| 
Spring 2004
Commentary
Sane Cow Disease:
Will Ranchers and Consumers Catch Grass-Fed Fever?
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
Back to Top
|
