🎉 NEW soft, tangy, delicious corn & soy free goat chevre! BUY CHEVRE.

Who really cares about the leanness of ground beef?

written by

Marie Reedell

posted on

September 27, 2019

I got a question from a customer last week - what is the fat content in your ground beef? She wanted to make sure it was lean enough to feed to cats. This really got me thinking. 

Why and how do we even know the fat content of ground beef, and should we care? Let’s dive a little deeper.

First, let’s make sure we all know what ground beef is. 


Ground beef is typically made from the trimmings or leftover bits when a cow is (or many cows are) butchered. It’s put through a grinder and - voila - ground beef! 

Pretty simple, right? Oh, but modern consumerism can make this so much more complicated.

I’m sure you’ve noticed the “types” of ground beef found on supermarket labels. 


There’s source ground meat. “Ground chuck” is only made with chuck trimmings, “ground round” is only made with trimmings from the round section of the cow, and “ground sirloin”... well, you get the point. 

Then there’s general ground meat. “Ground beef” is made from trimmings of the whole cow. And “hamburger” is the trimmings with added fat.

And, I’m sure you’ve also noticed the “% lean / % fat” descriptor sometimes included on the label. 


The USDA does not require this. It is 100% voluntary. However, customers have gotten so accustomed to this label since its introduction about 25 years ago.

But, here’s the catch. There is no regulatory requirement that defines how the company needs to support its label. There’s no standard process for this.


From what I’ve read, there are a few ways to figure out the fat content of meat:

  1. Look at the meat and estimate how much red vs. white is in the ground meat.
  2. Cook the meat and separate the fat/water. Once the fat solidifies, weigh each portion.
  3. Cook a portion of the meat in a lab and strain off the liquid. Use a digital fat tester to find out the fat content. 
  4. Use a super high tech electronic and/or sonar device that measures the density of fat or lean in each batch.

Well, here’s another catch. There’s also no requirement to test each batch for fat content. 

If they have a consistent process, they could write into their plan that they periodically verify compliance with the label standard. A consistent process would mean the same farm, same breed of cows, same lifestyle, and same processing flow. 

This is kind of crazy. Just like humans, cows are genetically inclined to be fatter or leaner. Even with the same diet and lifestyle, you can have different animals of the same breed with different fat contents.

And here’s yet another catch. If a processor is not sure of the lean/fat percentage of a ground or chopped product, the USDA allows processors to label it with a “worse” lean and fat percentage. 


So for, example, a processor could label ground beef that is actually 80% lean and 20% fat with a “70% lean / 30% fat” label.

Is it just me? It seems that this whole “% lean / % fat” labeling is a hoax. Why even put the fat content on anyway?


I think companies do it for marketing and price scaling purposes. No surprises there. It’s so companies can get people to pay more by thinking they’re choosing a superior ground beef. 

If you believe in the mainstream low-fat diet, a “ground sirloin” that’s “90% lean / 10 % fat” sounds good for $4 more per pound. The company makes more profit on basically the same product. And price hunting customers think they’re getting a deal on “ground beef” that’s “70% lean / 30% fat” that’s $4 less per pound. The company makes money by selling more ground beef. 

I spoke with the farmer about this. He does not put the lean/fat percentage on his ground beef and does not make source ground meat. It’s just not necessary and, honestly, it’s inaccurate. It’s just ground beef.


What makes the farmer’s ground beef superior is the way the cows are raised. They are 100% grass-fed (no grain, ever). They live an active lifestyle at pasture. They are never fed GMOs or given antibiotics, hormones, or anything synthetic. And, they are slaughtered as humanely as possible, with minimal time spent alive at the processor.

So, what do you think? Do you need to know the fat content of your meat? What do you look for when buying ground beef?

Pastured Meat

Farming Practices

Opinion

More from the blog

Raw milk or fermented dairy and lactose intolerance. Why might it help?

I was misinformed. At some point, I read that raw milk contains lactase. As it turns out, this is not true! It is true that raw milk contains many live enzymes that are inactivated during pasteurization. But, what about lactase? I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from people who are lactose intolerant... but can handle raw milk or fermented dairy. If raw milk, yogurt, kefir, or cheese doesn’t contain lactase, then why is that?

