Food Safety

[cowman]

Do you think it is reasonable that all imported foods should be subject to the same standards as the domestic supply? For example: If we test our beef, pork and poultry for various diseases wouldn't it be proper that all countries shipping us food have similar standards?
And yet we regularly bring in meat from Australia and New Zealand where BSE testing is miniscule? Lets not forget the Jack-in-the-Box hamburger scandal in Washington state where a few kids died of E-coli! Canadian beef right? Well no it turns out it was Australian beef repackaged in Canada and shipped south as Canadian product! And it turned out it wasn't exactly all beef!
The point here is why should our industry be subject to certain rules for food safety, while the imports are not?

[dfarms11]

I hate to put down a good idea but, is this not our problem with Japan?

[rodb]

This is an interesting question.

In some cases we live in a glass house and you know the rest. But when it comes to certain pesticides, we can import the produce that was produced useing these pesticides but farmers in Canada can't use them. When asked why, one responce was that if we allowed its use in Canada our intake would put us into unsafe limits. My responce was if thats the case,we should close the borders to produce that is grown using pesticides that are not licensed in Canada. I'm not holding my breath on that ever happening but I feel that if it can't be safely used here in Canda, then I don't believe that we can trust someone in a lesser developed country with lower standards to grow it and ship it here for our consumption.

The same goes for BSE testing. The Japanese are following over themselves trying to get beef from Australia and NZ but as mentioed in the previous thread that their testing is minimal (400 head last year). I know of a farmer near Alice Springs who has close to a million acres. You can't tell me that they know why every animal died or even when it died. Testing 400 head of 3-4 year old animals is not really significant, and they probably wouldn't have any downers unless they are in a dairy herd.

The other though is that we should strongly suggest to Japan and Korea that they apply the same standards to all of their suppliers. Just because they have'nt looked doesn't mean they haven't got it.

[rsomer]

The American and Canadian beef industries have had harmonized standards for many years now yet the Americans still find reason to block our beef at the border. Japan says they will accept our beef if we test but Europe tests their beef and Japan blocks imports of the European product. See http://www.maff-aqs.go.jp/english/ryoko/aq2.htm . Australia tests less beef than anyone yet they are the number one supplier to Japan. Obviously there is something else than food safety driving these trade restrictions

[cakadu]

The number one reason Australia ships so much to Japan is because they asked the Japanese what they wanted and they gave it to them and continue to give it to them.

North American beef and more specifically Canadian beef has historically not been marketed that way - we slap it in a box and want to sell the whole thing. The Japanese look for and are willing to pay for what they get. Until such time as Canada is willing to do that - give the customer what they want - we won't be selling too much more beef either - our current problem aside.

This is far more than just a science, food safety or public perception issue and it has been from the outset.

[rsomer]

That is true but there is more to Japan than that. Beef imports to Japan have always been tightly controlled by the Japanese National DIET and I am not talking about their food preferences, rather their government. It would be simplistic to suggest that Australia earned its share of Japanese beef imports through marketing alone. Japan is the largest exporter of goods to Australia. If for some reason Japan stopped importing Aussie beef, Japanese exports of automobiles and electronics would immediately suffer. Therefore one would not expect Japan to ask too many questions of the Australian product.
On the other hand Japan can protect its domestic industry by finding excuses to restrict Canadian and American imports of beef without fear of loosing export markets.
If product alone accounted for Australia’s market share of the Japanese beef import market how do we explain Canada’s under 2% Japanese beef market share while the U.S. had about 50%? Before May 20 Canadian beef tended to move south to U.S. plants where it was stamped USDA and shipped to Japan as American beef. It was Canadian product, Canadian quality but the politics said it had to come from the U.S.
Beef imports to Japan are based 90% on political and trade issues and 10% on product quality, food safety and marketing. Japanese demands for BSE testing involve more than concerns over food safety. Canada can do all the marketing it wants, including testing but we are not in a political or trade position to significantly increase our market share to Japan. I agree when you say "This is far more than just a science, food safety or public perception issue". It is a political and trade issue.

[cowman]

I wonder just what kind of product Australia ships to Japan? Is it the high end stuff or is it manufacturing beef...you know Subway/Macdonalds stuff?
If they are in fact supplying the low end of the trade maybe price is the driving factor and not necessarily the quality?
We hear how the Australians are such good marketers and so far ahead of everyone else but their health protocols leave something to be desired perhaps? I mean they have virtually no BSE testing and I assume probably not much other testing either(Jack in the box). In fact I suspect their whole "advantage" is built on cheap beef where it is survival of the fittest rather than a superior product.

[cakadu]

rsomer - you are right - there is a lot more than just the fact that the Aussies are willing to give the Japanese what they want; the bottom line is that they will do it in order to sell product.

Cowman, part of what helps them to sell their product is the fact that they can produce it for so much cheaper than what we can because they don't have to feed for a minimum of 200 days per year. Some of the product going into Japan is pretty premium stuff, so I'm sure they are getting amply paid for it.

Now I happen to have been in Australia at the time when they had their own e-coli concern about 8 to 10 years ago. Two children died from eating tainted sausage. The company that made the sausage closed it's doors within 3 or 4 days of the announcement being made about the problem because they said that they would never outlive the bad publicity. It does beg the question of how close they were to financial difficulty if that were the case.

One thing I have found out about the Australian people is that they are very unforgiving about their food and are slow to accept much in the way of changes to it. I was down there in October of last year and they still have not readily accepted genetic engineering.

They aren't too likely to have some of the same food safety concerns that we have because they can "free-range" much of their livestock production. Personally, I don't like the taste of their beef too much because it is primarily grass fed and they also feed it on turnips, so that alters the taste.

I'm not saying that the Australian's testing is right or wrong, or if there is a lack of it, but the fact that they do not supplemental feed their animals to any degree might preclude them from having much of a problem in the first place.

Doesn't the fact that we confine our animals for the most part, essentially force feed them to eat feedstuffs that they weren't intended to eat (i.e. grain or prefabricated feeds) in order to get them to market weight in the shortest amount of time leave us wide open and prone to having more problems than someone who just lets them eat grass?

This is a vicious circle that is getting less sustainable and practical all the time, especially as bigger players squeeze out little ones. I'm a firm believer in the fact that things happen for a reason and I wonder what we are meant to learn from all of this?

[cowman]

With our climate I don't believe grass beef(on a large scale) is feasible. Also I don't believe the Canadian consumer would accept it? Quite frankly it's the barley that makes it tender,tasty and attractive to the eye! Somehow that old yellow fat of a grasser just doesn't go over too good.
Grass beef is older beef and tougher beef. By the time our baby beef hits the shelf it is about 7 days old. I would think grass beef would require about 14 days to achieve the same tenderness. The extra cooler space required would probably eat up any economic advantage and how long could that 14 day old beef sit in the meat shelf before turning green?
Our system has evolved into the present one for a reason...it's the most efficient one for our country.

[cakadu]

If the beef industry is the best we can do in this country, then should we be doing it at all - beyond what we need for domestic consumption?

Like it or not, we are going to be getting competition for our beef in the coming years from countries like South America. There are growing numbers who like the grass fed beef and you talk to chefs in high end restaurants and they like it.

The biggest problem with grass fed beef is consistency - i.e. getting consistent product time after time. If those in the grass fed business get that down - I'm sure it will increase.

One other thing to ponder is the fact that grass fed beef doesn't normally get manufactured feeds, so the risk of TSE's is limited according to current research.

More and more the current state of affairs is pointing to the fact that we have to take a long hard look at what we have been doing and perhaps make some difficult decisions.

[cakadu]

If the beef industry is the best we can do in this country, then should we be doing it at all - beyond what we need for domestic consumption?

Like it or not, we are going to be getting competition for our beef in the coming years from countries like South America. There are growing numbers who like the grass fed beef and you talk to chefs in high end restaurants and they like it.

The biggest problem with grass fed beef is consistency - i.e. getting consistent product time after time. If those in the grass fed business get that down - I'm sure it will increase.

