Rate of Slaughter of Chickens, Pigs, and Cows in the United States, 2008
Showing posts with label beef. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beef. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
JBS has abandoned its bid to take over National Beef Packing Co.
The world’s largest beef producer and packer, Brazilian-based JBS-Swift, announced it was abandoning its attempted takeover of the National Beef Packing Company. Last year JBS-Swift purchased Smithfield Foods’ beef business as well as majority shares in Italian and Australian beef companies. It had been in talks with the US Department of Justice trying to gain approval of its next takeover target, but now appears to be backing out. According to the Reuters article, JBS abandoned the takeover due to a “lack of satisfactory conditions.”
Since March 2008, the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM)has aggressively opposed the JBS/National Beef merger on the grounds that it would exacerbate the distortions already evidenced in the U.S. cattle market and would strengthen JBS’ ability to use packer-owned cattle and other forms of captive supplies to manipulate prices paid to hundreds of thousands of independent cattle producers.
My, July 14, 2008 post called "Meat conglomerates" showed my home-made graphic of the market hold that JBS would have had if the merger had taken place.
Since March 2008, the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM)has aggressively opposed the JBS/National Beef merger on the grounds that it would exacerbate the distortions already evidenced in the U.S. cattle market and would strengthen JBS’ ability to use packer-owned cattle and other forms of captive supplies to manipulate prices paid to hundreds of thousands of independent cattle producers.
My, July 14, 2008 post called "Meat conglomerates" showed my home-made graphic of the market hold that JBS would have had if the merger had taken place.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sick Burger King Stunt
Burger King went on search for Whopper Virgins to do a taste test between the Whopper and the BigMac. I love what they can spend their research dollars on! This is sick.
And here is my counter argument by the New York Times
From an article: As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions
And here is my counter argument by the New York Times
From an article: As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions
Friday, November 28, 2008
Country of Orgin Labeling, Oh, How COOL!
Oh, How COOL!
Ashley Colpaart, RD LD
Policy Chair, HEN DPG
Many of you may have noticed yet another “thing” on your food labels. While Country Of Origin Labeling (or COOL if you wanna be cool) was already printed on wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, the 2008 Farm Bill has expanded the list to cover some muscle cuts of meats, ground meats, perishable agriculture commodities, ginseng and nuts. The implementation is the responsibility of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service and so far, as expected, their job has been far from
The legislation has roots in the 2002 farm bill. On January 27, 2004, Public Law 108-199 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10, 2005, Public Law 109-97 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2008.
The bill has been framed as effort to provide consumers with information to make informed decision regarding where their food comes from, partially due to the recent attention to local food movements. What they tried to avoid was the ‘elephant in the room’ to all of us, food safety. The reason to avoid food safety? Maybe it is admitting that there is a problem with food safety in this country? Or maybe we don’t want to offend the countries we trade with? Whatever the reason, you are now going to know if you cow was a Canadian or if your tomatoes have been on further vacations then you.
Like most pieces of legislation there are a few exemptions to rule:
Non-PACA licensed stores- (PACA) Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act is a federal law that regulates the produce industry (this could be butcher shops, convenience stores etc)
Food Service Establishments
Certain Processing Productions
- any covered commodity that has undergone processing that results in a change (cooking, curing, smoking, restructuring)
- any covered commodity that has been combined with another food product that is not water salt or sugar (does this mean a rise in peas and carrots? Oh dear!)
And it is these “exemptions” that seem to be causing a lot of ruckus. Say for instance:
Mixed salad versus bagged spinach? Mixed salad wouldn’t be covered, but the spinach would require labeling. How about a fruit cup that contains melons and strawberries? Nope, does not require a COOL label.
Dried fruit is not subject to COOL labeling requirements since the drying process changes the character of the fruit. Mushrooms, if fresh, are covered. Dried mushrooms are not covered. Packages of different colored sweet peppers (green, yellow and/or red) different colored sweet peppers combined in a package will require country of origin notification because there is one U.S. Grade Standard for sweet peppers, regardless of the color.
