WHEN WILL THE AMI ALLOW THE USDA TO PERMIT TESTING

[Tam]

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products. As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented, I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.

Sandhusker does it cost more to produce Organic beef?

I thought the topic was BSE tested beef and who would pay for it. You want to start a new thread?

I thought the thread was about BSE tested too Sandhusker but guess who brought up Organic, You. So now that you back on topic if BSE tested beef becomes mainstream will Consumers be willing to pay a premium for it? If they won't pay a premium for mainstream product the PRODUCERS WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE TESTING as you can bet the packers will not eat the cost if they can recoop it to save their bottom line. And I love this little statement

no product is being mis-represented

The BSE TESTED LABEL will be mis representing the product as people will be assuming that label to mean it is BSE FREE which has been pointed out to you many times is a fraud. And I have just as much right to assume that is what the consumer will think as you do in them think the USDA INSPECTED LABEL means US BORN AND RAISED.

 

[Beefman]

Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products. As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented, I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.

Are inferences in lots of products?........all the time. Should gov't step aside so producers can meet consumers needs?......yep. It has been proven to be a successful strategy. Do we want gov't to regulate shopping so we buy based on science?.........nope. Do these statements take products off of shelves?......All the time.

Consumers buy based on logic vs emotion. All those catchy Super Bowl ads we just watched a couple of weeks ago........100% emotion. Not a whole lot of science involved with an elephant stomping a caveman (my favorite ad).

Organic / natural beef appeals emotionally to those who buy such products. They'll pay more for it. Likewise, it costs more to produce such product. No way are these products any safer or more nutritious. The consumers of such products might believe so, however they're scratching an emotional itch with the purchase. The market has proven consumers will pay more for such items.

So who'll pay / pay more for tested beef? Where's the room full of customers that'll pay premium prices? If you were lobbying the world to perform such practices on your products, wouldn't you also introduce us to that room full of hungry consumers screaming "I want tested beef!" Where are they? Selling organic / natural at premium pricing has been well defined. Selling BSE tested beef has never been defined.

Now I have to shoe horn in the science arguement. How can you emotionally tie a marketing story to testing for a disease entity that means nothing? That's a slipery slope......start testing for BSE, and the requests to test for XYZ diseases / parasites, etc will start to role in. Why wouldn't they? We've just handed international customers a perfect bargaining chip to purchase product at a cheaper price. For an industry that counts pennies, why start adding expenditures that'll start racking us (producers) for big bucks?

Japanese consumers are not unlike us. They're fickle, and frankly, this latest episode has shaken trust in our system. Assuming we did test for Japan, how long before we're forced to test EVERYTHING? Remember that Trojan horse your buddies at RCAlf drug into the middle of the beef industry? How do you think Consumers Union, Consumers Federation of America and Public Citizen will react to testing for Japan, but not the USA? It wouldn't be pretty.

BSE testing is not upselling your customer a higher quality / higher priced product. Be careful what you ask for. Tam made some excellent points with her post......who will be handed the bill for testing?

Just my two bits worth.

 

[Econ101]

Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products. As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented, I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.

Are inferences in lots of products?........all the time. Should gov't step aside so producers can meet consumers needs?......yep. It has been proven to be a successful strategy. Do we want gov't to regulate shopping so we buy based on science?.........nope. Do these statements take products off of shelves?......All the time.

Consumers buy based on logic vs emotion. All those catchy Super Bowl ads we just watched a couple of weeks ago........100% emotion. Not a whole lot of science involved with an elephant stomping a caveman (my favorite ad).

Organic / natural beef appeals emotionally to those who buy such products. They'll pay more for it. Likewise, it costs more to produce such product. No way are these products any safer or more nutritious. The consumers of such products might believe so, however they're scratching an emotional itch with the purchase. The market has proven consumers will pay more for such items.

So who'll pay / pay more for tested beef? Where's the room full of customers that'll pay premium prices? If you were lobbying the world to perform such practices on your products, wouldn't you also introduce us to that room full of hungry consumers screaming "I want tested beef!" Where are they? Selling organic / natural at premium pricing has been well defined. Selling BSE tested beef has never been defined.

Now I have to shoe horn in the science arguement. How can you emotionally tie a marketing story to testing for a disease entity that means nothing? That's a slipery slope......start testing for BSE, and the requests to test for XYZ diseases / parasites, etc will start to role in. Why wouldn't they? We've just handed international customers a perfect bargaining chip to purchase product at a cheaper price. For an industry that counts pennies, why start adding expenditures that'll start racking us (producers) for big bucks?

Japanese consumers are not unlike us. They're fickle, and frankly, this latest episode has shaken trust in our system. Assuming we did test for Japan, how long before we're forced to test EVERYTHING? Remember that Trojan horse your buddies at RCAlf drug into the middle of the beef industry? How do you think Consumers Union, Consumers Federation of America and Public Citizen will react to testing for Japan, but not the USA? It wouldn't be pretty.

