• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Survey of consumer attitude on ground beef safety

mrj

Well-known member
Since the Topps recall, Beef Checkoff issues management team used checkoff funds to do a survey of consumer attitudes about ground beef safety.

A few points from the survey follow, and more information available at www.bifsco.org, or www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com.

The survey shows that consumers are well aware E. coli is associated with ground beef, but rank beef well below fish and chicken as a food safety concern.

However, consumers do not know proper internal cooking temperatures for ground eef, and few use instant-read thermometers when cooking it.

Jay O'Brien, Amarillo rancher and chair of the Joing Public Opinon and Issues management Group says "It's vital to our industry that we as producers provide safe product to the U.S. and abroad. But raising safe beef isn't the only goal--it's teaching consumers how to KEEP it safe through proper food preparaion."

Consumers are reminded that a meat thermometer can help: 1. prevent foodborne illness; 2. cook and hold food at safe temperatures; 3, prevent overcooking meat.

Consumers need to make sure the thermometer is designed for meat and poultry and not for candy or other foods, and to insert the thermometer properly: For ground meat--place in the thickest area of meat loaf: insert sideways in thin items such as patties; For red meat, roasts, steaks, or chops--insert in the center of the thickest part, away from bone, fat, and gristle. "Using a meat thermometer is the only reliable way to ensure safety and to determine the 'donness' of meat, poultry and egg products," says O'Brien. "To be safe, beef must be cooked to an internal temperature high enough to destroy harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7."

I add that such professionally designed consumer surveys are used to plan the messages and information consumers want and need to help them give their families safe and satisfying beef eating experiences at home. Those messages will be used in education and promotions with Checkoff dollars.

mrj
 

PORKER

Well-known member
EFSA: keep ban on cattle blood in fish feed
// 10 jan 2008

Despite the wish of the European Animal Protein Association to reintroduction bovine spray dried red cells as an ingredient for fish feed, the EFSA says no to any relaxation of the ban.


After the assessment of the potential dangers of adding bovine blood compounds to fish feed, EFSA’s Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards concluded that currently there is insufficient data to quantify the degree of BSE risk for animal or human health from feeding cattle blood products to farmed fish.

According to the Panel, there would also be an undesired side effect from adding bovine blood to feed for fish, as this would potentially limit the suitability of current detection methods to distinguish between the blood and other prohibited bovine by-products in animal feeds, such as Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) which include cattle brain, spinal cord and other potentially BSE infectious tissues.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The survey shows that consumers are well aware E. coli is associated with ground beef, but rank beef well below fish and chicken as a food safety concern.

So, consumers buy more of a product they believe has more bacteria safety concerns????? :roll: Must have other concerns with beef...like saturated fat will kill them??????
 

Mike

Well-known member
Maybe the NCBA should start a promotion by giving away a meat thermometer with every package of beef sold?

Yes sir! This would really help the perception that beef is a safe product. :roll:
 

mrj

Well-known member
You boys sure don't like to admit there is a need for MORE safety in home preparation of foods, do you?

People rarely get Home Ec in school these days. Many do not know how to properly and safely prepare food, and/or the safe cooking temperatures for meats

UNTIL you agree that irradiation and impervious packaging is the only certain means of getting guaranteed safe beef to the consumer, it needs to be recognized that proper methods need to be used in homes

BTW those proper methods are simply basic cleanliness and cooking rules, which consumers have not learned or fail to follow.

Why have none of you opened the "PORKER/MIKE/ROBERTMAC Bet the Ranch Packing Company and Guaranteed Safe Beef No Matter How You Handle It Market" long ago?

You could even include Sandhusker and advertise that your business employees only guaranteed US Citizen, highly paid, happy workers!

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Maybe the NCBA should start a promotion by giving away a meat thermometer with every package of beef sold?

Yes sir! This would really help the perception that beef is a safe product. :roll:

Yep and tell them that since Maxine and NCBA say its OK for the Packers to hurry and be careless and put cow sh*t all over their meat- they can't eat their meat rare like they have before now......