And if you think the produce industry is confused on how to implement, the coolness continues for the meat industry responsible for muscle cuts beef, veal, pork, lamb and chicken and the ground counterparts.
a) Product of the U.S.—meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States or from animals present in the United States on or prior to July 15, 2008. b) Product of the U.S., Country X—meat from animals born in Country X and raised and slaughtered in the .
c)Meat from these animals were not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United Statesor imported for immediate slaughter.—meat from animals imported into the for immediate slaughter.
d) Product of Country X—foreign meat imported into the United States
Attempt at implementation has been revealing how meat is carried through the supply chain. From birth, to stockyard, to feedlot, to slaughter, animals can have quite a stamped passport and these complexities of the livestock industry may have some product labels listing multiple countries. That's especially true of ground beef, because some meat processors combine cuts from a number of countries to make ground meat and hamburger patties.
Meat packers and large agribusinesses initially opposed the rule because they want continued access to imported (often cheaper) meat, without facing a penalty in the marketplace from consumers who may think American meat is safer. They also argued that the label is unnecessary, too expensive and would be a record keeping nightmare (in this case, "they" was Tyson vice president testifying against COOL at USDA education session)
Proponents for the bill consider COOL a feather in their cap. They believe the greatest advantage is knowing exactly where your food comes from. They argue that COOL gives consumers the ability: to support more local economies, to choose fresher food, and could ultimately prevent food safety problems associated with imported foods.
Some caveats, because what would policy be without them?
1. There is a loophole: Food further processed in foreign countries, may still receive US determination i.e. baby carrots
2. Commingled commodities: goods from mixed countries require all countries to be identified i.e. a mixed bin of tomatoes
Whether you are for or against Country Of Origin Labeling, what this bill teaches us is that these laws are never cut and dry. Once the rule making and regulation begins, what sounded like a great idea, can sometime turn into something that is not-so-COOL.
Ashley Colpaart, RD LD
Policy Chair, HEN DPG
Many of you may have noticed yet another “thing” on your food labels. While Country Of Origin Labeling (or COOL if you wanna be cool) was already printed on wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, the 2008 Farm Bill has expanded the list to cover some muscle cuts of meats, ground meats, perishable agriculture commodities, ginseng and nuts. The implementation is the responsibility of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service and so far, as expected, their job has been far from
The legislation has roots in the 2002 farm bill. On January 27, 2004, Public Law 108-199 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10, 2005, Public Law 109-97 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2008.
The bill has been framed as effort to provide consumers with information to make informed decision regarding where their food comes from, partially due to the recent attention to local food movements. What they tried to avoid was the ‘elephant in the room’ to all of us, food safety. The reason to avoid food safety? Maybe it is admitting that there is a problem with food safety in this country? Or maybe we don’t want to offend the countries we trade with? Whatever the reason, you are now going to know if you cow was a Canadian or if your tomatoes have been on further vacations then you.
Like most pieces of legislation there are a few exemptions to rule:
Non-PACA licensed stores- (PACA) Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act is a federal law that regulates the produce industry (this could be butcher shops, convenience stores etc)
Food Service Establishments
Certain Processing Productions
- any covered commodity that has undergone processing that results in a change (cooking, curing, smoking, restructuring)
- any covered commodity that has been combined with another food product that is not water salt or sugar (does this mean a rise in peas and carrots? Oh dear!)
And it is these “exemptions” that seem to be causing a lot of ruckus. Say for instance:
Mixed salad versus bagged spinach? Mixed salad wouldn’t be covered, but the spinach would require labeling. How about a fruit cup that contains melons and strawberries? Nope, does not require a COOL label.
