Projects Unveil Customer Perceptions to Boost Canada's Beef Success.

[joedales]

National Beef Industry Development Fund
Administered by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association
310 6715 - 8 Street NE
Calgary, AB T2E 7H7
Phonel: (403) 275-8558, Fax: (403) 274-5686
Web site: www.cattle.ca
**************************************

For immediate release:

Projects unveil customer perceptions to boost Canada's beef success

Calgary, AB, Jan. 30, 2007: A wealth of knowledge to drive marketing strategies for Canadian beef has been unveiled by two international perception studies funded by the National Beef Industry Development Fund (NBIDF).

"The task of knowing the customer has never been more complex or important for Canada's beef industry," says Dave Plett, NBIDF Chair. "This is particularly true with the changes we face in the post-BSE world."

To deliver this knowledge, NBIDF funded two major projects to audit the opinions of influential global meat experts and consumers in top export markets for Canadian beef.

In the first project, the Canada Beef Export Federation undertook a Beef Quality Perception Audit (BQPA) in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong/Macau and Mexico, to understand how the qualities of Canadian beef are regarded among close to 1,000 meat experts in those markets. This project built on a similar audit of U.S. meat experts conducted in 2004 by the Beef Information Centre.

The meat experts participating in the information audit included top meat company directors, beef importers and distributors, and meat purveyors who have the dollars and powerful market influence to drive demand.

"These people are the movers and shakers - collectively, they represent millions of dollars in trade," says Michael Young, vice president of international programs for Canada Beef Export Federation. "They are in the business of buying what sells, and they can buy beef from anywhere in the world. How they perceive beef quality and Canadian beef has a huge impact on our future success and prosperity in the export marketplace."

The findings confirmed Canadian beef grading standards are doing a good job of addressing the demands of these meat experts, since all the preferences indicated are ones Canada already delivers as standards for its beef grades. However more work is needed to help these experts identify Canada's association with these advantages. "The results showed that Canadian beef has a strong opportunity for success in these markets, as long as we continue to communicate and reinforce our strengths," says Young.

At a consumer level, NBIDF also funded a consumer perception study, to gauge attitudes related to beef food safety in four primary markets for Canadian beef. This project was used as a basis to propose supply chain management strategies to enhance beef demand.

A team led by Dr. Ted Schroeder, an agricultural economist at Kansas State University, conducted extensive surveys focusing on consumer perceptions and attitudes about beef food safety. Surveys were conducted during 2006, with approximately 1,000 consumers in each of the primary markets of Canada, the U.S., Japan, and Mexico.

Combined results of the surveys showed that 80 percent or more of consumers in Canada and the U.S. considered beef a safe product, whereas only 48 percent of Japanese and 60 percent of Mexican respondents felt beef is a safe product.

Compared to four years ago, consumers in all four countries indicated they had reduced their beef consumption because of food safety concerns. Canadians and Americans reduced beef consumption by 20 percent, Mexicans by 30 percent and Japanese by 55 percent.

"This finding is particularly challenging for Canada as a beef exporter, because lost consumer confidence in beef can occur regardless of what the Canadian beef industry alone does to ensure food safety," says Schroeder. "It's clear that beef food safety is a global issue."

More information on results of the two projects is available in two new feature articles, available on the NBIDF Web site, www.cattle.ca/NBIDF. NBIDF is a $9.25 million fund created through the investments of the governments of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia. It contributed to more than 120 research and development projects from 2002 to 2006, to support the competitiveness of the Canadian beef industry.

An overview of NBIDF progress, including summaries of several core projects is available in NBIDF's Report to the Canadian Beef Industry, now featured on the NBIDF Web site. This Report was delivered as an insert in the January 2007 edition of Canadian Cattlemen magazine.
-30-

For more information contact:

Gina Groesnick, NBIDF Project Coordinator
Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Phone: (613) 862-7601

[farmers_son]

I noted the comment “…to understand how the qualities of Canadian beef are regarded among close to 1,000 meat experts in those markets (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong/Macau and Mexico). This project built on a similar audit of U.S. meat experts conducted in 2004 by the Beef Information Centre.