BSE testing is not upselling your customer a higher quality / higher priced product. Be careful what you ask for. Tam made some excellent points with her post......who will be handed the bill for testing?

Just my two bits worth.

Beefman, testing done by private companies would be optional. If consumers want it and want to pay for it, why not? What is the harm? If the consumer was not willing to pay more money for beef with the tests so that the additional revenue would pay for the costs of the tests, then the voluntary testing would not take place.

 

[rkaiser]

Have any of you "fear of the costs" folks ever read a post by bse tester. His test will detect the misfolded prion in the pee of any animal at a minimal cost, and I have no reason to beleive that it won't..........do you?

 

[mrj]

Tam, "Sandhusker all we have heard on here is how the packers are money greedy crooks so just how many of those companies do you think will be willing to EAT THE COST OF TESTING when they have two options to recoop the cost. First being, trying to recoop the cost by passing it on BUT they take the chance of loosing customers to a cheaper protein and the other is to PASS IT BACK and that means PAYING LESS FOR CATTLE. Would your bank just eat a bad loan or would they try recoop the loses by the least business damaging means possible? And BSE Tested BEEF would not be an EXTRA, it would be EXSPECTED at the cost of somebody THE PRODUCER. Because any beef not labeled BSE tested would be seen as unsafe beef even though the test means nothing on younger cattle and those not within weeks of showing symtoms."

I don't think you thought your arguement very far thru, Tam.

1) Companies eating the costs; I didn't say they would, I said customers would pay UNLESS a company decided to eat the cost. It's their choice.

2) Losing to a cheaper protein source; That cheaper protein source could be untested beef. Didn't think of that, did ya. :wink: If they won't eat untested beef, they were already lost to us.

3) Tested beef would not be an extra; I think it would. Why? When formulating an opinion, I look at examples readily available to us. Comparing tested beef to hormone free, organic, etc.... should be a pretty fair comparison. Do producers have to pay all the extra costs of providing that product? If not, they why would tested beef be any different?

4) Untested beef would be seen as unsafe; Again, look at examples already available to us.

Is non-organic beef seen as unsafe? How many problems is the availablity of organic beef causing us?
****************************
Sandhusker, if organic producers didn't see non-organic beef as unsafe, why have they been generating news stories claiming that their organic beef is the ONLY beef that is safe from BSE? I am not sure if they have ads making that claim, but they definitely are getting that claim it into the media.
MRJ
****************************

Let me throw something else at you; If somebody wants tested beef and somebody is prepared to give it to them, who are you to stand in the way? Is it really any of your business?

Quote:
its just a matter of time till the American consumer realizes,the beef they are eating is not good enough for the Japanese............
Tell us Haymaker how long will it take for the US consumer to start demanding all US beef be tested if the USDA allows 100% testing for market access? Sandhusker seems to think the BSE TESTED label would be only seen in Japan as it is the Japanese consumers that are asking for it, even if it doesn't mean BSE FREE like they ASSUME.


More examples are out there, Tam. There are several countries who will not accept poultry products if it originates from certain states. When do you think the US consumer realizes the chicken they are eating is not good enough for others........

One final shot - how do you know what the Japanese consumers level of knowledge is? How do you know what they are assuming and what they know? Who's job is it to decide what is acceptable for Japanese consumers, you or them?

 

[Sandhusker]

I agree with most of what you say, Beefman, but BSE testing isn't going to force anybody to do anything - it's an option for the buyer and the provider. If the consumers want it bad enough to pay for it, they'll pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, nobody will provide it. Likewise for any other demands, no matter how fickle. Frankly, I think the idea that the producers would bear the costs is laughable. There are too many expamples to draw on that suggest otherwise.

I think producers should welcome testing - it's another option for consumers to decide on their product. It might make the sale where it otherwise wouldn't. Look at the automotive industry, they offer many options to help give the consumer what they want to make the sale.

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker: Organic production while becoming more mainstream is still a niche marketing program as in volume comparisons to base commodity production. Increase production too much and the price premiums will rapidly erode leaving the producer with the extra cost of production. There is only a certain percentage of the consuming public that is willing or able to pay a premium for such production. My biggest gripe against organic production (and yes you can extend it to BSE tested meat) is that it specifically infers that it is a safer, more nutritious product than the the regular commodity product; a claim that often is without any scientific basis or fact!

There are a lot of inferences in a lot of products.
*************************
As long as nobody is getting hurt and no product is being mis-represented,
**************************
Sandhusker, the producer of conventionally produced beef is getting hurt when producers of "Organic" beef IMPLY or CLAIM that conventional beef contains harmful residues with no tests to confirm that it does, or that organic does not.
MRJ
**************************
I think government needs to step aside and let a producer meets a consumer's wants. Do we need/want big brother to regulate our shopping so everything we buy is based on science? That would sure take a lot of products off the store shelves.