One other thing to ponder is the fact that grass fed beef doesn't normally get manufactured feeds, so the risk of TSE's is limited according to current research.

More and more the current state of affairs is pointing to the fact that we have to take a long hard look at what we have been doing and perhaps make some difficult decisions.

[rsomer]

"More and more the current state of affairs is pointing to the fact that we have to take a long hard look at what we have been doing and perhaps make some difficult decisions." I couldn't agree more. I remember when I was a kid Dad was finishing calves on real good alfalfa brome pasture with grain added. Bloat wasn't a problem and the calves did well as I remember. I think there is room for innovation in the beef business, the big feedlots do not have all the answers.
Australia is rather unique in that they produce beef more than one way. Yes they have the grass fed product but the people we know from Australia have farms much like ours in Alberta and fatten their Murray Grey calves on barley. This meat would be every bit as good as the Canadian product.
I look to Australia as the world leader in the international beef trade. Their marketing is first rate and we are far behind. That doesn't change the fact that the key to their success is first getting their foot in the door of countries like Japan by negotiating trade access for their products. They are even better at this then they are at marketing beef. Canadians should not be fooled into thinking that if we just pick up our marketing and promotion and yes even test if that is what the Japanese want, that we will gain any marketshare from Australia and the U.S. unless we as a nation are first prepared to accept more Japanese imports. I don't believe we are in that position because of our NAFTA commitments.

[cowman]

Now it would seem to me we have quite a few Japanese imports. A whole lot of toyotas and Sonys around but I understand we have a small population. I do not know how many people are in Australia?
I truly fail to understand how Australia can export meat into Canada and compete with our 12 cent cows? I would think transporting it would pretty well eat up that 12 cents. Ocean liner and then freight to the golden triangle. I suspect it could be a deal something like the American corn coming into Alberta last year. A totally unrealistic price while the Australian government subsidizes through the back door.
Either that or the Toronto deli boys are not paying the 12 cents for Canadian cows but are getting screwed by the packers like everyone else?
The idea of grass fed beef is a good one but it can never be much more than a niche market here in Canada. Where is all this grass going to come from? In case you haven't noticed we are pretty well maxxed out right now? I guess it could happen if we reduced the cowherd about 50% or maybe more?
Why we could go back to 3 year old steers just like Pat Burns had back in the early years of the century! Will it happen? I don't think so.

[cakadu]

I wouldn't quote me on it, but there are about 17 million people in Australia.

What would happen if we converted the marginal lands to perennial cover? If, as stated in another thread, it is hard to make money at barley and/or other cereal crops, then wouldn't it make sense to convert the land? Let's face it, there is a bunch of land that was put into grain production that should never have been.

We keep asking the land to do things that it is not meant to do i.e. grow grain. If the land is left to do as it should i.e. be grass, then it does just fine under proper management.

I can't begin to tell you the amount of land around me that was taken out of perennial cover in the last few years. Has it been profitable? I don't know if it has been all that great for those who converted. I don't think the drought helped at all and the grasshoppers sure cleaned up a great deal.

At some stage we have to quit applying all these chemicals and such to the land because it is not economically viable, nor is it sustainable.

[rodb]

Cakadu

Hope you are managing to keep warm.

There are a lot of things that we do that are not sustainable but the alternatives are not either. If we went back to growing with out chemical inputs be they fertilizers, pesticides or for that matter fossil fuels we would drastically reduce our surplus of food stocks and drive the price up.

Would we see all the people that are presently employed in the ag service sector pick up a hoe and a rake or would they try and sustain themselves by other means.

Farmers (most) will always manage land to its upmost potential. If prices rise to certain levels, production systems will be changed to take advantage of those changes. To protect marginal lands, prices of grain and other annual crops have to stay low. Subsidies distorted these patterns and the worst one in Canada was the Crow payment that encouraged farmers to break prairie soils, also the CWB and its acreage quota system that allowed for delivery on summerfallowed land. These policies kept marginal acres from being returned to nature prairies. We could go back to the way my grandfather farmed but we would also lose our 36 hour work week as we would not be able to make enough in that time to buy our food or the RV's that so amny people cherish in todays society.