 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
by Bob Strong Mike Collinge, Kansas Livestock Association President had some interesting information in his "From Your President" message in the February 2002 issue of Kansas Stockman. To quote Mike, liberally, "Beef producers, myself included, are a little gun-shy when the 10 o'clock news anchor previews an upcoming story on food safety. However, an interesting report issued by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), certainly not a pawn of the beef industry, shed some unexpectedly positive light on the situation. CPSI gathered data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state and local health departments and medical and scientific journals. The report, called "Outbreak Alert!" indicates: This shows beef has a comparatively good track record considering its high per capital consumption in relation to other less popular foods. Though advanced research and technology have increased the safety of our product, consumer perception has not kept pace with the positive changes. It appears we as an industry have worked diligently to provide a safer product, yet the consumer doesn't fully comprehend our efforts. Research funded by the beef checkoff has been implemented at all stages of packing and processing. Beef packers and processors have implemented multiple hurdle microbiological intervention strategies. Unused in combination, these procedures and technologies dim the chances of bacteria surviving. Research has shown 99.99 percent of bacteria on carcasses is removed or destroyed when this multifaceted approach is used. Why, then, would consumers not have complete confidence in the safety of our product? Because 100 percent confidence may be unattainable, just as making food sterile is beyond reach for all practical purposes. It is in our best interests to continue making beef products safer. We would be equally well-served to work with government, health organizations and other credible third party sources on messages promoting the benefits of new food safety technology. Take irradiation, for example. The beef industry spent years proving it was safe and didn't alter the nutrient make-up of the product, then extended an already lengthy waiting period wrangling with regulators and politicians over implementation. As a result, the government required labels constituting more of a warning than an explanation of benefits to the consumer. Irradiated beef packaging currently must specify the product was "Treated with irradiation." The problem is "treated" and "irradiation" raises red flags. So we labored over the process, then the wrong terminology compromised acceptance. Like it or not, for credibility purposes, government and others are our partners in shaping consumer perception. Better marketing of beef safety enhancements is as necessary to our success as the technology itself. Why can't the labels read "Electronically pasteurized for added safety and shelf-life?" The bottom line is, beef is safer than perception would dictate. Many opportunities exist for improved communication and cooperation that would help put the consumer at ease about safety. On the heels of the highest profile year ever for beef safety, now is the time to capitalize."
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
||||