The meat experts participating in the information audit included top meat company directors, beef importers and distributors, and meat purveyors who have the dollars and powerful market influence to drive demand.

"These people are the movers and shakers - collectively, they represent millions of dollars in trade," … "They are in the business of buying what sells, and they can buy beef from anywhere in the world.”


Er…excuse me, but I believe these meat experts cannot buy beef from anywhere in the world. Last time I checked most cannot buy beef from Canada, especially OTM . And for the most part they cannot buy beef from the United States. Even our amigos in Mexico cannot buy our beef if it is OTM. Japan certainly does not buy beef from anywhere in the world and is very restrictive on who gets to supply beef to that country. China will not allow the importation of beef from Japan. South Korea is not buying from the United States, at least I think that is the case. It is hard to keep track of who is banning what from where and why.

“Combined results of the surveys showed that 80 percent or more of consumers in Canada and the U.S. considered beef a safe product, whereas only 48 percent of Japanese and 60 percent of Mexican respondents felt beef is a safe product.

Compared to four years ago, consumers in all four countries indicated they had reduced their beef consumption because of food safety concerns. Canadians and Americans reduced beef consumption by 20 percent, Mexicans by 30 percent and Japanese by 55 percent. “

By 20%? Come on now Dr. Ted Schroeder. Me thinks the numbers are being massaged to prove a point. A 20% change in consumption within North American is massive and probably is not the case. North America remains a beef importer even with very reduced exports. Someone is still eating beef.

The thing I think of every time I see a consumer survey is that the consumer will always ask for more safety, more taste, better selection as long as they do not have to pay for it, that there is no perceived cost to the consumer as a result of their demands.

Too bad Dr. Shroeder did not ask the consumers what they thought of chicken/bird flu. There are those out there who are making a business of selling fear to consumers.

[rkaiser]

And then there are those who choose to ignore numbers like these and let the packer salmon run on cull cows continue.

My take on this article is that we need to listen to the consumer and if he/she is talking food safety - give them food safety whether CCA thinks it is science based or not. Of course I am talking about BSE testing, and will call the CCA coordinator to ask her opinion on the testing issue.

[farmers_son]

We give the consumer food safety. It is called removal of SRMs on every animal slaughtered in North America.


Note the Japanese perception of the safety of beef. Only 48% feel beef is safe even with 100% testing including animals that are too young to even test. Testing has not increased the Japanese consumers confidence in beef. In fact every time another positive is found consumer confidence is further eroded.

If surveyed people will say they are concerned with food safety. Yet these same people will drive too fast, have unprotected sex, not wash their hands after using the restroom, find excuses not to exercise. They say one thing then do another. The reality is if you offer something for nothing, like food safety, people will say they want it.

People say one thing, then do another. The article mentions "The task of knowing the customer has never been more complex or important for Canada's beef industry," It is the same for any marketing effort.

rkaiser: I would have thought you would have been the first to recognize that these marketing efforts will only benefit the packing plants and no benefits will trickle down to the primary producer.

[rkaiser]

As will BSE testing farmer-son..... but BSE testing will also allow access to free marketing of beef once again and stop at least one of the many ways the multinationals control the industry. New markets will allow new companies to compete. Not allowing BSE testing gives These pirates a captive market to operate in. And not only a captive Canadian market but a captive North American market. It's all about control and manipulation of markets farmer-son.

I don't know where you are coming up with your speculation about Japanese consumer confidence and BSE bud, but I would have to say you are out to lunch. The consumer forced BSE testing in Japan.

Do you know the past manager of CCA by the name of Charlie Gracey farmer-son. If you do, ask him for his recent rebuttal to the CCA and in particular Hugh Lynch Staughntons misinformed explanations of the CCA/ABP stand on testing. For those of you who don't know much about Charlie, he was the manager of CCA when CCA actually represented the producers of this country and not the multinational pirates.

I won't post Charlie's words as I don't feel I have that right, but they echo the words of BIG C and the Western Stock growers, two groups that do have producers, and only producers on their agenda.

The packers don't want testing because it would screw with their captive markets farmer-son - no other reason --- despite what you and the CCA have been led to believe.

