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

The trend towards natural beef products

Help Support Ranchers.net:

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Oregon
It doesn't talk about painted Hills Beef Coop in Oregon. You can see why I tend to tout the success of these programs, I am surrounded by them.

Fred Meyers recently hit the ground running on All-Natural Buffalo Program, smart move to differentiate.

Pat
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
I can see it as a marketing ploy, but wouldn't it be more honest to test the beef for residues? Is there ANY residue from hormones in the animal, when properly done? Is there ANY residue from antibiotics when correct time before processing is followed? Perceptions of what it takes to produce "pristine" beef often are not based on fact. It would be fine and dandy if people choose to eat only beef raised in a particular way, fed specific types of feed, or even pampered and massaged and fed beer! But people doing that should not be allowed to state or even infer that beef produced conventionally is less safe or desirable, IMO.

Isn't it illegal to feed "the meat byproducts that can carry mad cow disease", as the writer mistakenly states? The "byproducts" actually are brain and other tissues, not "meat". It seems more accurate to say that those SRM tissues MIGHT carry BSE, rather than that they CAN carry it. But simple, boring information doesn't sell so well, does it?

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MRJ, I'm sure you are a firm believer in the Henry Ford adage..."You can have any color car you want, as long as it's black". If the consumer ask for red or blue or green and you tell them you only have black, they go and buy chicken or pork! Consumer perception is reality when you are trying get them to give you their money for your product. Without their money, we have the market share regression that beef has seen since the peak per capita consumption in 1985.

Back in 1986, with red meat becoming a dirty word in a more health-conscious United States,

Ignore the consumer at your peril!
 

Kathy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Location
Home on the Range, Alberta
MRJ, if everyone were doing things in an up and up manner, we still would face idiosyncrasies which turn up, without the fan-fair, example:

A chemical pour-on used by my neighbor used to have a 28 day withdrawal period, now it has a 55 day withdrawal period. Why did this change came about?

Just as tests are becoming more sophisticated for prions; the tests for chemical contaminants are becoming more selective and efficient. This boils down to, what are acceptable levels. If the consumer doesn't want any of this crap in the product they are buying - then why wouldn't you stop using it, and find more holistic methods of eliminating parasites.

A prominent vet who gave a seminar on HACCP recently, made the comment that this quality control program was only a "gimmic" for the organic industry. But for those of us not organic, it was an absolute necessity.

If it is a gimmic, or marketing ploy, for the organic industry - then obviously the only thing which this program is worried about monitoring, is the use of chemicals and feeds not utilized in the organic meat industry.

What other reason could she have had for calling it a "gimmic" when the organic groups are using it?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
RobertMac, there seems to me quite a difference between giving the consumer what she/he wants, and allowing people to make claims about beef that are not true.

Such as: the consumer who maybe just for the "yuk factor", wants only beef that is fed only ________, processed in ______manner. No possibly bogus health claims made. That is fine with me.

On the other hand: a company touts beef fed only ______, because "commodity" beef is fed "XYZ feeds that will make your masculinity questionable", stated for the purpose of selling their product for considerable amounts above conventionally raised beef. That is mighty close to committing fraud against both the consumer and the producers of conventionally raised beef, IMO. And we in the beef industry should not allow it to go unchallenged because that gives the scam artist credibility in the eye of the public.

Contrary to your assumption, RM, I truly am in favor of providing the products consumers want. I simply do not want them to be ill-informed victims of scams about their foods.

Kathy, I find the comment by that vet strange, considering that HACCP is a modern system of check points, cleanliness, and scientific tests far advanced from the "look, touch, smell" system of determining if beef is wholesome in use prior to HACCP. I do know that the unions of the meat inspectors fought very long and hard against acceptance of HACCP. But to have a trained vet put it down, when it requires science based testing to replace the mostly hit and miss guessing game previously employed is just hard to imagine. It would be interesting to hear the lady expand on her remark.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
On the other hand: a company touts beef fed only ______, because "commodity" beef is fed "XYZ feeds that will make your masculinity questionable", stated for the purpose of selling their product for considerable amounts above conventionally raised beef. That is mighty close to committing fraud against both the consumer and the producers of conventionally raised beef, IMO.

MRJ

Kind of like the fraud of taking cheap imported beef and removing the country import labels and restamping with the USDA stamp to pass it off as US beef- and reselling it at a considerably higher amount..-- but that is condoned and supported by the Big Business bought USDA and NCBA..... :???:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Obviously the only thing which this program is worried about monitoring, is the use of chemicals and feeds not utilized in the organic meat industry.

Obviously, They wouldn't want www.scoringag.com records as they can't be changed. ScoringAg records are not made for liers and cheats.

Thanks to concerns about mad cow disease, the success of natural foods stores and Americans' growing desire to know where their food comes from, natural meat is one of the beef industry's fastest-growing sectors.
The growing demand has moved natural beef into mainstream stores. For example, Laura's Lean meats are sold in Albertson's and Fred Meyer stores in Oregon, and shoppers on Fresh Direct, a New York-based Internet grocer, can choose from USDA choice top sirloin steak for $4.99 a pound and Creekstone Farms antibiotic-free choice top sirloin for $5.99.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ, Just because we do not currently know of any ill effects of non-organic foods does not mean that they are not there. DDT was not banned until a lot of evidence was seen in wildlife populations. We almost lost the bald eagle. There is no telling what some of these chemicals do. Tyson is currently fighting lawsuits on the Roxarasone (sp?) that they put in their poultry feed. It is an organic arsenic that was later found by independent studies (independent of Tyson's and the manufactorer) that more arsenic was left in the meat than was claimed. The recommended allowable limit had to be raised or consumption of poultry laced arsenic reduced.

