila Peterson

The Keto Answers Podcast:

1. 005: Ryan Munsey- The Carnivore Diet and What Happens When You Cut Out Plants
2. 010: Chris Bell- The Ketogenic Diet vs. The Carnivore Diet and Rediscovering Nutrition on the Road to Sobriety and Health
3. 013: Chris Dufey- Transform Your Health by Upgrading Your Relationship with Food
4. 014: Vivica Menegaz- Healing Your Body with Real Food and the Truth About Detoxing
5. 018: Dr. William Davis- Preventing Heart Disease by Cutting Out Grains, The Truth About Cholesterol, Optimizing Your Health with High Quality Nutrition
6. 019: Dr. Shawn Baker- Busting Myths About the Carnivore Diet and How to Thrive on Meat
7. 020: Nina Teicholz- Embracing Saturated Fat and Why Our Nutrition Policy is Wrong
8. 037: Vanessa Spina- Going from Vegetarian to Keto to High-Protein Carnivore

-->

Websites:

1. Chris Kresser- https://chriskresser.com/
2. Nina Teicholz- https://ninateicholz.com/blog/
3. Shawn Baker and the Carnivore Diet- https://www.shawn-baker.com/

Books:

1. The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet by Nina Teicholz

Emily Davis of Morganfield, Ky., is a member of the McConnell Scholar Class of 2022. She studies economics and political science at the University of Louisville.

-->

REFERENCES

References for Healthy Argument

1. Simon, Stacy. World Health Organization Says Processed Meats Cause Cancer. American Cancer Society. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html
2. Alexander, D.D. and Cushing, C.A. Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary of prospective epidemiological studies. Obesity Reviews. 2010. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065
3. Kresser, Chris. Red Meat and Cancer- Again! Will It Ever Stop? 2015. Retrieved from https://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-stop/

4.     Kabat, G.C.; Miller, A.B.; Jain, M.; and Rohan, T.E. A cohort study of dietary iron and heme iron intake and risk of colorectal cancer in women. British Journal of Cancer. 2007. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17551493.

5. LaFleur, Joanne; Nelson, Richard E.; Sauer, Brain C.; and Nebeker, Johnathan R. Overestimation of the effects of adherence on outcomes: a case study in healthy user bias and hypertension. British Medical Journal. 2011. Retrieved from https://heart.bmj.com/content/97/22/1862.info


Shrank, William H.; Patrick, Amanda R.; and Brookhart, Alan M. Healthy User and Related Biases in Observational Studies of Preventive Interventions: A Primer for Physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2011. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-010-1609-1.
Kresser, Chris. The Diet-Heart Myth: Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Are Not the Enemy. 2013. Retrieved from https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/

8.     Santos, F.L.; Esteves, S.S.; da Costa Pereira, A.; Yancy Jr., W.S.; and Nunes, J.P.L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials of the effects of low carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular risk factors. Obesity Reviews. 2012. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01021.x

9.     Mensink, R.P.; Zock, P.L; Kester, A.D.; and Katan, M.B. Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ration of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716665

10. Guyenet, Stephan. Does Dietary Fat Increase Blood Cholesterol? An Informal Review of Observational Studies. Whole Health Source Nutrition and Health Science. 2011. Retrieved from https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html

11.  Murphy, Suzanne P. and Allen, Lindsay H. Nutritional Importance of Animal Source Foods. Journal of Nutrition. 2003. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/133/11/3932S/4818051

12. Orr, Adam I. How Cows Eat Grass: Exploring Cow Digestion. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/resourcesforyou/animalhealthliteracy/ucm255500.htm
13. Kresser, Chris. B12 Deficiency: What Everyone (Especially Vegetarians) Should Know. 2013. Retrieved from https://chriskresser.com/what-everyone-especially-vegetarians-should-know-about-b12-deficiency/

References for Environmental Argument

1. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Faist M. Energy use in the food sector: a data survey. Stockolm, Sweden:Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2000.
2. Foley J A et al 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet Nature 478 337–42.
3. Vieux Florent, Soler Louis-Georges, Touazi Djilali, and Darmon Nicole. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. 2013.
4. White Robin R. and Hall Mary Beth. Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. 2017.
5. Place Sara. Moving beyond food footprints to sustainable food systems. 2018.
6. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Maps and State Rankings of Major Land Uses. August 28, 2017.
7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19014.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Overview. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016. 2016.
9. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Methane. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016. 2016.
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Carbon Dioxide. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016. 2016.

References for Ethical Argument

1. Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Scholastic. 2000.
2. The Bible. New International Version. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica Inc.
3. Kunzig, Robert. The Carnivore’s Dilemma. National Geographic. 2014. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/meat/
4. Tyson Foods Inc. Our Story > From Farm to Table > Our Farmers > Sustainability > Animal Housing. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.tysonfoods.com/sustainability/animal-well-being/animal-housing
5. JBS. Sustainability > Social Responsibility > Animal Care > Cattle. 2018. Retrieved from https://jbssa.com/sustainability/social-responsibility/animal-care/cattle/.
6. National Beef Packing Company, LLC. About Us > Cattle Supply Alliances > Animal Care. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nationalbeef.com/About/Pages/default.aspx?ModalID=csa
7. Cargill, Incorporated. Sustainability. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cargill.com/sustainability