[farmers_son]

Re: The Japanese consumer. If BSE testing increased their confidence in beef supposedly that would be reflected in the survey results. It would seem that either the survey does not accurately portray consumer’s real attitudes, which is very possible, or for some reason BSE testing is not as comforting as promoted by its advocates. It is my perception that consumers are basically unaware of the number of animals being tested but are made very aware whenever a positive is found. As such the consumers perception of the incidence of BSE in any particular market is distorted and out of context. The problem with testing is that if you test you will find positives. Australia had that figured out long ago.

Re: Market Access. The Canadian cattle producer is not going away. Without question, after the Canadian market, the U.S. market is our second most important destination for beef and live cattle. There is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. has been taking its sweet time in reopening the border to our live cattle and beef. Especially in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of live cows did cross the border in the months and years preceding 2003 and therefore a reasonable person would expect the incidence of BSE to be similar on both sides of the border. Be that as it may it would seem that Rule 2 will come into effect at some point this year and at least some Canadian cow beef and even live cows should begin entering that market without BSE testing and all the associated problems.

If the U.S continues to restrict access to our cattle and beef then it would seem probable to me that, given no other choice, we will have to go to BSE testing to find export markets for our cattle. Even then I would see the U.S. as our target market. I really question whether Japan would buy our tested beef if the further testing turned up a significant number of positives, and it would. Presently Japan could buy tested beef from Europe but does not. It is my belief that Japan prefers to buy beef from the U.S. for trade and political reasons and if it is Canadian beef with a USDA stamp on it, all the better.

The packers have a captive market whether we test or not. As long as there is no other place for our live cattle to go other than to the two packers, they have a captive market. To break that captive market we need to have alternative marketing points for live cattle. Either we construct those points here in Canada or we need to regain access for our live cows to packing plants in the U.S. It matters little how many countries are buying our beef, if Tyson and Cargill control where we can market our live cattle, cows or calves, then they have a captive market.

[rkaiser]

Can't argue with much of that farmer_son other than the part about Japan already having access to tested European beef. Europe is now a net importer of beef as well, and price would drive a market like that. I would love to have a piece of the European market as much as the Japanese one. Canadian reluctance to give up the hormone crutch is hampering those efforts. This too would change if new efforts were made in the packing industry.

Cargill and Tyson are too comfortable to consider change. Canada is there trap line and for now, it is a lucrative one.

You do mention all of the problems related to testing and the fear mongers down at CCA have obviously done a job on you, however the red tape and challenges surrounding OTM cattle and beef into the States will only allow connected Multinationals to enter that game. I wouldn't count on 50 cent cows for a very very long time.

What is your time line farmer_son? How long are you or the ABP/CCA prepared to wait?

[farmers_son]

I would like to think that no one does a “job” on me anymore than you would think any particular organization has done a “job” on you. I believe I am quite capable of reaching an opinion independently, as I am sure you are. In any event the most you or I could offer would be an opinion as the future is never certain.

The Price packing plant has a program to export hormone free beef to Europe and we are considering very carefully participating in that program.

I think you are incorrect to “blame” CCA or ABP for Canada’s position regarding testing/not testing and international trade in beef and live cattle. At the best our cattle organizations can lobby and suggest, government will make its own decisions. Canadian producers would be very justified if their angst was directed towards the U.S. government. Far too much blame for the closed border is placed upon R-Calf and I have always considered them a scapegoat for the Bush administration’s policies.

The Canadian industry has been faced with uncertainty since May 2003. That uncertainly has colored our industry's response to BSE, most obviously the construction of packing plants in this country. However I think there is nothing wrong with producers like you rattling the chains a bit and reminding the U.S. if they want to, for want of a better term beat around the Bush, much longer reopening the border there is a significant element in this country that is pushing for BSE testing. I think the real question is how long can the U.S. wait before reopening the border, and the answer to that question has a lot to do with how much U.S. beef will Japan take. The U.S. is clearly continuing to block our live cattle and beef so as to insulate their producers from their own BSE situation.


