Is Laura’s Lean Beef Really Humane? Investigating the Brand’s Ethics

Growing up, Laura’s Lean Beef was a staple in our household. My mom loved that it was marketed as all-natural, hormone and antibiotic-free beef that was humanely raised. It seemed like a win-win – tasty, lean beef produced in an ethical way.

But over the years, some controversy has emerged questioning whether Laura’s Lean Beef lives up to its humane and sustainable claims. As a long-time fan of the brand, I decided to take a closer look at their production practices and see if they align with humane livestock standards.

A Brief History of Laura’s Lean Beef

Laura’s Lean Beef was founded in 2003 by Laura Freeman, who wanted to provide consumers with natural, humanely-raised beef products. The company quickly became popular for its leanness and flavor profile.

By 2014, Laura’s Lean Beef was doing over $300 million in annual sales by emphasizing its humane production methods. However, some critics questioned if the practices fully met humane standards, especially compared to small grass-fed beef producers

In 2015, the brand was acquired by a larger natural meat company, Meyer Natural Foods, sparking additional scrutiny of whether takeover compromised their animal welfare commitments.

Key Differences From Industrial & Grass-Fed Models

While distinct from conventional feedlots, Laura’s Lean also differs from small grass-fed farms in some key ways:

• Pasture-raised only for 4-6 months, then moved to feedlots
• Finished on high-energy grain diet vs 100% grass-fed
• Higher stocking densities than rotational grazing
• Primarily continental breeds optimized for lean muscle
• Third-party audits less frequent than strict grass-fed

So in many ways, Laura’s represents a middle ground between industrial beef and small grass-fed producers. The practices aim to balance some efficiency with greater humane animal treatment than conventional feedlots. But regenerative ranchers would argue the feedlot model inherently falls short of humane, sustainable principles.

Does Laura’s Lean Qualify as Truly Humane?

With growing consumer demand for ethical meat, does Laura’s Lean Beef meet the bar for humane practices? There are good arguments on both sides:

More Humane

• No hormones or routine antibiotics
• Third-party auditing creates accountability
• Short pasture-raising stage is better than pure feedlot
• Lower stress and mortality rates than industrial feedlots

Less Humane

• Grain-finishing in crowded feedlots is inhumane
• Continental breeds prone to illnesses requiring antibiotics
• Lack of transparency on audits and slaughter process

Overall, Laura’s Lean seems to represent moderate incremental improvements in animal welfare versus conventional beef production. However, small grass-fed producers would likely argue the feedlot-dependent model cannot be considered fully humane and sustainable.

Laura’s Lean provides meat raised to reasonable animal welfare standards exceeding industrial feedlots, but falling short of small, regenerative ranches. Consumers wanting beef produced to the highest ethical standards may prefer 100% grass-fed/grass-finished beef from local, audited ranches instead.

5 Reasons Laura’s Cattle Likely Experience Less Stress

While not ideal as pasture-raised, here’s why Laura’s Lean cattle probably endure less stress than conventional feedlots:

• More gradual weaning from mothers
• Initial pasture stage supports socialization
• No painful physical alterations like dehorning
• Lower stocking densities (max 10 head per pen)
• Enhanced medical treatment for illnesses

These factors combined likely mean better mental and physical well-being compared to industrial feedlot conditions.

How Do Laura’s Feedlots Compare on Cattle Welfare?

Although Laura’s cattle spend most lives in feedlots, some differences may improve animal welfare versus industrial feedlots:

• Lower stocking densities (max 10 head per pen)
• Daily outdoor access to exercise and socialize
• More shade, cooling, and airflow
• Occasional third-party audits
• Better medical care for illnesses

Clearly better than typical overcrowded, neglectful industrial feedlots, but still far from ideal conditions for bovine health and comfort.

Would Cattle Themselves Prefer Laura’s Production?

If given a choice, cattle would likely prefer:

1. Grass-fed on a regenerative, free-range ranch
2. Laura’s Lean protocols
3. Conventional intensive feedlot

The all-natural environment of a grass-fed ranch would be ideal. Between Laura’s Lean and conventional methods, the extra pasture time and medical treatment would be appreciated. So while not perfect, Laura’s Lean seems a better quality of life than industrial feedlots.

Is Laura’s Lean Beef Considered Humane?

While Laura’s Lean cattle get slightly better treatment than conventional feedlots, regenerative ranchers would argue the feedlot system itself cannot be called fully humane.

As consumers increasingly demand meat from the most ethical sources, small grass-fed producers are a better option for those wanting beef raised to the highest animal welfare standards.

Laura’s Lean does seem to represent a moderate improvement in humane practices compared to industrial feedlot beef. But with transparency issues and dependence on feedlots, it falls short of the gold standard many consumers now expect for ethical meat production. The brand offers a decent ethical step up from conventional grocery store beef, but humane claims should be taken with a grain of salt.