Our bone broth tested negative-ish for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Over the past few months a bunch of people asked us if we tested our bone broth for toxic heavy metals. When we get the same question a lot, we of course look into it. My first question was --- Is there an issue with toxic metals in bone broth? As it turns out, yes, there "can" be an issue! Heavy metals are naturally present in our environment. We need the "good" heavy metals to thrive: iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, etc. But, we can 100% do without the toxic heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc. Too many toxic heavy metals can lead to a host of pretty awful issues: nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, cancer, endocrine disruption, kidney damage, and so on. Our body is designed to excrete heavy metals through urine (and a little bit through sweat, hair, and breastmilk too)... but only so much. There's a limit. If you're overloaded, your body will store those heavy metals in your bones, blood, tissues, and organs. Similarly, if an animal is exposed to heavy metals via food, water, air, dust, or soil, those heavy metals accumulate in the bones. Maybe the farm's soil or air is contaminated from a nearby factory. Maybe the pipes for the water has lead solder connecting them. Maybe the feed a farm is buying was grown on contaminated soil or processed on contaminated equipment.  And, of course, a main purpose of bone broth is drawing out as much as possible from the bones. If there are heavy metals in bones, they will make their way into the broth. This is especially true when you pre-soak with apple cider vinegar and simmer for 48 hours to make it thick and gelatinous (like our broth). And that led me to my second question --- Should I be concerned about every bone broth? Where is the fear coming from? Well... it seems it might be a little political. There was a study done in the UK in 2013 that scared a lot of people. It's titled "The Risk of Lead Contamination in Bone Broth Diets". This study found high levels of lead in organic chicken bone broth, which is quite concerning. And, in fact, this one study is still cited in articles written today! Let's dig a little deeper. Let's go farther than the short abstract. Here are the broths tested in the study and their test results for lead:  (9.5 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus skin and cartilage(7.01 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus bones(2.3 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus meat(0.89 parts per billion): Tap water alone cooked for the same amount of time as a control. But, they only used organic chicken from one farm. And, there's zero information about that farm, their practices, the feed, and the broth recipe. Did they use vinegar or wine in the broth? Was the chicken's water contaminated with lead? What was the quality of the feed and the soil? Were the chickens raised indoors or outdoors? So many unanswered questions! All we get is that it was one "organic chicken" that created a lead issue with broth. Another curious thing is that the broth with skin and cartilage contained more lead than the broth made with just bones. Bones are where lead is stored, so why wouldn't the broth made with bones only contain more lead? It's an odd result. Moreover, the abstract of the study specifically called out "bone broth diets" like GAPS and paleo. They even go so far as to write, "In view of the dangers of lead consumption to the human body, we recommend that doctors and nutritionists take the risk of lead contamination into consideration when advising patients about bone broth diets." That's quite curious. Why are they worried about these diets? Are the researchers anti healing through food? Who funded the research? Is it political? My opinion? This study is not comprehensive. It does not speak to all bone broths. But it does cover a potential issue if the water or animals are overloaded with heavy metals. What I glean from this study is that we need more research. We don't need fear to spread and people to stop drinking broth from this one study. Regardless of whether the fear was fabricated or legit, we tested our bone broth anyway. After all, it's always nice to validate that your food choices are as clean as you think. For Miller's, here were my concerns before testing: What if there's mercury in the fishmeal in our chicken feed?What if the soil that our animals live on is contaminated?What is the well water that the broth is made with is contaminated?What if the Celtic sea salt has lots of heavy metals? We got the test results back. I was super excited. But, I was also confused. At face value, it appeared that our bone broth tested NEGATIVE for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. You can find the test results right here! You'll notice that, for every sample, the results are "<0.01 mg/kg" and "<0.02 mg/kg".  I asked the lab what the "<" means. They said that it indicates their limit of quantitation (LOQ), the lowest concentration that can be accurately tested using the test procedure in that sample type. So the results simply report that none of the metals tested were found in the sample above the specific reporting LOQs. Whether or not they were present below this LOQ is information that is not provided by the test. When talking to the lab, I told them what we needed and assumed that this test would go below a 1 ppb. So, when the results came in, I assumed that a "mg/kg" was the same as a part per billion (ppb). Ummm... that math wasn't write! A "mg/kg" is actually a part per million (ppm). That means that the test we ran had results saying that the broth had less than 0.02 ppm (or 20 ppb) of arsenic and lead. And, it had less than 0.01 ppm (or 10 ppb) of cadmium and mercury. For some reference, the EPA says that less than 15 ppb of lead is safe in drinking water. Not saying that I agree, but it's a good reference point.  These results are good. It means the broth definitely isn't overloaded with toxic heavy metals. But, it's not good enough!!! We need to test again! We really need to a lower LOQ. We need to know the results with an accuracy of as low as 1 ppb. It looks like the lab we sent the original samples to doesn't have an LOQ that low. So here I am on the hunt for a lab to do it again. As soon as I can, I'll send samples in again and paying for more expensive testing to get the info you deserve. Stay tuned! I hope to have the new results in by the end of April 2025. Do you worry about toxic metals (or other junk) in your food? Where have your fears stemmed from? I'd love to hear from you. You can comment below (no account required) or contact us 😊 ----- Sources The risk of lead contamination in bone broth dietsBone Broth and Lead Toxicity: Should You Be Concerned?Bone Broth and Lead Contamination: A Very Flawed Study in Medical HypothesesBone Broth, Collagen, and Toxic Metals: A Research Review