"We'll teach them thar dum folk to eat what we give them- not want they want...How dare they ask for SAFE products" :???: :wink: :lol:
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj, knowledge or lack thereof of proper food handling procedures is no excuse for packers not to keep the crap out of beef, no matter how much you think so.

You can cook cow crap up to 200 degrees for 30 minutes and eat that too without getting ecoli. Does that mean you should do it?

Why do you bend over so backwards for these packers and their inability to do their job properly? It has been shown to depress beef demand when it happens. Is that what you want to accept in your zeal for their approval?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj, when beef has to be irradiated to kill bacteria, you are admitting to the consumer that our product is UNSAFE!!!! When you tell the consumer to eat LEAN beef, you are admitting that the fat in our product is UNSAFE!!! We are not going to increase beef sales and consumption by telling the consumer that beef is not as bad as it could be!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, you missing the point. Is it possible, with the workforce available, and the current meat processing systems we have today, meaning speed is essential to maintain the current output of all foods, not just beef, and the human element where poor judgement for a moment, or accidental or intentional ommission of duties can cause contamination, do you really believe it is possible to GUARANTEE absolute safety of beef or any other food?

NO, for the record, I'm NOT saying beef IS unsafe, I'm only saying safety of every package of beef produced CANNOT be guaranteed today, nor may it soon be, unless the ENTIRE industry works together to end problems rather than stand back and point fingers and assign blame.

How long will it take to get your apparently preferred system of small, local packers up and running and how many more government employees will it require to continually inspect and test every speck of meat produced? How long will it take to assemble and train that army, let alone figure out how the beef industry can pay for it given that consumers are not willing to pay much more for food, and escalating fuel costs are going to eat up any available money anyway.

Yes, we should strive for perfection, but can even you guarantee nothing ever can or will contaminate the beef you sell, or that you or anyone else has the means right now to guarantee the quality and safety of an amount like the 26.4 BILLION pounds produced last year in this country?

Tex, what is your source for claiming that consumers back off eating beef in any significant way when beef recalls make news?

Do you really believe that packers are not trying to stop e coli, and what is your validation of that belief, if you do?

Why are you so sure it is packers who are not managing properly? One employee failing to do his job properly and covering it up is all it would take for an outbreak like the Topps deal to happen. Why do you refuse to admit that?

Maybe you have no knowledge of what a business owner has to go through to stay in business. I do. Do you think packers really do not try the best they can to do things right? Do you think they are so ignorant, or so arrogant, or so crooked that they cannot grasp that they will eventually get caught? When are you going to organize an army of spies to document the failures of packing plants so you can get all the credit and fulfill your goals for putting them out of business?

If I were simply standing up for packers, which I'm not, it would be because most of your ilk on this site are attacking them when it is the E. coli you should be attacking or working to stop.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
No, mrj, you're missing the point!!! I talk to and sell beef to the consumers that are turning away from conventional beef. All of them say they will never buy ground beef from the grocery store...that is the results of RECALLS!!!!!!! And they don't want their meat "nuked"!!! Granted these opinions are biased from the consumer group that doesn't eat beef, but shouldn't that be the target group if we want to increase beef consumption???

The grassfed beef industry began on the idea that it was leaner than conventional grainfed beef and was, therefore, believed to be a more healthy product. The irony is that the leaders of the grassfed industry are promoting the production and consumption of beef with a higher fat content...because we understand that the fat is where the majority of the vitamins and minerals are...because fat contains the CLA and Omega-3...and (a fact that is not being reported by anyone) fat doesn't react with the endocrine system to increase insulin production which is responsible for increasing the fatty acid transfer to fat cells...making us fat(that's what carbs do!!!!!!!!!!!)
CBB as the same arrogant attitude that NCBA/USDA have...this is what we produce and the way we produce it...TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:
 

mrj

Well-known member
RobertMac, maybe your bias against NCBA clouds your mind more than a little!

YOU miss the point that NCBA, CBB and other RESPONSIBLE groups and individuals CANNOT advertise what has not been proven, validated through testing and the proper channels, no matter how much they/we may want to.

It takes time and effort to do that, and it IS being done and the benefits of the fatty acids in beef WILL be exonerated, and CBB and NCBA will act with NECESSARY caution in making claims in advertising and education.

