Question: If someone can be crippled from eating bad hamburger meat (where most of Australia’s exports to the US end-up), should she be able to locate the livestock from whence it originated? And if so, is this possible?
New York Times article
The long and the short of this article is that after being crippled by the E.coli from eating minced meat from the food giant, Cargill, this poor girl attempted to back-track the meat’s pathway. The meat was manufactured from a plethora of ground-up rubbish including some cattle meat and marketed as “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties”. However, because it originated from a variety of animals and by-products, processed by a variety of personnel there was no hope of tracking-down the originating beasts or their ‘home’ properties. (The side issue here is that the ingredients were listed only as “beef”).
The reality is that a cattle ID system such as NLIS or LPA would not and could not have assisted this victim or others following in her eating ‘footsteps’? Perhaps this is one of the reasons America and Japan don’t have a livestock ID system. If they don’t, then how can MLA justify Australian producers paying their levy taxes to fund one here?!
What do you think?
Please leave your comment below.
JB said
The local export processor has developed a simple sytem that tracks each body by time of slaughter, related to RFID number, and into each box identified in the bar code. Tracability from producer to customer is simple and works fine if the producers, agents and processors act responsibly. The resistance to easy to apply regulation, that is necessary for all food products, is difficult to understand. If the same regulations applied to imported food, local producers would benefit and this is where the energy should be expended, not knocking the systems that give Australia a marketing edge.
Bill R said
With the number of inputs into (hamburger) mince described in the article, there is no way in the real World any RFID system could track a particular beast.
And you are ‘having a lend’ if you think we need a marketing edge vs imported meat within Australia – we need the edge with exports and the point is that our largest markets don’t require a cattle ID system and our meat isn’t getting a premium for having one, so wake-up, and stop wasting our time and money!
JB said
If the priority is producing and marketing mince the industry is lost. Any box of beef can be traceable to the producer, using a simple system.
The marketing edge is demonstared in the many markets in Japan, Korea, Thailand etc that are currently paying a premium for quality, and a point of difference. Imported food should require this point of difference and regulation, that is necessary in Australia, before it qualifies for entry.
Waking up is definitely required, to see the positive future Australian producers have by staying ahead of the competition.
ruralaustralia said
Welcome JB:
I’m pretty sure that the majority of Australian beef into the US does in fact end-up as mince. I’m also pretty sure that the countries you mention may well pay a premium for quality, however, they’re not currently rating our NLIS in that category and are taking much larger volumes of beef from countries that don’t use animal tagging!
I appreciate your comments but they are based on our marketing dreams from long ago. If only ….
JB said
“rural australia” can’t possibly think that negativity like this represents farmers.Several high value beef markets in Asia support NLIS. Surely just volume is not the main game. Manufacturing beef ends up as mince, but there is also substantial amounts of chilled product sold to market, even into the health food sector. The NLIS is established so just get on with promoting the industry positively, not peddling some old fashioned piffle about farmers being ripped off by everyone. Who do you think benefits?
ruralaustralia said
Hi again, JB, and thanx for your feedback.
Not meaning to be negative, just commenting on the facts of a marketplace where:
1. Aus. beef producers are receiving least prices in the World and Aus. consumers are paying the most!
2. Our production selling costs alone are 11-15%
3. A levy/tax system that has produced $0.91c per beast over the past 30 years.(Article on $223million spent by MLA for 91c return)
4. An animal tracking system (NLIS) that is irrelevant for the bulk of our sales with funding that would be better spent on evening-out the discrepancy between farm and retail prices.
Who do I think benefits, JB?
Well, the large beneficieries don’t seem to be the producers or the consumers.
If you think that’s piffle, you’re not a farmer or just haven’t thought the issues through properly.
Hope this has assisted your understanding.
JB said
34 years as a professional beef producer has taught me to be wary of vested interests talking the industry down, and to take advantage of opportuinies when they arise. Industry improvements in business and pasture skills, eating quality and consistency, and market awareness has kept our family business profitable through difficult times. Random statistics can be used for any argument, and the effect of 10 dry years were obviously not calculated.
It seems the opinion held is not going to be influenced, but if you think they have it better in Argentina, you know what to do.
ruralaustralia said
We are both on the same side then, (King) JB
And being in a great democracy we are both hopefully entitled to our own opinions. (My guess is you’d live a dull and lonely life if anyone who disagreed with you was bannished forever). And as far as I can recall, I have never espoused any country being better than this one to live in. However, I do think there are things that we can and should do as an industry to improve upon our ‘lot’.
All the best.
The Serf said
JB
ruralaustralia may not know about or comment about Argentina but I do and I can … I know from my friends there that they own their land and their cattle, they are not merely “producers” producing for a statutory industry operated by the Federal Government; they are owners.
Are you happy to just be a producer and not own anything?
Roustabout said
Is the forthcoming MLA meat levy vote is as democratic as the WoolPoll one illustrated in The Land? (i.e. All options including 0% are offered) http://theland.farmonline.com.au/polls
RW said
Rural Australia – Interesting that some comments could or should relate back to the farmer in relation to this article. The question I pose, more incidentally than any thing else is: how does, or could, a farmer that sells (ownership transfer) a live disease free animal to a processor be in any way connected to a consumer that has being poisoned by E-coli contamination ?
I suppose it is possible for a person to get sick if they tried to eat a live animal but, probably more likely to get exhausted first trying to catch the animal, however, not to despair the person can simply scan (if they get close enough) the NLIS tag in the animal and catch it later.
The perception of the brains trust logic in convincing the consumer that they are buying meat directly from a farmer firstly and, that a RFID tag fitted to the animal will stop contamination, such as E-coli, of the product they eat just escapes me for the minute. How does one scan a white elephant ?