Tams and my disagreement was on who would pay for the tested beef. I think the obvious parallel is organic beef where the consumer pays a higher price (don't bother going to the store, Tam, you know I'm right) for the specialty product. I don't see why tested beef would be any different.

Sandhusker does it cost more to produce Organic beef?

 

[mrj]

I agree with most of what you say, Beefman, but BSE testing isn't going to force anybody to do anything - it's an option for the buyer and the provider. If the consumers want it bad enough to pay for it, they'll pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, nobody will provide it. Likewise for any other demands, no matter how fickle. Frankly, I think the idea that the producers would bear the costs is laughable. There are too many expamples to draw on that suggest otherwise.

I think producers should welcome testing - it's another option for consumers to decide on their product. It might make the sale where it otherwise wouldn't. Look at the automotive industry, they offer many options to help give the consumer what they want to make the sale.

Sandhusker, do you agree that there is a difference between testing with a verifiably accurate test that DOES work.......as contrasted with the tests currently in use that do not detect BSE in cattle under a certain age, though they may very well be incubating the disease?

What about the tests that give false positives, or negatives for that matter. What of the myriad tests being developed and those just coming onto the market with no long-term history?

Consider the fact that there is so little information about BSE which the "experts" agree upon.

There is a superabundance of mis-information about BSE which is often used against the cattle/beef industry.

And you wonder why cattle producers are reluctant to see BSE testing of all cattle destined for for Japan, or our domestic market????

Repair all the problems I've outlined, and acceptance would be much more likely.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, there is no reluctance to test from any cattlemen that I've talked to.

I think your concerns can be addressed with an informative label. Something like, "This product has been tested with the Bio-Rad test. Today's science disagrees on the effectiveness of this test. BSE testing does not guarantee BSE free".

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

sandhusker testing all beef would slow down processing and cause backlogs . It would be like making your bank tellers write the serial number down of every dollar in the bank every night. What would that do to the cost of operating. Who would pay for those added costs.

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, there is no reluctance to test from any cattlemen that I've talked to.

I think your concerns can be addressed with an informative label. Something like, "This product has been tested with the Bio-Rad test. Today's science disagrees on the effectiveness of this test. BSE testing does not guarantee BSE free".

I think if we have to put this kind of disclaimer on a package of beef, the USDA needs a few disclaimers themselves.

 

[Mike]

Sandhusker, do you agree that there is a difference between testing with a verifiably accurate test that DOES work.......as contrasted with the tests currently in use that do not detect BSE in cattle under a certain age, though they may very well be incubating the disease?

The USDA chosen "Gold Standard" IHC is one of those such tests that will not detect under a "certain age", though they may be very well be incubating the disease. You know, the one that Gary Weber touted as being the best. HaHa

What about the tests that give false positives, or negatives for that matter. What of the myriad tests being developed and those just coming onto the market with no long-term history?

The Prionic's Western Blot has never had a false positive after millions have been used. How would you prove a false negative if you use the best available?

Just use one the Japs approve of and get on with it.

 

[Anonymous]

MRJ, there is no reluctance to test from any cattlemen that I've talked to.

I think your concerns can be addressed with an informative label. Something like, "This product has been tested with the Bio-Rad test. Today's science disagrees on the effectiveness of this test. BSE testing does not guarantee BSE free".

I think if we have to put this kind of disclaimer on a package of beef, the USDA needs a few disclaimers themselves.

Like USDA inspected does not guarantee US beef OR USDA inspected does not mean that a USDA employee inspected or even looked at it etc. etc. etc......

 

[Tam]

BMR - on who will pay, you need to be aware of the number of consumers of specialty beef who already pay more. That includes "organic" and "kosher."

All it will take is a couple of more cases of BSE in the U.S. and ONE case of native vCJD and no one will be talking about the cost of testing and the added cost to beef, because the industry will be so badly impacted. You should know this, being in Canada...

I had steak in my house for the first time since July 4th, because I went to Whole Foods Market and paid for organic. If I could stop in my Safeway and buy tested beef for what I just paid for organic, I would be thrilled.

Great steaks by the way.

Thank you for buying beef Reader but you just made our point or at least mine. You haven't had beef since July and when you finally did, you bought ORGANIC for a premium because you see that as safer that is an emotional buy not scientific buy as there are BSE theories on the table that could also effect Organically grown beef. That said how many families will stop eating beef because they can't afford to pay the Premium for the tested beef and will assume that the untested is less safe. Does the test make it safer when the test could be wrong in younger animals and those not within weeks of showing symtoms NO. If the Cattle industry doesn't want to loose their market share won't the fact that people won't eat beef unless it is test force the industry to test everything and again if BSE tested beef becomes mainstream will consumers pay a premium for it? or will the price of beef go to a range that all people can afford it and the cost of the test will be recooped by the packers in the only other way FROM THE PRODUCERS. THE TEST IS NOT FOR FOOD SAFETY, SRM REMOVAL IS FOR FOOD SAFETY. Why not remove the SRM's as we are and label it as SRM removed beef. And educate the consumers that SRM removal is what makes the beef safe not the test.

 

[Anonymous]

What ever happened to the retailers giving the consumers a choice :???: Offer the products and let the consumer choose-- organic, BSE tested, generic, USA beef, Canuck, etc, whatever.....

Tam does your clothing store offer only pale blue shirts and black pants? I doubt it unless you live on a Hoot colony- they give you a choice.......

 

[Beefman]

I agree with most of what you say, Beefman, but BSE testing isn't going to force anybody to do anything - it's an option for the buyer and the provider. If the consumers want it bad enough to pay for it, they'll pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, nobody will provide it. Likewise for any other demands, no matter how fickle. Frankly, I think the idea that the producers would bear the costs is laughable. There are too many expamples to draw on that suggest otherwise.

I think producers should welcome testing - it's another option for consumers to decide on their product. It might make the sale where it otherwise wouldn't. Look at the automotive industry, they offer many options to help give the consumer what they want to make the sale.

As you are ordering options for your new auto, there's value attached to your decisions. What is the value attached to testing? In the absence of percieved value at the retail counter, added costs will be passed down the chain, ie, producer.

 

[Beefman]

MRJ, there is no reluctance to test from any cattlemen that I've talked to.

I think your concerns can be addressed with an informative label. Something like, "This product has been tested with the Bio-Rad test. Today's science disagrees on the effectiveness of this test. BSE testing does not guarantee BSE free".

Pretend you're the average consumer that doesn't know a thing about beef production. Are you now ready to pay more for the package of beef after reading your suggested label? If the consumer asks the meat counter attendant what this means, what's the attendant going to say?

Or, after the consumer reads your label, will they set the package of beef down, and go buy pork or chicken?

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, do you agree that there is a difference between testing with a verifiably accurate test that DOES work.......as contrasted with the tests currently in use that do not detect BSE in cattle under a certain age, though they may very well be incubating the disease?

The USDA chosen "Gold Standard" IHC is one of those such tests that will not detect under a "certain age", though they may be very well be incubating the disease. You know, the one that Gary Weber touted as being the best. HaHa

What about the tests that give false positives, or negatives for that matter. What of the myriad tests being developed and those just coming onto the market with no long-term history?

The Prionic's Western Blot has never had a false positive after millions have been used. How would you prove a false negative if you use the best available?

Just use one the Japs approve of and get on with it.

Mike, you cite two or more tests here and verify nothing about them in any way, let alone with your snide remarks.

Who has monitored the Prionics test? Who will determine which test is used? Who will verify that it is accurate and put their name on the report?

What I'm concerned about is that there are far more questions than there are reliable, verifiable answers on the question of testing for BSE at this point in time.

Time will tell who is right on this subject, and until then I favor using the OIE recommendations to deal with it as I believe they are using the best science available as the basis for their decisions.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, there is no reluctance to test from any cattlemen that I've talked to.

I think your concerns can be addressed with an informative label. Something like, "This product has been tested with the Bio-Rad test. Today's science disagrees on the effectiveness of this test. BSE testing does not guarantee BSE free".

Pretend you're the average consumer that doesn't know a thing about beef production. Are you now ready to pay more for the package of beef after reading your suggested label? If the consumer asks the meat counter attendant what this means, what's the attendant going to say?

Or, after the consumer reads your label, will they set the package of beef down, and go buy pork or chicken?

That is what selling on the lable is all about. All I saw on the lable I got from Tyson at Walmart were disclaimers, Beefman. One of them was on the color of beef not being an indicator of freshness.

I think people will eat beef when they think it is safe. If the USDA mishandling of the BSE persists or is more well known, there will be a drop in the demand curve for beef. Same for CO2, added phosphate solutions and all the rest. I just don't think the industry sees it that way. My neighbor down the road who is a doctor, already knows this and talks about this (without any help from me). That can not be good for beef demand.

 

[Tam]

What ever happened to the retailers giving the consumers a choice :???: Offer the products and let the consumer choose-- organic, BSE tested, generic, USA beef, Canuck, etc, whatever.....

Tam does your clothing store offer only pale blue shirts and black pants? I doubt it unless you live on a Hoot colony- they give you a choice.......

Do the clothes you buy come with a label that makes you assume they are safer to wear that the other clothes on the rack. :roll: