As we move into the month of May, it isn't hard to see that 2012 is shaping up to be quite a bit different from 2011. At this time last year, Ohio producers were besieged by record rainfall and wondering if we were ever going to get corn planted or hay harvested. 2012 has seen an early spring characterized by favorable soil conditions with inconsistent rainfall and temperature patterns. Crop planting is well ahead of schedule and hay harvest will get a much earlier start than in 2011.
The beef industry as a whole has experienced a bit of turbulence when compared to the previous year. One constant has been that the prices that producers have received for nearly all classes of beef cattle have remained strong. While there have been market fluctuations, prices have remained historically high.
Yet, there have been bumps in the road. The drought that gripped large portions of the U.S. cow-calf belt has helped to reduce cow numbers to levels not seen in nearly 60 years. The drought area has reduced in size but significant drought continues to linger in portions of the southern U.S.
However, the biggest difference from 2012 compared to 2011 is the increasingly tough public relations battle that the beef industry has fought with the media and the public. Since early March, the public relations road has been lined with more potholes than bumps. We first had to deal with issues surrounding lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) also distastefully referred to as "pink slime." In late April, the fourth case of BSE, "mad cow disease", was discovered in California. More recently, consumer activist groups have targeted an enzyme called transglutaminase, used for nearly two decades to bind meat cuts together. Not surprisingly, transglutaminase has been referred to as "meat glue" for shock value in the media.
The beef industry is not alone in fighting outside influences on their industry. The pork industry is currently dealing with outside pressure to accelerate the phase-out of the use of gestation-sow stalls. Companies such as McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Tim Horton's, and more recently Safeway have all made announcements as to the intentions to buy pork from suppliers that do not use gestation-sow stalls. Burger King also announced that they intend to buy eggs from cage-free operations. An unfortunate side-effect of these announcements was the fact that animal activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were able to steal part of the spotlight and took credit for these developments.
Ultimately, the person who should take credit for some of the developments just mentioned is the consumer. Traditional media and the rapidly growing social-media outlets can advance any issue or cause at a pace that our society has never seen before. The instant availability of information can greatly impact public opinion and consumer confidence as it relates to any agricultural commodity. The beef industry needs to learn some valuable lessons from recent events that have impacted our industry. Let's take a closer look at how two different issues were handled and the ultimate impacts.
Consider the LFTB situation. LFTB has been in the news since long before the firestorm that broke loose this past March. The product received very negative reviews in the 2008 film "Food, Inc." and a series in the New York Times in 2009. On March 5, a news organization called "The Daily" published a story on LFTB. Keep in mind that "The Daily" was established in 2011 geared for distribution through the iPad and iPhone. Shortly after March 5, ABC World News Tonight ran the story and a food activist in Houston, Texas started a petition drive to ask USDA to remove LFTB from school menus. The "pink slime" story lingered for several weeks through March and in to April.
Beef Products, Inc., the manufacturer of LFTB, finally went on the defensive for their product later in March. News conferences and media events were held to defend the product's honor. An event was held that involved three governors and other leaders to tour BPI, Inc's. facilities and even tasting hamburgers with LFTB. Ultimately, the damage was done and this past week BPI, Inc. announced that it would be closing three of its four plants and hundreds of jobs would be lost.
Compare that scenario to the one surrounding the U.S.D.A's April 24, 2012 announcement that the fourth case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, in U.S. history had been verified in a dairy cow in California. The cow was identified through U.S.D.A's established surveillance program at a rendering plant and was not destined for our food supply. Those who remember the first U.S. discovery of BSE in 2003 can't forget the painful economic impact of that event. Our export trade for beef at that time stopped with several of our major trading partners such as Japan and has taken until this past year to nearly fully recover.
Immediately after the BSE announcement last month, there was a large amount of media coverage for a couple of days and market prices were briefly impacted. At this time, the only noticeable impacts on export trade of beef are that two large retailers in South Korea have pulled American beef from their stores and Indonesia announced it would block U.S. beef imports. The anxiety over the BSE discovery has largely died down since the announcement less than three weeks ago.
Why has the BSE situation been much less impactful than the "pink slime" story? In my opinion, there are a few key reasons. First, this is only the fourth identified case of BSE in U.S. history and no additional cases have been found in the time since the April 24 announcement. We know that BSE can only be transmitted through feed containing meat and bone meal (MBM) from BSE-infected cattle. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of such ruminant-derived protein supplements in cattle feed. BSE was a significant issue around the globe two decades ago with as high as over 37,000 cases of "mad cow" disease found annually worldwide. In 2011, less than 35 cases of BSE were reported around the world. The disease has been effectively controlled.
Another significant reason that the BSE anxiety was relatively short-lived was the fact that producers and the public have a better understanding of BSE through research and education. The beef industry has been very pro-active with the BSE issue through the distribution of science-based, factual information from industry experts and national and state cattlemen's associations and beef councils through web sites and social media. The public has heard the beef industry's message on BSE early and often and there is an apparent amount of public trust established.
It can be very frustrating when one or our favorite sports teams snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by being too conservative and playing a "prevent defense." Beef Products, Inc. played a "prevent defense" with the "pink slime" issue and paid a heavy price. The game of public opinion with the consumer will be a tough battle and it's a game we cannot afford to lose. We must be pro-active in our defense of the beef industry to insure our product has a place on the consumer's dinner table.
Source: John F. Grimes, Ohio State University Extension Beef Coordinator
Comments (1) Leave a comment