The goal for me is to see more markets for live cattle, that is what we need to see fair prices paid for our cattle, especially cows. There is no accepted BSE test for live cattle, all tests are for slaughtered cattle. We can test 100% but if we still are forced to sell our live cattle to Tyson/Cargill/Excel there would be no improvement in the price the Canadian primary producer receives.

[rkaiser]

I will apologize for suggesting that your mind was manipulated farmer_son. I respect your thoughts but am simply frustrated with your position.

I will however stand by my statements blaming CCA/ABP for Canada's position on testing. I sat in front of the late Ag minister(thank heavens for the late part) and looked him in the eye when he said he took direction from industry, and industry in Alberta was ABP.

Have you seen Charlie Gracy's rebuttal to the Hugh Lynch/CCA BSE positon yet farmer_son? I don't have time to summarise it for you, and it would likely be easier if you searched it out yourself.

[farmers_son]

I did some searching for Charlies comments but did not find it. I am sure his views are well respected in the CCA.

I agree the Government of Canada looks to the CCA and ABP for advice. I think at one time producers did have a important voice in Ottawa however today government is listening to a far wider range of interest groups, including the packers. Primary producers seem to have to work harder and harder to effect change in government policy these days.

At some point, doesn't the blame for the absolutely unforgiveable delays in reopening the border to cattle and beef trade have to be place squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. government? If it was up to the CCA, if it was up to the Government of Canada the border would be open long ago.

The incidence of BSE is the same in Canada as the United States. No science supports the continued closure of the border to trade in beef and cattle.

I know I certainly respect the opinions of those producers who are advocating BSE testing. And there are a lot of them. Myself, I think BSE testing was a reasonable response to the situation in the UK but the incidence of BSE in North America is so much less. And thank goodness for that. Canada needs to advocate science based rule making when it comes to trade but obviously there are governments out there that do not respect the rules and are unfairly blocking access to our live cattle for their own protectionist reasons.

[cowman]

I won't go into this a lot but will point out I said "test them all" from the first minute?
I didn't know what the prevalence of BSE was but I did know what the perception would be? Test them all...no argument! Piss around and every Tom , Dick and Harry would mealy mouth the product? you can look it up...?
Now I'm not so sure? The extensive testing done in Canada, says this is a very miniscule problem? Unfortunately those "unenlightened producers" called R-CALF have continued to follow an agenda that has nothing to do with science but sensationalism and following their dillusional protectionism! So I still say test them all....if that will get us some meaningfull change in our export markets?
This cow thing is getting to be an utter joke! Come on...$300 for a cow that is going into the restaurant trade! What a complete utter crock of BS! This is beyond bizarre!

[grassfarmer]

farmers_son, you say "Myself, I think BSE testing was a reasonable response to the situation in the UK but the incidence of BSE in North America is so much less."
To my knowledge they have never tested for BSE as a means to market beef in the UK. They were shut out of foreign export markets for 10 years on OTM beef and cattle and a bit less on UTM animals.

[Willowcreek]

grassfarmer--quote "To my knowledge they have never tested for BSE as a means to market beef in the UK."

I believe you are wrong on this grassfarmer...Cattle slaughtered in the UK over 30 months old are tested and marketed...The UK does not allow cattle born prior to 8/1/96 to be marketed for food at all...

There is a big stink going on there now because one of these prior 96 cows got into the food chain- even tho she had tested negative....

[Willowcreek]

Heres a link to one article on it....

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=102050

[grassfarmer]

I stand corrected. Since December 2005 they have been testing and marketing OTM cattle in the UK. The BSE cases began appearing in the mid 1980's though and from then through until 1996 hundreds of thousands of OTMs were slaughtered and went into the human food chain. Cattle showing symptoms were culled and tested to confirm BSE. They never killed whole herds out if there was a case of BSE in that herd. They did however have a cohort program after 1996 that went back and traced cattle that had eaten the same feed as BSE cases and culled them out. I don't know why because at that time all OTMs were being incinerated anyway. The point I was trying to make was that testing and marketing cattle as free of BSE was not a significant policy throughout the BSE crisis in the UK. Farmers were just expected to take a beating on cull cows for close to 20 years.