The Real, Real Issue

[farmers_son]

Yes, we will not need a crystal ball about the future of BSE testing for marketing purposes once the appeal courts hear the Creekstone case. There is no doubt BSE will be a marketing issue if Creekstone is successful. BSE should not be a marketing issue, the food supply is safe, certainly in Canada and the U.S. where the incidence of BSE is very low. When BSE becomes a marketing issue instead of an animal health issue the logical response when a country finds a BSE positive would be to shoot shovel and shut up. The better response is make BSE a science issue, deal with the problem by removal of SRMs and carry on trade knowing the product is safe.

It is my opinion that it is not in cattle producers long term best interest to make food safety a marketing tool. When consumers make their food purchase decisions they need to believe all the food is safe, they will not pick between competing brands based on which is the safest. If there is any doubt they will quickly choose another product. No amount of marketing will persuade the consumer otherwise.

It is my belief that the same applies to the U.S. If U.S. producers hope to gain a marketing advantage by capitalizing on Canada’s BSE situation through COOL they will simply reinforce in the U.S. consumers mind that the U.S. has BSE too. The consumer will buy chicken and pork, they can choose to eat neither country’s beef. The pot calling the kettle black or calling your twin sister ugly is not good marketing and is just another example of where cattle producers in other countries have more to gain by working together than by trying to gain an advantage, one over the other.

I know there are examples of successful producer packing plants. I fully support producers moving up the value chain and reaping the benefits that are there for the successful run operation. There certainly was a time in 2004 and 2005 when any packing plant would be successful as Canadian live cattle prices were $400-500 below U.S. live cattle prices. We have come a long way since then. Producer’s ability to add value to each calf through value adding is directly related to fair live cattle pricing. If we are getting paid a fair price for the live calf there is really should be little opportunity to add value beyond what highly efficient global marketers can do, even if they are pirates. In effect the Canadian live cattle industry has added a huge amount of value for every producer (whether they owned shares in a packing plant or not) when we regained access to the more competitive U.S. live cattle market. And more work needs to be done in that regard and is being done.

I have said it many times in these threads, I sell live cattle not beef, and adding value to the live calf is what puts jingle in my jeans. Given the very unfortunate problems we have seen with some of the producer owned packing plants it seems that the quickest and surest way to add value for the cattle producer is to get the highest possible price for the live calf. Although I see so many advantages to integrating up the value chain, if the price of Canadian live cattle can be increased to a point where the packing plant business is kind of tight (for example through live cattle access to the larger more competitive U.S. market) that works for me too. That is where I am focusing my efforts right now.

[rkaiser]

Access is the word farmers_son. The only way anything will start to work again is access. But not only access to the American consumer. You have defined the very reason that ABP has not been successful in moving us away from the BSE problem. We need access to markets beyond the USA. We still do not have the same access to Mexico as the packers have given us to the USA. We need to get the CFIA out of the trade negotiation business and have our federal government build beef trade relationships with any potential importing nation including but not limited to the USA.

I am sorry to say that your dream of not having BSE become a trade issue is simply that farmer_son. A DREAM. It is and will now always be a trade issue. Creekstone decision or not. BSE could ---- COULD be a way to access more market. But as long as ABP restricts private industry on the issue of testing - we will never know. BSE testing worked to create domestic assurance in Japan. In other words BSE testing is already working as a trade issue - albeit trade within their own country.

Assurance means more demand. And more demand will not only bring up your calf prices farmers_son, but will allow the potential for producer owner plants (WHICH YOU SAY YOU SUPPORT) and this producer owned marketing arm of the Value Chain being created by the round table participants to thrive.

I will say it again farmers_son. If not testing - what can you bring to the table that will increase market access to countries beyond the USA. The USA is the largest beef importing nation in the world, but they have a whole world full of exporters knocking at their door alongside little old Canada.

If you truly think that Canadian producers can remain competitive selling live cattle to the Americans - I simply give up on arguing with you. We need to ad value in our country. Selling off primary resources is a job for simplistic third world countries farmers_son. Do you want to move back in history and remain a third world country?

[jensend]

i think this whole mantra of not making food safety a marketing tool is bogus. car makers promote safety features to market their production as do many other industries. food safety is one of the most important things we can offer the consumer. to say the american rancher would be unwise to capitalize on canadian bse is also mistaken because the united states has done a good job of sweeping bse under the rug other than org.'s like r-calf emphasizing canadian discoveries. i would like to know the per centage of americans who don't know there have been native bse cases discovered in the states. to say we shouldn't market food safety is like saying you don't care about the crash tests of cars or the csa sticker on an appliance. marketing proven safe product is one of the best ways we can differentiate our product from product from areas with lower safety standards or countries with endemic health problems.

[cakadu]

"It is my opinion that it is not in cattle producers long term best interest to make food safety a marketing tool. When consumers make their food purchase decisions they need to believe all the food is safe, they will not pick between competing brands based on which is the safest. If there is any doubt they will quickly choose another product. No amount of marketing will persuade the consumer otherwise."

Farmers_son, I'm a little curious about that statement. I know it is your opinion and I respect that. Consumers make choices based on what they feel is safe all the time - just look at how people feel about organic food. There is absolutely no evidence to support that it is nutritionally any better, yet people think it is and they buy it. We just have to look to last year when there was a horrendous food safety problem with organic lettuce and e-coli. Many of the people who buy organic food feel that it is safer than conventionally grown food. In fact, they pay a premium for it. Just tonight I saw organically grown orange peppers for $6.99/lb and there are people who pay that.

