I found this light and fluffy piece from Psychology Today semi-interesting in its answer to the question Why is organic beef not as good as grass-fed beef?

Organic means the animal was not given hormones, antibiotics or man-made pesticides in its feed. The feed, however, is not necessarily grass but corn and soy. . .

When cattle are not fed their natural diet--grass, they become inherently less healthy. Corn and soy feed in factory farms cause an unhealthy ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fats: around 20:1 which is unhealthy for the animal as well as for our consumption of their meat. This ratio deems it pro-inflammatory. As we know, inflammation is the precursor to many of our chronic diseases. The saturated fat of the animal is also higher.

Grass-fed cattle have a ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 of about 2:1. This is much healthier. Other benefits of grass-fed meat as compared to grain-fed meat: they contain two to four times more vitamins A and E, are higher in branch chain amino acids (critical for developing muscle) and the pH of the first stomach is lower, thereby minimizing risk of E. coli bacteria. Grass-fed meat also has less saturated fat and contains about a third fewer calories than commercial grain-fed meat.

In some cases, perhaps most, the corn and soy used for fodder is not organic, so the whole thing is just a ruse anyway, a way to "launder" the fodder turning it from non-organic to organic and so reap a price premium while deluding the public.

Having said that, please know that saturated fats are NOT bad for us. The main saturated fat in meat is stearic acid. Stearic acid is shown in the scientific literature to have a neutral effect on cholesterol levels---has even been shown to lower cholesterol levels. Stearic acid may also lower Lp (a) levels, a risk factor for heart disease. Moreover, meat contains a very important saturated fat called trans-vaccenic acid which is a precursor to conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a potent anticarcinogen.

Other saturated fats such as lauric acid found in coconut oil, confers its benefits via biochemical conversion to monolaurin, a potent antiviral and antibacterial.

The assertion that all saturated fats are bad is blatantly incorrect.

The worst fat on the planet is man-made trans fat. Avoid it like the plague.

I've even heard producers of grass fed beef gasp in amazement when informed that all saturated fats are not bad for health and that one of their favorite substances, CLA, was one of the good kind.

IMV organic is meaningless. It's a set of somewhat arbitrary dogmas and regulations only fitfully informed by science. It isn't even loved by organic producers who complain that so-called industrial organic growers violate the intended small-is-beautiful spirit of organic growing.

It is continuously gamed by those who want to cash in on the cachet of organic so heavily hyped in recent years, and there are continuous scandals as players are exposed for their games. An example of that discussed here was the revelation that California Liquid Fertilizer company had been spiking its much loved fish and chicken feathers fertilizer with ammonium sulfate for years. That's just one of many, many such incidents.

There are two issues: the way that foods are produced and the nutritional value of food. Organic tries to combine the two issues and fails. It isn't smart to even try since there are different sensibilities and markets. Some people really don't care how food is produced but they are very concerned with what they are ingesting. Some people care only a little about what they are ingesting since that is secondary to their socio-political views about how food is produced.

Progress in lab testing of foods is making it ever cheaper and easier to analyze foods for nutritional content and toxins. If these are your concerns then you would be better off choosing well labeled foods that the producer has taken the time and effort to have analyzed. And if production method is your concern then you would be better off choosing foods that come with a production narrative. Some foods will have both, but since they are intrinsically different things it isn't helpful to conflate them.

Most food will have neither, at least no more than required by commodity regulations, since the output of many growers will be commingled. The production methods and nutritional content will be variable within regulated bounds. The commodity buyer - such as a grain elevator and storage business - will often do testing and selection, adjusting payments to growers depending on quality, and rejecting sub-standard materials, but then it is all mixed together for mass shipment and sale.

I've always sold on narrative: local, grass fed, small producer, low stress, environmentally astute and generally caring. But, I've also had the product tested just to calibrate my sensibilities. Am I really producing good food? Yes, as it happens. The article that began this post claimed that grass fed beef has a "ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 of about 2:1." Mine tested at 1.3:1, even closer to the ideal 1:1 ratio for a perfect food.

Grass fed generally produces much better ratios than grain feeding, but there's grass and then there's grass, and that matters in the end product. The fertility of the soil, not surprisingly, gives grass a wide range of nutritional values. The species of grass matters too. And it isn't just grass that matters. Forbs such as red clover and birdsfoot trefoil are important in getting those ever better ratios. Even day to day management matters. Since I give my animals fresh forage in the evening when it is most nutritious they have a better diet. Lastly, the genetics of the animals can be as important as the genetics of their food. No set of regulations or restrictions are useful at this level of detail since they must be broad enough to be useful in a variety of climates and environments. Only testing is useful. How good is it? Test it and see.

Still, even if you are happy with the narrative and the tested quality of food there are other considerations. Does it taste good and have a pleasing texture? How much does it cost? Is it readily available or must you jump through hoops to get it? The answer works both ways since preferences vary. Some people insist on paying large amounts for food. It's a signalling mechanism to raise their social status and distinguish themselves from lesser humans. Some people may not have the money to buy status, but they have the energy to jump through hoops to get rare if not costly foods, and raise their status that way. Some base their status on "getting it bought right". For them low cost may not be a necessity so much as a signalling method proving their astuteness and attention to opportunity.

I don't judge. My beef is good and it's produced in good ways. I'm satisfied with those measures of performance. But I'll charge you however much you require. I'll sell you filets at $20 a pound if that's what blows your skirt up. Happy to oblige. I'll also sell them to you for $6 but make you wait and jump through some hoops if that's what you seek. Same for unusual cuts for the foodie that can cook. What we rural folks call "boiling beef", meaning that it's tough but flavorful and so suitable only for soups and stock, also happens to be very nutritious. It's either cheap peasant food or exotic functional food depending on what you want. As an expert of sorts it's all of these things to me, so I can appreciate whatever perspective you hold.

When you think long about food it becomes clear that the whole idea of some umbrella label such as organic can't possibly be of any real value. It's either too general to be useful or too specific to be applicable. It's the wrong question, and even if answered only gives you one of the many, many answers that you might need. I do not find it surpising that the organic label has high negatives: almost half of the population seldom if ever will choose it, and there is no compensatory positive since only 6% will choose it always when available, for a net consumption in the low single digits of all foods produced.