Kroger quits stocking gas-packaged beef

[Econ101]

Diversion!

First you packer blaming hypocrites blamed packers for not aging beef and now when the enhance the color through the aging process, you bench about that.




Safety and beef quality is the issue. If it wasn't the issue, CO would not be being used. Consumers aren't bitching about it, PACKER BLAMERS LIKE YOU ARE.




The fact that the Japanese accepted U.S. beef WITHOUT TESTING proved your stupid claim that Japan wanted tested beef to be false. Typical of most of your stupid claims.




LOL! Creekstone never had any intention to include a disclaimer on their label stating that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE". To suggest otherwise is more of your deceptive spin. Creekstone wanted to sell the "ILLUSION OF SAFETY", not real BSE safety. Typical of your deceptive ways you supported this consumer deception.

Now Japan is acccepting US beef WITHOUT TESTING proving USDA to be right and you packer blamers to be wrong once again.

Adding a disclaimer that "BSE TESTED DOES NOT GUARANTEE BSE FREE" would defeat the whole reason for testing (selling the "ILLUSION" of food safety").

Your criticism of retail outlets enhancing the color of beef is so typical of the backwards thought process of packer blamers. It's absolutely amazing how those who claim to be in the "CATTLE INDUSTRY" and not the "BEEF INDUSTRY" think they know more about the "BEEF INDUSTRY" than those who are actually in the "BEEF INDUSTRY". Typical blamer arrogance. Saving consumers from themselves.


~SH~

SH, why are you so against U.S. beef being tested and traded to foreign lands? If the Japanese want us to pickle it in ginger root extract because they think it gives them longer life, why would you come out against it? Just because the major packers do not hold ginger root extract and you don't believe in the "illusion" of the longer life the Japanese may believe?

Your position on this one was an obvious attempt to suck up to the big packers who didn't want to let anyone else have a marketing edge that they don't have. So were the actions of the USDA.

The USDA policy has been one of sucking up to the agribusinesses that pay off congress. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are doing it for free, you are either stupid or a cheap date.

If you don't know which one, ask agman. He could probably tell you.

Econ; Dr Hunt of KSU is one of the nation's most respected meat scientists. Notice the forum in Dallas in March. You should try to go and learn something.

FOOD SAFETY
AMI defends use of carbon monoxide in meat packaging

by Pete Hisey on 3/1/2006 for Meatingplace.com

The American Meat Institute, along with guest meat scientist Mel Hunt of Kansas State University, has launched a campaign to defend the use of carbon monoxide in modified atmosphere packaging of meat products.

In a press conference held Tuesday, James H. Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation, said that not only is the trace amount of carbon monoxide harmless, its use allows use of large quantities of carbon dioxide, which fights pathogen formation.

Hunt noted that CO MAP packaging promotes food safety, since such cuts are all prepared at the packer and have far less exposure to oxygen and potential adulteration than meat packed by traditional methods. CO doesn't add color to meat any more than oxygen or curing and brining do; all three result in a red color.

Mark Dopp, general counsel and senior vice president of regulatory affairs, AMI, noted that contrary to charges from consumer groups, "CO doesn't impart color; it stabilizes natural color." He added that the majority of meat packaged with CO is sold under brand names, and "this industry has no incentive to destroy our own brands."

AMI will host a 90-minute session concerning the issue during its Annual Meat Conference in Dallas March 12-14.

Beefman, you have some good points here. The problem with this roll out is that it hasn't been done properly. Consumers are familiar with the color of beef being used as a determinate of freshness. This process "tricks" consumers of that indicator without proper warning. I used the example of red delicious apples before and what happened to that market when the appearance of freshness became more important than the actual freshness itself. Almost all apples that are stored properly are in a controlled atmosphere to prevent spoilage. It was a technology that was very beneficial to the industry. So was the washing and waxing of the fruit. The problem came in when the appearance of freshness took over apple market instead of the quality of the fruit. Consumers could not tell that the red delicious apples were not that high of quality because fruit buyers were not checking the quality of the fruit properly and selling improperly stored fruit that looked good. They were able to buy that lower quality fruit and sell it at their stores. It ruined the red delicious apple market. Stores survived. They didn't take the brunt of consumer reaction, the people who owned the apple orchards did.

Without the safeguards in place for making sure the color indicator is replaced and the corresponding educational program for consumers for what is happening and other methods for determining safety and freshness, the program is just a fraud on consumers. Just like the red delicious apple deal, it will come back to haunt producers. Can we trust food companies to produce safe products at high quality when they have an economic incentive to cut corners? The fact that we have USDA inspectors answers that question for you already. Where is the highest profit margin for the protein industries when the supply of beef is limited because of the market or safety scandals? Go read Tyson's quarterly report and you will get your answer.

Is this program good for cattle producers? Improperly done, the answer is unequivacably NO.

I did not even go into the market power plays that can be done with the extension of "fresh" shelf life.

Put your cheerleading outfit away until you have a good team idea that is properly executed, Beefman.