The last line of your post gives away your ignorance of facts re. work of CBB and NCBA. They work diligently and frequently with consumers in groups and individually to learn what people want. Then they work with industry (and usually get those businesses to invest multiple times the dollars the Checkoff invests on the project) to give consumers what they have said they want. That is one reason the very successful Flat Iron steak, was developed. That is why new beef cuts have recently come out, and it is why some new snack beef items are coming out soon. The consumer survey I used to start this thread was taken, for that matter. Not everything ventured has been successful. It is pretty well known that quite often what consumers say they want, and what they actually buy and eat are not the same.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "YOU miss the point that NCBA, CBB and other RESPONSIBLE groups and individuals CANNOT advertise what has not been proven, validated through testing and the proper channels, no matter how much they/we may want to."

They're advertising small portions of lean beef. Has that been proven to be better for you than larger portions of "regular beef"?

MRJ, "It takes time and effort to do that, and it IS being done and the benefits of the fatty acids in beef WILL be exonerated, and CBB and NCBA will act with NECESSARY caution in making claims in advertising and education."

If the fatty acids in beef will be exonerated, why support a product "lean beef" that will require them to backtrack once the truth comes out? Wouldn't it be more prudent to say, "Before we spend another dime, let's get to the bottom of this so we don't waste money and come out looking like fools later"?

The last line of your post gives away your ignorance of facts re. work of CBB and NCBA. They work diligently and frequently with consumers in groups and individually to learn what people want.

Consumers overwhelmingly are in favor of COOL. Explain NCBA's opposition to this popular legislation.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Does ONE size fit all, in all categories? NO! Some people have individual problems, some have individual tastes.

Eating 'styles' vary and change. Low Fat is and has been, and most likely will be a very popular eating 'style' for the near term, at least. While what is popular is not necessarily the best thing, it isn't easy or quick to change a 'popular' perception, even one that is in error.

With so many people who eat too much, would it be wise for the Beef Checkoff to advertise that EVERYONE can eat all they want of any one food group, when they necessarily (due to capacity, if nothing else!) would be omitting needed nutrients, some of which complement those in beef and are found in other food groups????

People in general do not trust others saying things like "When the truth is known" or "others have kept this hidden from you". Anyway, isn't it more accurate to say that it has not been known and understood, nor verified with long term studies, that the fatty acids in beef are a veritable health necessity?

I'm glad the Checkoff leaders have used caution about fatty acid benefits, and won't have to apologize for a huge mistake, as might have been the case.

Re. COOL, yet again! NCBA opposition is due to the MEMBERS believing that there are too many flaws in COOL, as passed. You may well come to rue the day it is enforced, given that what consumers REALLY want is ranch of origin, not just country. Additionally, what is POPULAR is not always what is RIGHT.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
RobertMac, maybe your bias against NCBA clouds your mind more than a little!

Your bias FOR NCBA has you close-minded!!!!!!!

YOU miss the point that NCBA, CBB and other RESPONSIBLE groups and individuals CANNOT advertise what has not been proven, validated through testing and the proper channels, no matter how much they/we may want to.

The Am. Heart Asso., Am. Dietetic Asso., and Am. Diabetes Asso. ARE advertising and recommending what has not been proven, validated through testing and the proper channels. Yes, they berate any opposition to their flawed, unproven "scientific consensus" into submission. The fact is that Ancel Keys's "Seven Countries Study" has never been proven true, but has been accepted as the basis for saturated fat being the cause of heart disease. The fact is that the endocrine system doesn't respond the same to fat calories as it does to carbohydrate calories...it is carbs that make people fat!

The facts in favor of meat being a healthy food in our diet...saturated fats from meat have been a part of the human diet since the beginning of humanity!!!! Why, since Ancel Keys's study in the 1960s, has saturated fats all of a sudden started to kill people????????
Every isolated culture that ate a diet high in meat and milk(saturated fats) were almost free of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer until they began to eat the western diet that is high in refined carbohydrates!

Bring something to this debate besides your blind, close-minded loyalty to NCBA!!!!!!!!!!


