A buddy of mine sent me a copy of an opinion piece from a state beef board that sought to debunk grass fed beef claims. It noted that corn was a type of grass and so corn fed beef was grass fed beef. Apparently up is also down.

I told my buddy that this would make some sense if they fed the whole corn plant to their cattle rather than just the seeds, and did so while the plant was still alive and vegetative, so that then cattle would get some green with all of that yellow. Better still, grow corn varieties bred for grazing (they exist) that produced more leaf, more nutritious stalks, and less seeds.

The article also claimed that grain fed beef has just as much omega-3 fats as grass fed, but that it also had more omega-6 fat, that both kinds of fat are needed, and so grain fed was as good or better.

I replied that it isn't the amount of omega-3 that matters so much as the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6. They need to be in balance. Supplements that provide mega-doses of omega-3 only make sense if you already get plenty of omega-6 fat in your diet, and that the benefit of grass fed beef is that it is a more perfect food that already has a proper fat balance. There's usually less fat, but that's a feature not a bug since there's only so much fat that is useful for health.

What can truthfully be said is that some of the grass fed beef on offer isn't very good. It comes from animals that never had the quantity or quality of grass needed for finishing, so they were old, tough and too lean to be very healthful or tasty. The rule of thumb - based on research from New Zealand where a great deal of such work is done - is that the animals must gain weight at the rate of 1.7 pounds per day to finish properly and have the health and sensory qualities needed. They also needed forage that was nutritionally complete - with all of the minerals as well as just carbohydrates and protein - just as humans need complete foods. And, since many soils lack such minerals, supplements are needed. The specifics vary with location. The forage must be tested to find deficiencies, and supplements formulated to make up the lack.

Grain growers and grain products companies are also getting on the debunking, greenwashing, eco-backlash bandwagon.

Sara Lee is taking a unique approach to market its 100% Natural line of EarthGrain brand bread. They are promoting wheat, known as Eco-Grain, grown by precision farming growers who use variable rate fertilizer driven by satellite imagery. And they’re calling it a movement, “Helping to preserve the earth, one field at a time.”

Horizon Milling (a joint venture between Cargill and CHS) plays the supply chain role of preserving the identity of the wheat from farmer’s fields to the bakery.

You can even meet a farmer who talks about growing Eco-Grain, as well as learn how to become an Eco-Grain grower.

Well, there's some merit in this. It's certainly better in every respect to be precise. It takes fewer inputs, which means fewer environmental impacts as well as lower costs to the producer. It's smart. But their claims are broader than that.

While Eco-Grain wheat is not organically grown, the more sustainable farming methods used to grow it have some advantages over organic farming.

• Organic farming requires about twice the acreage to produce the same amount of food, resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land.
• Consumers pay a premium for organic grain, since it costs more to grow it.

Sustainable agriculture practices use less fertilizer, conserve land, help protect ground and surface water, and result in a high-yield, lower-cost crop.

They are claiming the sustainability high ground, beating organic advocates with one of their own sticks. Sustainability, which is an essentially content-free word, means whatever you need it to mean.

In both of these cases main stream producers have been stung by the exaggerated claims of advocates of alternative production systems, and are making their own equal and opposite exaggerations in response. Dog bites man. I see no hope that the marketing orgs on either side will become honest brokers seeking to inform rather than persuade. More's the pity, but that's reality.

I understand the urge to exaggerate the benefits of your product and ignore contrary facts. I know the risk of being sensible when dealing with customers. They do not want to hear the pros and cons of your product. They want you to reassure them that they are making a wise purchase. It's part of what they are paying for. They want to have a satisfying buying experience as well as acquiring a good product. They don't want to be cheated out of the pleasure of making a buy.

That's part of why I don't do the selling. I'd be honest - it's a mental disorder - and so deny my customer an important portion of what they seek.