 

[mrj]

MRJ: "Sandhusker, what part of "the shelf life of the product is about 10 days" do you not understand? I believe where the term "Fresh" is used in meats, it refers to meat that is never frozen. And believe we can safely assume that it does NOT mean a product that has spoiled. "

Econ: So, MRJ, the term "Fresh" has its own meaning but the color of meat can be manipulated with CO2 to make it look "fresh"?
**************
MRJ: The CO gas actually used in that packaging referred to in the story of Kroger ending usage does not "manipulate" the beef, but excludes the air from contacting and discoloring it. That you choose to believe something other than that fact does not change that fact.
MRJ

Econ: It is called oxidation, MRJ. CO or CO2 gas prevents oxidation which discolors the meat and allows someone to have an indication of how "fresh" it is by its color. It is a hoax.
**************

Econ: You are on the packer backer side of this issue as you are on almost every issue, MRJ. Admit it, you will put packer interests before customer or producer interests everytime. Nothing new.
***********
MRJ: Wrong again! I'm ALWAYS on the side of the producer and the consumer. We both want beef to be the best it can be.
When choosing a fresh apple or banana salad in a restaurant, I will choose that treated with something like Fruit Fresh over that which has turned brown from exposure to air. As a beef consumer, I will choose beautifully red Atmospheric Packaged beef when I can find it over the slightly browning air exposed beef. Same difference. The consumer will choose the best deal. The beef will be removed from the case BEFORE the "sell by" date indicated on the package for real freshness and product safety.MRJ

Econ: You sure don't mind fooling them.
**************


MRJ:"Econ, what can you cite as evidence that "NCBA is in bed with the USDA"? The actions of NCBA are according to member mandate. The membership is more than 60% cow/calf producers. The fact that those 14,400+ cow/calf producers DO NOT think the same as R-CALF members may be a surprise to you, but it also DOES NOT mean that they are somehow so charmed by packers as to do their bidding, nor to give USDA a pass when FINDING them wrong about something affecting the cattle industry. "

Econ: Mrj, I think the member mandate lie has been well vetted here on this forum.
***************
MRJ:The ONLY lie about the NCBA member mandate, has been when some of you claim that members do not mandate policy of the organization.
MRJ

Econ: As I said, that issue has been well vetted and got more rcalf members than probably anything. That means you lost on the issue, MRJ.
**************
Econ: You do not know what the other NCBA members think of rcalf. You are only guessing as to what they say.

MRJ here: Econ, you can rid yourself of that delusion! There have been numerous members of NCBA who have said many things about R-CALF to me along the lines of "isn't it sad that all that effort and money is being wasted on lawsuits and attacking beef safety in ads in city newspapers consumers will see and become confused about?" But, really, why are you even interested in that? How does it affect you? I most certainly do not have to guess what those I talk to at meetings are saying. They are very capable of making their thoughts clear......no guessing about it. MRJ

Econ: These issues are better discussed by cattlemen that want to produce a safe and profitable product than by someone like Reader or Flounder at the funeral or a farmer who has been pushed into foreclosure by the exercise of market power.
*****************

Econ: You don't even know how many have to be a part of NCBA to be able to get other benefits and not just believe the junk you keep putting out.

**************
MRJ: Econ, are you claiming that you do? What is the number, please? And, what is your source for that information? I can say with at least as validity that you do not know how many R-CALF members are just in name only, paid for by donors of money rather than actually paying their own dues and actively participating in the business meetings of that group. MRJ

Econ: You can believe that the members of rcalf are not in it for the packers, like the NCBA happens to be.
********************


Sandhusker, when did I state that I do not want the Atmospheric Packaging labeled as to what it is? I believe that should have done from the start, if in fact it was not. Do you KNOW that it isn't labeled?

Econ: MRJ, I know how it is labled. Real little.

MRJ:
Why do you believe those who developed and or those who use that packaging do not do so for the purpose of selling better quality beef, and hopefully recouping their costs by the fact that they will not have to put the beef on special (lower) prices sooner that the beef would lose it's color WHILE STILL BEING VERY FRESH from a safety and normal shelf life status

. FACT: beef will develop an ugly brown color long before it is "spoiled" when kept in properly chilled retail coolers.

That ugly color causes meat to be put on sale prices as soon as it begins to develop. Any that does not sell quickly will have to be thrown out as soon as the "sell by" date arrives. That is what adds up to the $1.+Billion in loss. It is either sold at discount prices that may be below the cost of purchase, or it may be an outright total loss.

Econ: The best tool of selling more beef is having a good eating experience. If people eat beef because it looks good and still isn't, how do you think that is going to help demand?

While I understand that some people cheer at any loss to retailers and packers and others you love to hate in the chain of beef production, how do you think that loss will affect cattle producers, really????

MRJ

Econ: No one is cheering the loss of retailers. Everyone wants them to handle the food items produced properly. Only an IDIOT would make that statement. Put on the shoe, MRJ.

MRJ

You and others on this site are not the only people criticizing packers and retailers, unfortunately. There are many in SD with access to radio who run a quite constant barrage of misleading to false statements about them that evidence a high degree of hatred and involerance while blaming them for most ills of the cattle markets, and even are critical when cattle prices are going up. It's called "telling cattle producers what they want to hear", rather than the hard facts that change is inevitable, and those who want to be successful raising cattle will be better served by those who encourage and help them adjust to and profit from change.

MRJ

 

[ranch hand]

:shock:

 

[Econ101]

**************
MRJ: Econ, are you claiming that you do? What is the number, please? And, what is your source for that information? I can say with at least as validity that you do not know how many R-CALF members are just in name only, paid for by donors of money rather than actually paying their own dues and actively participating in the business meetings of that group. MRJ

Econ: You can believe that the members of rcalf are not in it for the packers, like the NCBA happens to be.
********************


Sandhusker, when did I state that I do not want the Atmospheric Packaging labeled as to what it is? I believe that should have done from the start, if in fact it was not. Do you KNOW that it isn't labeled?

Econ: MRJ, I know how it is labled. Real little.

MRJ:
Why do you believe those who developed and or those who use that packaging do not do so for the purpose of selling better quality beef, and hopefully recouping their costs by the fact that they will not have to put the beef on special (lower) prices sooner that the beef would lose it's color WHILE STILL BEING VERY FRESH from a safety and normal shelf life status

. FACT: beef will develop an ugly brown color long before it is "spoiled" when kept in properly chilled retail coolers.

That ugly color causes meat to be put on sale prices as soon as it begins to develop. Any that does not sell quickly will have to be thrown out as soon as the "sell by" date arrives. That is what adds up to the $1.+Billion in loss. It is either sold at discount prices that may be below the cost of purchase, or it may be an outright total loss.

Econ: The best tool of selling more beef is having a good eating experience. If people eat beef because it looks good and still isn't, how do you think that is going to help demand?

While I understand that some people cheer at any loss to retailers and packers and others you love to hate in the chain of beef production, how do you think that loss will affect cattle producers, really????

MRJ

Econ: No one is cheering the loss of retailers. Everyone wants them to handle the food items produced properly. Only an IDIOT would make that statement. Put on the shoe, MRJ.

MRJ

You and others on this site are not the only people criticizing packers and retailers, unfortunately. There are many in SD with access to radio who run a quite constant barrage of misleading to false statements about them that evidence a high degree of hatred and involerance while blaming them for most ills of the cattle markets, and even are critical when cattle prices are going up. It's called "telling cattle producers what they want to hear", rather than the hard facts that change is inevitable, and those who want to be successful raising cattle will be better served by those who encourage and help them adjust to and profit from change.

MRJ

I think a little truth is better than telling just what the packers want them to hear. I don't blame anyone who doesn't deserve the blame, MRJ. Change is inevitable, but you better look at the poultry and pork sectors to see if it is the kind of change you want and can live with.

 

[mrj]

You and others on this site are not the only people criticizing packers and retailers, unfortunately. There are many in SD with access to radio who run a quite constant barrage of misleading to false statements about them that evidence a high degree of hatred and involerance while blaming them for most ills of the cattle markets, and even are critical when cattle prices are going up. It's called "telling cattle producers what they want to hear", rather than the hard facts that change is inevitable, and those who want to be successful raising cattle will be better served by those who encourage and help them adjust to and profit from change.

MRJ

I think a little truth is better than telling just what the packers want them to hear. I don't blame anyone who doesn't deserve the blame, MRJ. Change is inevitable, but you better look at the poultry and pork sectors to see if it is the kind of change you want and can live with.

Econ, I really don't care what the packers may "want to hear" so your usual lies (quoting your post above: "You will put packer interests before customer or producer interests every time") and other comment to that effect has no relevance. I care what is good for the cattle/beef industry and consumers.

When you say "the best tool of selling more beef is having a good eating experience. If people eat beef because it looks good and still isn't, how do you think that is going to help demand?" Your premise is based on a lie when you claim it will be sold after it spoils. The beef in Atmospheric packaging IS to be sold well before the date it would begin to deteriorate.

The goal of Atmospheric packaging is to keep the beef looking as good as it really is. I know that doesn't fit your "evil packer" bias, but it is fact! If there is a safe way to keep bacteria from growing, I want beef that is packaged that way and I believe, if given FACTUAL INFORMATION about it, the vast majority of other consumers would feel the same.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

The fact is, MRJ, that one of the pieces of the package I bought was spoiled. Granted, Tyson did the right thing and returned my money. I do give them credit for that. If my wife had bought the meat and it had been one of the days where she was not able to smell, we probably would have had a different result. The CO2 packaging takes away one of the real indicators of freshnes, the color. The Tyson rep. said the package was probably taken out of the refrigerated section for some time by another shopper and that is why the piece was "bad". The date on the package had 2 days left on it before epiration but the meat looked "fresh".

The CO2 takes away an important indicator of freshness and there is no replacement technology on the package yet. If you take out an important indicator of freshness and do not replace it with some kind of technology and do not educate customers that the expiration date is IMPORTANT NOW THAT YOU CAN NOT TELL BY THE COLOR, then you are committing a FRAUD ON CONSUMERS. MRJ, you can argue with a lot of things, but you can't argue with facts. People with the reasoning ability you have are going to kill the beef industry. I am sorry I called you an "idiot" and a "packer backer" before. It has done nothing to deter you from your own faults.