Dried fruit is not subject to COOL labeling requirements since the drying process changes the character of the fruit. Mushrooms, if fresh, are covered. Dried mushrooms are not covered. Packages of different colored sweet peppers (green, yellow and/or red) different colored sweet peppers combined in a package will require country of origin notification because there is one U.S. Grade Standard for sweet peppers, regardless of the color.
And if you think the produce industry is confused on how to implement, the coolness continues for the meat industry responsible for muscle cuts beef, veal, pork, lamb and chicken and the ground counterparts.
a) Product of the U.S.—meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States or from animals present in the United States on or prior to July 15, 2008. b) Product of the U.S., Country X—meat from animals born in Country X and raised and slaughtered in the .
c)Meat from these animals were not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United Statesor imported for immediate slaughter.—meat from animals imported into the for immediate slaughter.
d) Product of Country X—foreign meat imported into the United States
Attempt at implementation has been revealing how meat is carried through the supply chain. From birth, to stockyard, to feedlot, to slaughter, animals can have quite a stamped passport and these complexities of the livestock industry may have some product labels listing multiple countries. That's especially true of ground beef, because some meat processors combine cuts from a number of countries to make ground meat and hamburger patties.
Meat packers and large agribusinesses initially opposed the rule because they want continued access to imported (often cheaper) meat, without facing a penalty in the marketplace from consumers who may think American meat is safer. They also argued that the label is unnecessary, too expensive and would be a record keeping nightmare (in this case, "they" was Tyson vice president testifying against COOL at USDA education session)
Proponents for the bill consider COOL a feather in their cap. They believe the greatest advantage is knowing exactly where your food comes from. They argue that COOL gives consumers the ability: to support more local economies, to choose fresher food, and could ultimately prevent food safety problems associated with imported foods.
Some caveats, because what would policy be without them?
1. There is a loophole: Food further processed in foreign countries, may still receive US determination i.e. baby carrots
2. Commingled commodities: goods from mixed countries require all countries to be identified i.e. a mixed bin of tomatoes
Whether you are for or against Country Of Origin Labeling, what this bill teaches us is that these laws are never cut and dry. Once the rule making and regulation begins, what sounded like a great idea, can sometime turn into something that is not-so-COOL.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
USDA expands its Recall of Beef
Food safety is becoming a national crisis. I think the strong media attention to these issue only reinforces the necessity for people to take on the role of knowing where their food comes from. Relying on government just doesn't cut it. It is just like the tomatoes. How many pounds if tomatoes were tossed because of that saga? Now BEEF being flushed down the drain...contaminating our water a second time. This country has got to curb its beef addiction and fast. Especially when 7 pounds of grain produces 1 pound of beef. Good grief.
Wall Street Journal
USDA Expands Its Recall of Beef
Associated Press
OMAHA, Neb. -- The Agriculture Department expanded a beef recall after USDA investigators determined that Nebraska Beef Ltd.'s practices on June 24 couldn't have effectively controlled E. coli bacteria.
USDA investigators decided that 160,000 pounds of meat should be added to the Aug. 8 recall after examining the June 24 records for the Omaha plant. Most of the meat produced that day was included in the recall announcement, but the company omitted some meat produced later in the day after it switched to a different product. About 1.36 million pounds of beef is now included in the recall
Wall Street Journal
USDA Expands Its Recall of Beef
Associated Press
OMAHA, Neb. -- The Agriculture Department expanded a beef recall after USDA investigators determined that Nebraska Beef Ltd.'s practices on June 24 couldn't have effectively controlled E. coli bacteria.
USDA investigators decided that 160,000 pounds of meat should be added to the Aug. 8 recall after examining the June 24 records for the Omaha plant. Most of the meat produced that day was included in the recall announcement, but the company omitted some meat produced later in the day after it switched to a different product. About 1.36 million pounds of beef is now included in the recall
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Beef mergers
From the Center of Rural Affairs:
The Department of Justice is looking more closely at the anti-competitive impact of JBS S.A.’s acquisition of Smithfield Beef’s Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, according to our investigations and several reports in financial trade publications. JBS announced in March their intention to acquire Smithfield Beef Group and National Beef Packing, purchases that would make JBS both the largest beef packer and cattle feeder in the U.S.
Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, a joint venture between Smithfield Beef and Continental Grain with the capacity to feed over 800,000 head of cattle, would come under the ownership of JBS if the transaction is approved. In conversations with a variety of government agencies looking at the JBS mergers, the ownership of Five Rivers by JBS has been called a “significant area of inquiry.”
Our investigations also lead us to believe that the JBS purchase of National Beef’s Dodge City and Liberal plants in Kansas combined with the JBS Swift plant in Cactus, Texas, as well as the combination of National Beef’s plant in Brawley, California, and Smithfield Beef’s plant in Tolleson, Arizona, are points of concern for the Justice Department.
Thousands of people from across the U.S. have weighed in with the Justice Department in opposition to the JBS - Smithfield Beef - National Beef mergers. We encourage you to keep up the pressure by expressing your opposition to the JBS mergers at
http://www.cfra.org/JBS
The Department of Justice is looking more closely at the anti-competitive impact of JBS S.A.’s acquisition of Smithfield Beef’s Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, according to our investigations and several reports in financial trade publications. JBS announced in March their intention to acquire Smithfield Beef Group and National Beef Packing, purchases that would make JBS both the largest beef packer and cattle feeder in the U.S.
Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, a joint venture between Smithfield Beef and Continental Grain with the capacity to feed over 800,000 head of cattle, would come under the ownership of JBS if the transaction is approved. In conversations with a variety of government agencies looking at the JBS mergers, the ownership of Five Rivers by JBS has been called a “significant area of inquiry.”
Our investigations also lead us to believe that the JBS purchase of National Beef’s Dodge City and Liberal plants in Kansas combined with the JBS Swift plant in Cactus, Texas, as well as the combination of National Beef’s plant in Brawley, California, and Smithfield Beef’s plant in Tolleson, Arizona, are points of concern for the Justice Department.
Thousands of people from across the U.S. have weighed in with the Justice Department in opposition to the JBS - Smithfield Beef - National Beef mergers. We encourage you to keep up the pressure by expressing your opposition to the JBS mergers at
http://www.cfra.org/JBS
Monday, July 14, 2008
Meat Conglmerates
I designed a flow chart of our nations beef manufacturers. Unfortunatly it is not too complicated. 3 companies now control 90% of the beef. Frightening. I will stick with the free range buffalo I get at the farmers market from my friend Patrick.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
E. Coli and Ground Beef Recall, Again
Maybe the importance of food saftey is gaining ground. Once again, the USDA has announced a recall by Kroger, an Ohio based retailer, on their ground beef due to E. Coli.
From USDA:
"The products subject to recall include all varieties and weights of ground beef products bearing a Kroger label sold between May 21 and June 8 at Michigan and Columbus and Toledo, Ohio Kroger retail establishments. These ground beef products also include a sell-by date between "05/21/08" and "06/08/08."
32 are already sick. And its a Class I recall:
USDA Recall Classifications
Class I This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
Class II This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.
Class III This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences
Beef...it's not what's for dinner...at least in Ohio and Michigan.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Thousands protest US beef in South Korea
Tens of thousands of demonstators filled Seoul in order to protest Lee Myung-bak's agreement to resume suspended imports of American beef.
..."Both Seoul and Washington defended the safety of American beef. But protesters said they saw in the way their leader, nicknamed the Bulldozer, reached a beef deal with Washington signs of an "authoritarian leader," out of touch with common people and "tone-deaf." They accused Mr. Lee of being too eager to please the United States, even at the expense of the health of his own people."...
By CHOE SANG-HUN
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/asia/11korea.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
So my question is how come our own citizens don't stage the same types of protests? Tomatoes today, ground beef recalls last week. Food safety is increasingly a hot-topic.
..."Both Seoul and Washington defended the safety of American beef. But protesters said they saw in the way their leader, nicknamed the Bulldozer, reached a beef deal with Washington signs of an "authoritarian leader," out of touch with common people and "tone-deaf." They accused Mr. Lee of being too eager to please the United States, even at the expense of the health of his own people."...
By CHOE SANG-HUN
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/asia/11korea.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
So my question is how come our own citizens don't stage the same types of protests? Tomatoes today, ground beef recalls last week. Food safety is increasingly a hot-topic.
green house gases and your food
Research put out by the journal of Environmental Science and Technology shed some light on the environmental impact of the food we eat. With everyone trying to decrease their "carbon footprint" and go "green" I wonder how many people would jump on the bandwagon if they knew that cutting their beef intake would make all the difference.
Abstract:
Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%.
Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i10/abs/es702969f.html
Abstract:
Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%.
Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i10/abs/es702969f.html
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Beef...it's not for dinner anymore!
Yesterday, in the Austin American Statesman, I read an article about a research scientist at A&M(a strong Ag school) called Aggie Finds Healthy Fatty Acids in Brisket.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/05/26/0526brisket.html
I was appalled to see a biased school touting more reasons to consume beef. I wrote a letter to the editor.
Editor,
As a Registered Dietitian working in the field of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, I am appalled and concerned of the implication of this story. In the midst of energy, food, and global warming crises, finding more reasons to eat beef is dangerous and irresponsible at best.
Americans have started the trend of eating meat at every meal and the movement has now spread to China and India. We are growing more corn to feed cows and cars, than to nourish starving humans in order to supplement our overly extravagant and calorie dense habits. People need to realize that eating lower on the food chain (grains, fruits and vegetables) is the answer to better health and to our food and energy crisis.
If you are going to eat beef, make sure it is certified organic and grass fed. Raising cattle on pasture, improves animal health, and reduces antibiotic usage, and lessens environmental damage. If you are concerned about human nutrition, Greener Pastures, a scientific literature review has shown that grass-fed beef is higher in “good fats,” lower in “bad fats,” beta carotene and Vitamin E.
The grass-fed concept is a step toward environmental stewardship: it doesn’t rely on petroleum-guzzling corn fields, it helps sustain the ecosystem and clean water, and it forces us to eat mindful and in season. Even still, beef should only be eaten once a week, if at all.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/05/26/0526brisket.html
I was appalled to see a biased school touting more reasons to consume beef. I wrote a letter to the editor.
Editor,
As a Registered Dietitian working in the field of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, I am appalled and concerned of the implication of this story. In the midst of energy, food, and global warming crises, finding more reasons to eat beef is dangerous and irresponsible at best.
Americans have started the trend of eating meat at every meal and the movement has now spread to China and India. We are growing more corn to feed cows and cars, than to nourish starving humans in order to supplement our overly extravagant and calorie dense habits. People need to realize that eating lower on the food chain (grains, fruits and vegetables) is the answer to better health and to our food and energy crisis.
If you are going to eat beef, make sure it is certified organic and grass fed. Raising cattle on pasture, improves animal health, and reduces antibiotic usage, and lessens environmental damage. If you are concerned about human nutrition, Greener Pastures, a scientific literature review has shown that grass-fed beef is higher in “good fats,” lower in “bad fats,” beta carotene and Vitamin E.
The grass-fed concept is a step toward environmental stewardship: it doesn’t rely on petroleum-guzzling corn fields, it helps sustain the ecosystem and clean water, and it forces us to eat mindful and in season. Even still, beef should only be eaten once a week, if at all.
Ashley Colpaart, RD LD
Along the same lines, Amanda gave me a link that is super neat, where you can score your diet on its environmentalism. Enjoy!
http://cspinet.org/EatingGreen/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)