Bayer is fighting the FDA's stance on taking Batril (sp?) off of the market because of drug resistant bactria produced when it is fed as feed supplement to poultry. I know of at least one poultry farmer who claims to have been poisoned with this "superbug" after making complaints to the government about a poultry company. Maybe there are a lot of Americans who are a lot smarter than you about eating organic food. I am not an organic nut but it is becoming more and more appealing as I learn how agribusiness competes on price at the expense of quality. Obviously there are a lot of people who feel the same.

The lowest common denominator of competition does not need to be the safety of our food. Today in our country and yours there is not the political will to make sure this does not happen. I guess there has to be a noticable disaster for change but a lot of people are not taking that chance. They may be right.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
MRJ Quotes;
wouldn't it be more honest to test the beef for residues? Yes and how about BSE ,MRJ

Is there ANY residue from hormones in the animal, when properly done?Yes and the EU. will not let our implanted beef IN, MRJ

Is there ANY residue from antibiotics when correct time before processing is followed? Yes ,but is your level of exposure greater then Mine! If you get cancer and I don't is their a difference.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:
On the other hand: a company touts beef fed only ______, because "commodity" beef is fed "XYZ feeds that will make your masculinity questionable", stated for the purpose of selling their product for considerable amounts above conventionally raised beef. That is mighty close to committing fraud against both the consumer and the producers of conventionally raised beef, IMO.

MRJ

Kind of like the fraud of taking cheap imported beef and removing the country import labels and restamping with the USDA stamp to pass it off as US beef- and reselling it at a considerably higher amount..-- but that is condoned and supported by the Big Business bought USDA and NCBA..... :???:

OT, up to your usual charges.....why does it fail to surprise us that you include NO example of what you charge re. "restamping with the USDA stamp...."?

Porker, surely cleanliness is a component of HACCP, so that would be a concern in ALL packing facilities, including for "Organic" beef, right? And wouldn't we want that beef checked for possible disease missed with lack of medication allowed for treatment? Not saying there would be mis-representation of a sick animal, just that it might be possible for one to be missed. I darn sure would want ALL packing plants using the science based HACCP if I or any one I cared about were eating beef processed there.

MRJ
MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ-"OT, up to your usual charges.....why does it fail to surprise us that you include NO example of what you charge re. "restamping with the USDA stamp...."?"


MRJ- Are you blonde :???: Or do you have selective memory :lol: You need to get out and get some air and see whats happening in the world....Did you forget already about when the NCBA officers were testifying on capitol hill about this practice occurring?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
MRJ-"OT, up to your usual charges.....why does it fail to surprise us that you include NO example of what you charge re. "restamping with the USDA stamp...."?"


MRJ- Are you blonde :???: Or do you have selective memory :lol: You need to get out and get some air and see whats happening in the world....Did you forget already about when the NCBA officers were testifying on capitol hill about this practice occurring?

They flip flopped, and that is ok as the members voted on it. But they have no proof that they followed the members vote. Remind you of something else they flip flopped on?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Hate to bring up an old gripe (actually I don't), but is any of this "natural" product based on sound science? I thought "sound science" was a USDA requirement.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
Sandhusker said:
Hate to bring up an old gripe (actually I don't), but is any of this "natural" product based on sound science? I thought "sound science" was a USDA requirement.

Actually it's based in "real science"...Nature! :shock: :D
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
MRJ QUOTE:surely cleanliness is a component of HACCP, so that would be a concern in ALL packing facilities, including for "Organic" beef, right

Right MRJ,until you add trim from anywhere under the sun from plants that don't have a USDA inspector on duty!!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
PORKER said:
MRJ QUOTE:surely cleanliness is a component of HACCP, so that would be a concern in ALL packing facilities, including for "Organic" beef, right

Right MRJ,until you add trim from anywhere under the sun from plants that don't have a USDA inspector on duty!!!!!

Porker, from which countries is trim beef currently being imported? Do they, or do they not have to meet equivalent inspection to that required in the USA? Do they, or do they not have to have inspectors trained by the USA?

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
MRJ-"OT, up to your usual charges.....why does it fail to surprise us that you include NO example of what you charge re. "restamping with the USDA stamp...."?"


MRJ- Are you blonde :???: Or do you have selective memory :lol: You need to get out and get some air and see whats happening in the world....Did you forget already about when the NCBA officers were testifying on capitol hill about this practice occurring?

OT & rancher, which stamp was removed, and what stamp was applied? Did they remove "product of Canada" stamp and re-stamp with "product of USA"? Or did they remove, when further processing the meat, that Canadian stamp and add a "USDA INSPECTED" stamp. There is a difference, isn't there? I guess I should have asked specifically what you referred to and what you were implying. And no, I do not follow EVERY bit of testimony NCBA is involved in. I do have a life beyond this screen that requires some of my time. Never been blonde......never wanted to be! I just sometimes forget that there are word parsers and twisters on this forum determined to use any dishonest means they can get away with attempting to discredit NCBA.

rancher, why do you think you are owed any "proof" that leaders followed NCBA members vote? Also, that you did not see it does not mean it doesn't exist. Are you a member?

MRJ

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
OT & rancher, which stamp was removed, and what stamp was applied? Did they remove "product of Canada" stamp and re-stamp with "product of USA"? Or did they remove, when further processing the meat, that Canadian stamp and add a "USDA INSPECTED" stamp. There is a difference, isn't there?

There is a difference...one is legal and the other is illegal(I think?), but the meat is still Canadian after further processing...DECEPTION!?!?!! The real question is why do they remove " Product of Canada" ????????
 

Latest posts

Top