Commentary: Searching for beef’s next toe-stubber

 Resize text        

“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.”

That quote is from Al Gore, the former vice president and an environmentalist of some notoriety. His modification of the famous advice for lawyers – to argue the facts or the law, depending on which is in your favor – is relevant for the beef industry this spring as we seek to address new concerns over the safety and wholesomeness of our products.

Unfortunately, there is little advice available when you have the law in your favor, the facts in your favor, and hollering just doesn’t work.

Such is the case with lean fine-textured beef (LFTB), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and many other issues surrounding our food production and distribution system. American farmers and ranchers are proud to tell consumers, “We have the safest food supply in the world.” The facts and the law suggest that is true, but hollering it from the rooftops in every city in America hasn’t seemed to stem the flow of venomous vitriol from both amateur bloggers and professional news organizations.

As we now know, LFTB was – and is – a way to utilize more of every cow while minimizing the risk of contamination by harmful bacteria. As long as it was called LFTB our customers didn’t notice. Once the media called it pink slime damage control became like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube. And it didn’t seem to matter – either to the media or to consumers – that there were no sicknesses or illnesses attributed to pink slime.

The scenario surrounding BSE is similar. Both industry and government agencies have worked diligently and decisively to implement action plans to protect the American food supply and consumer health. But, despite the fact that the U.S. has never had an incident of Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) due to American beef, “mad cow disease” remains an issue that can be exploited by the media to scare consumers.

Both the LFTB incident and the new BSE-infected cow in California cost hundreds of man-hours by government officials and industry experts who assured the public that their safety was never in danger. Those assurances certainly helped, and beef demand is showing little effect from the two incidents. But, some damage to our industry’s image was done, whether or not we can accurately measure it.

The beef industry’s most pressing need going forward is to look for ways to polish our image by removing other potential toe-stubbers. The most obvious of those is chicken litter and its use as cattle feed. There are already national media commentators questioning the safety of the practice and calling for its removal.

The Food and Drug Administration long-ago examined the threat of using poultry litter in cattle feed and the potential danger of BSE infecting cattle through the practice. In 2008, FDA decided that a ban on chicken litter in cattle feed was unnecessary.

So that’s the law, backed by a bushel of scientific facts. But how will we ever holler loud enough to make consumers understand and accept the practice? To them, we’re feeding our cows chicken…poop.

Folks, chicken litter in cow feed can become another media firestorm. We don’t need either. It’s hard to justify eliminating a commonly accepted industry practice that reduces cost when we have both the law and the facts on our side. But it’s an action that we must consider or we’ll have consumers and activists hollering from the rooftops.


Prev 1 2 Next All



Comments (15) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

mark perrin    
cherokee,ia.  |  May, 03, 2012 at 09:01 AM

good idea to end this practice, any idea on how to voluntarily achieve this? Also what about the people who produce this product will they voluntarily stop ??

SJ    
Montana  |  May, 03, 2012 at 09:30 AM

Hmm How would you get chickens to stop pooping?

Mary Jane Turnley    
Virginia  |  May, 03, 2012 at 09:05 AM

I always say I would not feed my cattle anything that I would not put into my own mouth and taste! So unless you are willing to put chicken poop in your mouth, do not feed it to cattle!

Doug    
North Dakota  |  May, 03, 2012 at 09:32 AM

We know two things: the science behind feeding poultry litter to ruminants is sound, but the power behind uninformed public opinion is huge and an unstoppable force with no connection to agriculture or understanding of food production. The beef industry needs to be proactive and discontinue using poultry litter as a feed ingredient and shift to marketing as fertilizer.

Amy    
May, 03, 2012 at 09:50 AM

"As long as it was called LFTB our customers didn’t notice."

Huh? The end customers, the ones who purchase the ground beef in the store, didn't notice because they didn't know it existed. So your conclusion that the media's "pink slime" caused all of your woes is off-base.

It wasn't called LFTB to customers. They weren't told about it.

Vick    
Texas  |  May, 03, 2012 at 09:55 AM

Amy

It was called "beef" because that is exactly what it is. Lean, Finely Textured BEEF.

Robert r    
california  |  May, 03, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Come on, no one wants a big beefy sh*t burger???

Maxine    
SD  |  May, 03, 2012 at 09:45 PM

Amy, exactly how does the fact that LFTB is BEEF which has been separated from the fat and therefore is LEAN, and is ground to an extra fine TEXTURE make it NOT be BEEF?

Surely you can understand that is did not occur to the producer of that product that because it was BEEF and government regulators (who, not just incidentally, love to find more things to regulate) found no reason to name that product anything other than BEEF, therefore, there was no legitimate to give it any other name on the label, can't you?

