|
Spring 2004
Commentary
Sane Cow Disease:
Will Ranchers and Consumers Catch Grass-Fed Fever?
Wylie Harris is a Food & Society
Policy Fellow, a national program of professional fellowships with the
mission of educating consumers and societal leaders about the issues and
challenges associated with sustaining family farms and food production
in the United States.
Wylie and his family operate a cow-calf ranch
as part of an extended five-generation family farm on native and improved
pasture in Saint Jo, Texas. On his farm, Wylie is working to develop more
ecologically-based grazing systems and exploring alternatives for farm
and ranch diversification.
He is also a Ph.D. candidate in rangeland ecology and management at Texas
A&M University.
by Wylie Harris
Like most U.S. ranchers, I went a little weak in the knees at this country’s
first case of mad-cow disease. But after the quick rebound in cattle prices
and consumer confidence, I’m more heartsick than relieved. For all the
harm that one BSE-infected cow could have done the beef industry, she also
sent a signal for much-needed changes that would increase both the economic
viability of small cattle producers and the health and safety value of our
product. So far, that signal has gone unheard.
The USDA has closed its investigation, saying that U.S. beef is still the
safest in the world. But 86 % of the cattle that came in from Canada with
the sick one are still unaccounted for. The FDA banned downer cattle from
human consumption – but now the word is that the infected one wasn’t
a downer after all. Of the 23 other countries that have had one case of BSE,
all but four have found others, many younger than 30 months. But instead of
trying to get a handle on the size of our problem, we’re ignoring it.
Testing every cow slaughtered, as Japan does, would cost the beef industry
a high-end estimate of $500 million – a fraction of the $3 billion lost
to other countries’ BSE-induced bans on U.S. beef. Controlling 80% of
the market, the largest four feeders and packers can weather a hit like that.
It may even help them further consolidate their share –
an idea that sounds less far-fetched with a federal court having just fined
the nation’s largest beef packer almost $1.3 billion for manipulating
prices.
Sixty-three per cent of U.S. beef is processed in just 14 giant plants,
each handling over a million animals a year. When operations of that size
dominate, safety and care give way to speed and volume. This explains both
the frequency of beef recalls like ConAgra’s 19 million pound one in
2002, and the fact that a recent study found that half of sampled supermarket
meats in Washington, D.C., contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
The system grew these warts in response to political lobbying by the big
feeders and packers. Time and again, these companies have fought legislation
that benefited consumers and small producers: country-of-origin labeling,
bans on downer cattle, and prohibitions on animal tissues – thought
to be the source of BSE – in feedlot rations.
Scientific studies show that grass-fed beef is leaner, healthier, and safer
than the feedlot variety. It’s frustrating to raise calves on pasture,
only to sell them into a feedlot system that neither recognizes nor preserves
the value of the practice. But against the market share and political clout
of the industry giants, there doesn’t seem to be much choice.
Or is there? Though 90% of fattened beef cattle in the U.S. come from feedlots
holding upwards of 500 animals, half of them start out in herds smaller than
100 head, many on pasture. A quarter of these are in Oklahoma, Kansas, and
Texas, where most producers still have a custom processor within 30 miles.
Kerr Center surveys found that 47% to 80% of consumers in those states
would pay up to $1.60 more per pound – 16 times the cost of universal
BSE testing – for “natural beef,” which was defined in the
survey as “a high quality beef product raised without any hormones or
antibiotics. Family farmers and ranchers who produce natural beef are committed
to agricultural production methods that ensure the protection and enhancement
of natural resources and believe in humane treatment of animals.”
Pasture-finished beef fits this definition well. Small producers who pasture-finish,
custom-process, and direct-market their beef can create a safer, saner product,
boost their local economies, and earn higher profits. The first step is only
a trailer ride away, and customers are as close as websites like www.eatwellguide.org.
To read more of Harris' commentaries to http://www.foodandsocietyfellows.org/library/listcontent.cfm
|