It takes time and effort to do that, and it IS being done and the benefits of the fatty acids in beef WILL be exonerated, and CBB and NCBA will act with NECESSARY caution in making claims in advertising and education.

The last line of your post gives away your ignorance of facts re. work of CBB and NCBA. They work diligently and frequently with consumers in groups and individually to learn what people want. Then they work with industry (and usually get those businesses to invest multiple times the dollars the Checkoff invests on the project) to give consumers what they have said they want. That is one reason the very successful Flat Iron steak, was developed. That is why new beef cuts have recently come out, and it is why some new snack beef items are coming out soon. The consumer survey I used to start this thread was taken, for that matter. Not everything ventured has been successful. It is pretty well known that quite often what consumers say they want, and what they actually buy and eat are not the same.

You ignore the facts that the beef industry has regressed because of the promotion of unproven recommendations and studies that claim beef to be unhealthy. It doesn't matter how many new cuts or items are developed if the consumer believes beef is unhealthy. When are NCBA and CBB going to standup and fight for the product we produce?????????????????


mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "While what is popular is not necessarily the best thing, it isn't easy or quick to change a 'popular' perception, even one that is in error."
MRJ, "I'm glad the Checkoff leaders have used caution about fatty acid benefits, and won't have to apologize for a huge mistake, as might have been the case.

You're not getting it. You claim NCBA and CBB won't promote anything until it has been proven. Has it been proven that lean beef is better than "regular"?

Re. COOL, yet again! NCBA opposition is due to the MEMBERS believing that there are too many flaws in COOL, as passed. You may well come to rue the day it is enforced, given that what consumers REALLY want is ranch of origin, not just country. Additionally, what is POPULAR is not always what is RIGHT.

Ah, so, the story changes! It now appears that NCBA listens to consumers only when it matches what they want! That is a far cry from your original statements about NCBA listening to consumers and working with them. Of course, most of us knew that was the case.

Strange how the story has changed from consumers not caring about country of origin, but now they want ranch of origin? :lol: Who told you that? I don't believe it for a second. There is a (growing) niche of consumers that do care about ranch of origin, but for most of the people, that is meaningless information. You're telling me that it makes a difference to a mother in Boston that the meat she is buying came from the Bar 7 in Nebraska or the Arrowhead in South Dakota - but she isn't concerned about the country? Do you realize how much sense that doesn't make?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
Does ONE size fit all, in all categories? NO! Some people have individual problems, some have individual tastes.

Eating 'styles' vary and change. Low Fat is and has been, and most likely will be a very popular eating 'style' for the near term, at least. While what is popular is not necessarily the best thing, it isn't easy or quick to change a 'popular' perception, even one that is in error.

The one thing that has been proven beyond any doubt is that a low fat diet DOES NOT WORK!!!!! In the last 10 years, obesity has increased to the point that one third of Americans are obese.


With so many people who eat too much, would it be wise for the Beef Checkoff to advertise that EVERYONE can eat all they want of any one food group, when they necessarily (due to capacity, if nothing else!) would be omitting needed nutrients, some of which complement those in beef and are found in other food groups????

Do you know that a doctor put the executive of Dupont on a diet of NO CARBS and all the meat they wanted to eat? The results were that they lost weight(while eating as much as 3,000 to 4,000 calorie diets) and felt healthier!!!

People in general do not trust others saying things like "When the truth is known" or "others have kept this hidden from you". Anyway, isn't it more accurate to say that it has not been known and understood, nor verified with long term studies, that the fatty acids in beef are a veritable health necessity?

I'm glad the Checkoff leaders have used caution about fatty acid benefits, and won't have to apologize for a huge mistake, as might have been the case.

Why have Checkoff leaders not questioned accepted diet recommendations????

Re. COOL, yet again! NCBA opposition is due to the MEMBERS believing that there are too many flaws in COOL, as passed. You may well come to rue the day it is enforced, given that what consumers REALLY want is ranch of origin, not just country. Additionally, what is POPULAR is not always what is RIGHT.

mrj

Above I had written... "The one thing that has been proven beyond any doubt is that a low carb diet DOES NOT WORK!!!!!"

It should have said that a LOW FAT DIET DOES NOT WORK, so I corrected it. :oops:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker, short on time tonight, so, 1. it is ACCEPTED by many nutrition and health professionals that lean anything is better for people than fat laden foods. Not saying that is right or wrong....but that it IS.

2. No change! NCBA and CBB do listen to consumers. A. It isn't always practical to take what is said at face value, BECAUSE often consumers actions are not the same as the talk and consumers have been known to change their minds about things from time to time. YOU claim to know a lot of things about NCBA that is NOT factual!

3. I didn't say consumers don't care about country of origin, I said they care NOT ONLY about country of origin but want to know where and by whom foor is raised. That was an after the numbers comment by the professional polling company of one of the polls touted as PROVING that consumers want COOL on this site some time back.

Did you deliberately twist that around with your claim that I said that "a mother in Boston......wants to know which ranch the meat she is buying comes from...... but isn't concerned about the country"?.........or did you truly fail to understand that what I actually said was that consumers want to know BOTH country and ranch of origin?

While I don't know for certain whether that means she wants the actual information in her hands, or wants it known by herself or someone in authority in case of need to find the source of an illness, it was the claim of that pollster that consumers DO want that info in some way or for it to be available in case of need.

mrj


MRJ
 

PORKER

Well-known member
MRJ Quote;. I didn't say consumers don't care about country of origin, I said they care NOT ONLY about country of origin but want to know where and by whom food is raised. That was an after the numbers comment by the professional polling company of one of the polls touted as PROVING that consumers want COOL on this site some time back.

Ain't Non of this going to happen without a field to fork database like SA and unique RFID tags in every heads ear from birth thru the stockyard on to the packer with Pack-It software to maintain COOL vertification of animal source.

On another note , we had a safe trip to Florida ranch, it is a little dry and hay is $11 bucks for a 70 lb. bale. At least we had a tail wind going south.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
mrj said:
Sandhusker, short on time tonight, so, 1. it is ACCEPTED by many nutrition and health professionals that lean anything is better for people than fat laden foods. Not saying that is right or wrong....but that it IS.

2. No change! NCBA and CBB do listen to consumers. A. It isn't always practical to take what is said at face value, BECAUSE often consumers actions are not the same as the talk and consumers have been known to change their minds about things from time to time. YOU claim to know a lot of things about NCBA that is NOT factual!

3. I didn't say consumers don't care about country of origin, I said they care NOT ONLY about country of origin but want to know where and by whom foor is raised. That was an after the numbers comment by the professional polling company of one of the polls touted as PROVING that consumers want COOL on this site some time back.

Did you deliberately twist that around with your claim that I said that "a mother in Boston......wants to know which ranch the meat she is buying comes from...... but isn't concerned about the country"?.........or did you truly fail to understand that what I actually said was that consumers want to know BOTH country and ranch of origin?

While I don't know for certain whether that means she wants the actual information in her hands, or wants it known by herself or someone in authority in case of need to find the source of an illness, it was the claim of that pollster that consumers DO want that info in some way or for it to be available in case of need.

mrj


MRJ

NCBA will only market based on proven principles, unless it is accepted by selected individuals.

NCBA always listens to customers, unless they choose to doubt those customers.

COOL was just a "cheap marketing ploy", now consumers care.

I get it. :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The idea that a diet high in fats is unhealthy and a diet high in carbohydrates is healthy is ACCEPTED by a small group of powerful, Ivy league nutrition and health professionals that are well funded by the sugar and processed food industries. These are the people that attacked Robert Atkins and every other clinicians that promote and use a low carb diet for weight reduction in their obese patients. Until the late 1970s, when this group came into power, a low carb, calorie restricted diet was the scientifically accepted treatment for obesity.
There is plenty of research on the subject of fat metabolism and the effects carbohydrates have on the insulin regulatory system and the effects of insulin on our metabolic system. CBB doesn't have to do the research. All that is needed is a strong voice that will withstand the assault from this group and the industries that support them.

Why does CBB/NCBA let these other industries demonize our product so they can sell theirs, but won't reciprocate???????
 
Top