I'm also curious to know how one can add value to any product that is sold as a commodity, particularly when that commodity is sold out of the country. Any value that is added is captured by someone else, somewhere else.

It really doesn't matter what we think the consumer wants to buy, it is what the consumer is willing to pay money for and what they believe.

I guess that is the difference between selling and marketing.

[farmers_son]

People make some choices about what they feel is safe. Quite often though standards have been established so that people can just assume any choice they make is a safe choice. For example, the airline industry. No matter which airline you choose to fly with they all should be safe. Standards have been established and agreed to and as long as the airline you are flying with follows those guidelines you have a very high probability of having a safe flight. As a result air travel has grown to be a popular means of travel.

The importance of internationally recognized standards to facilitate trade cannot be emphasized enough. Just as there are international standards which ensure air travel is safe, the countries of the world have established internationally accepted standards to guarantee the sanitary safety of world food trade in animals and animal products. This is accomplished through the OIE and two other agenciesand its 158 member countries, including Japan. As a result world trade in food has increased dramatically.

It is widely acknowledged that without internationally accepted, science based, standards on food safety that individual countries would use food safety as a non tariff barrier and that world trade in food would be impacted. It is also widely know that Japan is a country which is very protectionist of its agriculture.

It appears to me that consumer confidence in North American beef is all too often taken for granted by cattle producers. Following the first cases of BSE in Canada and the United States (in the case of the U.S. the affected animal entered the food chain) there was a major, and I would say successful, effort to assure domestic consumers that the beef product was safe. But we can never forget the level of fear and hysteria that BSE can generate amongst consumers. In 2003 if companies had tried to capitalize on BSE as a marketing tool insinuating their product was somehow better than an untested product I think the consumer reaction to BSE in North America would have been very different than it was.

On the world trade front, if individual countries, such as Japan and South Korea, are successful in having the internationally developed and accepted science based system of ensuring food safety set aside (whether for protectionist reasons or not) world trade in food will be set back over sixty years to pre World War II days.

What would happen if Japan took a position that planes from Canada and the United States would not allowed to land in Japan unless they met a special safety standard that only existed in Japan? And that Japanese citizens would only be allowed to fly on North American planes that had performed some safety test that had no basis in science or fact. Do you think that would be right? How do you think the North American traveler would feel about flying? Would it make any difference if Creekstone Airlines or BIG-C Jet wanted to meet that special safety requirement? Isn’t the customer always right?

Well actually the customer is not always right. Sometimes the customer is being a little protectionist. If we move away from science based trade to a customer is always right based trade with no rules other than those established by the importing country, world trade in food will come to a screeching halt. World food trade is accomplished by science based photo sanitary standards agreed upon by all the trading nations of the world, including Japan. Those standards need to be upheld.

Whether we are thinking of food safety or air travel safety we do not want those standards to be established by the marketplace. There is just too much at stake.

[per]

Boy what a tragedy that would be if the consumer wanted a higher standard. Incremental change in any system was created by forward thinkers that saw a need and filled it. I am sure that BIG C and Creekstone would be the first to revamp their airlines to fit into the realities of the day. Air Canada and United would continue to languish and maybe even die. That is how some thrive and others fail. When the cheese gets moldy find a new source of cheese. No wonder our industry is in such trouble, we are trying to change the consumer instead of changing for the consumer.

[cakadu]

While your analogy is a good one farmers_son, I tend to find it a bit of a red herring. Air travel is but one form of transportation that has many choices - it is partially dependent on how quickly one wants to arrive. Bottom line is that we will survive if we choose not to travel or to choose one method of travel over another.

When it comes to food, we have to eat in order to survive. Yes, we have many food choices but the bottom line is we MUST eat. It is only in the Western world that we have food choices and can sit back fat, sassy, happy and somewhat arrogant about what food is best. Many in the world have absolutely no choice and spend over 80% of their day getting their one meal of the day.

Where has science gotten us when it comes to our food? What is good for us one day is bad for us the next. As an example, remember oat bran? How about the benefits of margarine (a trans fat) over butter? Now we recognize that trans fats are very bad for us. I would encourage you to read a book called "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. Our so-called food has become so processed and adulterated that it really isn't food any more.

The reason BSE became such an issue in the U.K. is that both science and government were telling people that it was safe to eat beef. We have come a long way in our understanding of BSE since then, but we still don't know much about it. Same with e-coli. We don't know what we don't know about it.

Are you advocating that the way we process our beef now - in these mega packing plants that process thousands per day - is safer than what we had before? The potential to sicken many in a far greater area is tremendous. Yet aren't these internationally recognized "standards"?

[rkaiser]

That was a lot of effort batman ---- Good to know that you and ABP may be using BIG C Airlines in the near future.

In fact - you better check with the office, some of them are already booking I believe. You might miss the boat if you continue wasting your time trying to convince us all not to BSE test.

Or better yet - farmers_son. Get on a damn plane and get your butt over to Japan and convince them that the OIE is right and they need to start importing our SRM removed, safe product tomorrow. Only problem you might have is showing someone beyond North America how the USA is choosing full OIE guidelines when dealing with their little Canadian cousins. Guess what farmers_son ----- they ain't. Damn them Yankees, ---- convincing us to stand by them while they piss in our cornflakeys.