How many different 'grinds' are there for hamburger, anyway? I've noticed several different sizes of the bits of beef in hamburger I buy, and in the beef we raise and have processed locally for our own use. My guess is, if I shop in a local high-quality beef market and asked to have the hamburger specially ground for me, there will be several choices of coarseness of the grind (bits of beef).

Amy    
May, 04, 2012 at 09:22 AM

What is it with all the beef people and their capitalized BEEF anyway as if it is an acronym or something? It is annoying....

How does the fact....
Well, simple. Sure, it is a from of beef but it isn't the form of beef expected to be in "natural" labeled ground beef...."natural" meaning minimally processed...the process is anything but minimally processing.

No, I can't understand that because I am a processor and am full aware of how we go about sliding our lil secrets into the mass chain. 1st step was bypassing the labeling by slipping through the processing aid step. I applaud them for that. Well done. Doesn't make it ok fine and dandy.

Lady, I make grinds and its pretty obvious from your statements regarding grinds that you do not. The size of the grinder plate is not even related to the process of making LFTB.

Try again.

John Williams    
Mississippi  |  May, 04, 2012 at 09:44 AM

The whole point of the article is how do we as beef producers and other members of the beef industry be proactive in order to reduce the negative effects of the media bias aimed at agriculture in general. When we in fight like the comments on here, it just makes the media's job that much easier. As far as Amy's comment about it "not being a natural product and being processed", exactly how much of our food supply does she believe is not processed and over processed in the beginning. If you buy it from a grocer and it is not cut to order or lying in a produce section, every bit of it has been processed to some degree or other. The American consumers know this and do not have a problem with it obviously or you would see the return of local butcher shops by the droves. The media did just what it set out to do, it picked its words carefully and set off a firestorm with "pink slime". That was their intention to begin with, "because bad news sells and good news doesn't". We in the beef industry need to stick together, tell the truth about our product, stay true to the product we produce by doing so with the highest ethical standards and do the best we can to feed the people of the world. As far as using chicken litter as cattle feed, it grows grass far better than it does at adding pounds to feeder calves and cows and calves do a far better job at changing grass into pounds of beef than we ever could feeding them in a feedyard.

Gerald Poppy, DVM    
Kentucky  |  May, 04, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I don't know why as an industry we work so hard to support the use of LFTB. The reality is, it increases the supply side of the economics equation, so for producers, the elimination of LFTB would increase prices both from the supply side and the demand side as there is obviously some reluctance to purchase.

TW    
iowa  |  May, 11, 2012 at 06:47 AM

Dear Mr. GP, is your view that it is acceptable practice to process animal bits from hides and hooves for the gelatin so we can have dessert? Cause I could not agree more, I can eat a boat full of it, YUMMY. If we can process animal skins for the leather that enrobes my favorite fully vibratory, 13 position, plush top, swept back, reclining happy place, well hell that is just dang dandy too. If it is good practice to squeeze the bovine bones and grissles to extract and process the glycerin for mamma's skin smoothing, lip lustering, wrinkle hiding, dang fine smelling soap n soft, which by the way makes me a really happy puppy! But if you are advocating that WE the industry should waste the very protein that every animal was sacrificed for, then I question your statements, because we as consumers are already a dam wasteful lot and my reading tells me both sides of these debates carry the same messages. So producing more beef to meet demand when we toss the baby out with the bath water is not only bad business or unethical, its not sane. Oh yeah I am not a DVM or a PHD, nor a CPA just a HICK!

Maxine    
SD  |  May, 04, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Sorry to keep the comments re. LFTB going, Mr. Willians, but until there is honesty and accuracy, isn't it necessary?

Amy, I am simply a producer of high quality feeder cattle who is very interested in what happens to our cattle after they leave our ranch. My 'knowledge' of processing is from observation and reading. Unlike too many in my business, I do not automatically believe every person 'up the chain' between our ranch and the consumer is out to cheat the others in that chain.

So, your prideful 'confession' of hiding the fact that YOU are "hiding lil secrets' of processing from others is disturbing, since that only ADDS to consumer distrust and confusion about food, beef in particular. I resent that, in fact!

What exactly is the process you claim prevents LFTB from being a 'natural' beef product, and what is your definition of 'natural'?

While I don't know about others, I use caps for BEEF to point out that it is the product in question, LFTB is NOT some foreign substance requiring a separate label or label designation. Maybe you are too easily annoyed!

Greg, sorry to sort of hijack your subject. My thought is that there might be more profitable uses for that poultry litter and eliminate the use in cattle feed simply to remove the opportunity for trashing beef producers yet again. Or maybe I'm just a bit jealous, living out in range country where there are really no low cost feeds or alternatives!!!


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight