Generous Sponsor of MICA’s 50th
AGM & Conference
US herd decline
our gain – Aus.
Russia to
remain world's largest beef importer
STEC shedding
on hides and in-plant
E. coli and
WDGS in feedlot diets
Agencies issue
update on Salmonella investigation
"Restaurant
A" Revealed to be Taco Bell
Better beef
sales: Beef up knowledge at the meat case
US herd decline our gain – Aus.
The Land
BY BRAD COOPER
02 Feb, 2012
A BIGGER than expected drop in the US herd may offer a small reprieve for
Australian beef exporters facing falls in Japan and Korea, analysis suggests.
The US industry is still reeling after a USDA report counted beef cattle
numbers at their lowest in 60 years.
In its twice-yearly cattle report, the USDA pegged cattle and calves in
the US as of January 1 at 90.8 million head, 2.1 percent below the 92.7 million
a year ago and the lowest January 1 inventory of all cattle and calves since
the 88.1 million on hand in 1952.
Analysts, on average, were expecting the inventory decline by about 1.7
percent. Beef cow inventories, a major source of grinding beef for the American
hamburger chains, declined by 3.1 percent, 0.3 percent more than what previous analysis
was anticipating.
The USDA also reported the 2011 calf crop at 35.3 million head, down 1
percent from 2010 and the smallest calf crop since the 34.9 million born during
1950. Calves born during the first half of 2011 were estimated at 25.7 million,
down 1 percent from 2010.
Even before figures from the January audit were released, the USDA was
forecasting total beef and veal production for the US would decline 5 percent
on the previous year, to 11.322 million tonnes carcase
weight.
To put this in context, the decline of 560,000 tonnes cwt
is more than one-quarter of Australia's annual beef production.
The plummeting cattle numbers in Australia's second biggest export
market, accelerated by drought and forage shortages, translate into positive news
for Australian beef producers and exporters, according to MLA chief economist
Tim McRae.
"The first effect we'll see is that there'll be pressure on their
cattle cattle prices and as the US still sets the
tone for prices elsewhere across the world, over the longer term we should see
Australian prices follow suit," he said.
"The most significant number for me is their decrease in cow
numbers. This will affect their ability to produce lean, grinding beef, which
Australia can fill the gap on quite nicely when the world demands it.
"They are also holding on to their heifer replacements so we should
see their herd stabilise, but as their supplies
tighten their production will be affected and their import demand should
increase. These are all good signals for Australian producers."
Even if the seasons improve this year, production declines in the US will
continue for at least the next three years, according to the USDA report. As
its author notes, improved seasons could see heifer retention continue and accelerate,
which will see US beef production decline further over the next few years as
those females are removed from the supply of feeder cattle.
If, for example, producers begin retaining more heifers in 2012, those
heifers will not be bred until 2013 and will not deliver their first calves
until 2014. Those calves will not reach finished weights and contribute to beef
production until 2015.
The latest figures accord roughly with MLA's outlook for Australian beef
export prospects to the US over coming months.
After a decade of declining shipments, Australian beef and veal exports
to the US are forecast to increase in 2012, attracted by historically high
prices for manufacturing beef and on the foundation of a very tight supply of
beef in the US.
As Mr McRae noted in his Cattle Projections
report released last week, Australian shipments are anticipated to increase 28
percent on 2011, to 215,000 tonnes shipped weight. This will make the US one of
Australia's fastest growing beef markets. While the forecast tonnage is still a
historically low volume, it leaves plenty of scope for further increases in
subsequent years, Mr McRae notes.
There are some major hurdles for Australian exports to the US in 2012,
including the fragile state of the US economy and weakened consumer spending,
the high A$ and increased E.coli testing requirements that have been sparked by
recent food safety scares with locally grown product.
Based on several trends, if Australian exporters are to make inroads in the
US this year - to improve on last year's decline of 9 percent, the lowest
annual total since the late 1960s - then the revival will come through grinding
beef and not primal cuts based on historical trends.
As Mr McRae notes in his report, the decline in
shipments to the US over the past decade has been due to many factors, most
notably the A$, but the fall in the past 12 months has been assisted by
burgeoning demand for manufacturing beef in other markets.
"While the US had always been the market leader for manufacturing
beef, recent years have seen this influence diminish," he said.
"Competition for manufacturing beef has increased from many markets,
ranging from the major importing markets of Japan and
Russia, to a collection of smaller, but growing,
markets, such as those in the Middle East, the Philippines and Indonesia."
Manufacturing beef shipments made up 62pc of Australian beef exports to
the US in 2011, similar to the proportion in 2010.
The majority of other exports for the year were thin flank (12pc),
topside/insides (8pc), shin/shank (5pc) and silverside/outsides (4pc). Frozen
beef made up 83pc of total exports for the year.
While pressure will be applied on US stocks, Mr
McRae sees little change in the US's revival in Japan and Korea, which will
provide renewed competition for Australian beef in the two key Asian markets
this year.
"The US has
this weak dollar that's helping them send product there, and the cuts they sell
their like short ribs and briskets aren't popular in the US domestic market,
which means they'll have plenty of product on hand to sell into Japan and
Korea. That situation isn't likely to change anytime soon," he said.
The Land
BY BRAD COOPER
03 Feb, 2012
US beef exporters are confident they will send record beef shipments to
Japan when import restrictions in place since the BSE detection of 2003 are
possibly relaxed later this year.
The possible protocol change would see US beef exports to Japan climb to
a predicted 160,000 tonnes shipped weight, an increase of 35 percent on 2011's
estimated 118,300 tonnes.
The renewed US push into Japan will most likely come at the expense of
Australian volumes, which are forecast to total 330,000 tonnes in 2012, down
4pc on 2010.
The US increase will come if Japanese legislators allow in beef from US
cattle aged less than 30 months, rather than the current less than 21 months
age restriction.
Despite forecasts from Meat and Livestock Australia this week that cattle
prices on the local market would hold up in concert with a beef production
surge, talk of a reinvigorated US presence in Japan and Korea continues to
weigh heavy on an already subdued Australian cattle market, which this week is
witnessing spiralling prices and tough weather
conditions in Queensland and NSW.
After Wednesday's markets the Eastern Young Cattle Indicator (EYCI) was
15c lower for the week at 390.25c/kg carcase weight.
Trade steer prices lost 9c - to 199c and feeder steers were 11c lower on
207¢/kg live weight (lwt). Heavy steer prices
were firm settling on 7c lower on 181c and medium cows were back 3c to 144c/kg
(lwt).
Increased competition from US beef isn't the only headwind currently
facing Australian exporters, with the high Australian dollar against the
'greenback' applying significant pressure on sales.
According to MLA chief economist Tim McRae, accentuating the impact of a
possible change to the US beef age requirements will be the continued weak US
currency, aiding the price competitiveness of US beef in the Japanese market.
"In 2011, the US dollar depreciated 9pc against the Japanese yen,
while over the same period the A$ appreciated 2pc,"he said.
"Additionally, US beef exporters have been actively striving to
capture a higher profile for their product throughout the past 12 months."
The snapshot of the current climate in Japan is part of an overall
picture of US resurgence in beef globally, with the Denver-based US Meat Export
Federation predicting the US may ship a record 974,000 tonnes of beef in 2012,
worth about US$5.13 billion, compared with an estimated 914,500 tonnes in 2011.
Concern is also focused on South Korea, where the US will also press home
its advantage after signing a free trade pact with Australia's third largest
beef export customer last year. The deal will see a reduction in import tariffs
of as much as 40 percent over the next 15 years.
The US supplied 68 percent of South Korea's beef imports in 2003,
dropping to zero the following year, according to data from the Korea Meat
Trade Association. Shipments recovered to 99,047 tonnes in the first 11 months
of 2011, accounting for 37 percent of imports, data shows.
MLA says the situation facing Australian beef into Korea in 2012 is
expected to become more difficult, as local production rises, the high stocks
are cleared and the US ramps up its efforts to recapture market share - buoyed
by its Free Trade Agreement (FTA), weak currency and an ability to deliver the
product most sought after by Korean importers - short ribs.
Hence, Australia's competitive position in Korea is set to be further
challenged in 2012.
Australian beef and veal exports to Korea greatly exceeded expectations
for 2011, increasing 18pc on the previous year, to 146,347 tonnes - falling
just short of the record 149,663 tonnes in 2006.
"This growth reflected strong Korean consumer demand and weaker
competition from Japan for suitable cuts. Korean consumption of local, US and
Australian beef all grew significantly in 2011," Mr
McRae said.
Total Australian beef exports in 2012 are expected to decline 15pc on
2011, to 125,000 tonnes.
In other developments, Canada's Trade and Agricultural Ministers
announced late last week that Korea will lift the ban on Canadian beef imports as
reported in the Wall Street Journal. Canadian Prime Minster, Stephen Harper, is
reportedly confident that Korea's decision on beef will also help in finalising the long delayed Canada-Korea Free Trade
Agreement.
Korea banned Canadian beef imports in 2003 due to BSE outbreaks in the
country. Similar to the current restrictions on US beef, Korea will only allow
beef from Canadian cattle less than 30 months of age. Canada Beef Inc. stated
that the Canadian beef industry is positioned to export about 6500 tonnes
shipped weight (worth $30 million) to Korea by 2015 - which with current import
levels would give Canada 2pc market share.
Korea is also sustaining significant internal pressure to source its beef
locally. With local Hanwoo cattle prices under significant
price pressure due to perceived oversupply, the Korean Ministry for Food,
Agriculture Forestry & Fisheries (MIFAFF) announced last week that it is
planning to replace all imported beef supply for the Korean military with
local, domestic Hanwoo beef.
They said that current 60 grams of pork supply per soldier will be
decreased by half and the 30 grams will be replaced with Hanwoo
and Korean beef supplies.
Korean beef
producers held a rally last week to urge the government to come up with
measures for countering plunging beef cattle prices.
The LandAFR
03 Feb, 2012
THE Australian dollar rose to a fresh five-month high yesterday, helped
by the release of better than expected export data for December.
In late afternoon trading the currency was changing hands at $US1.0714,
up from $US1.0612 previously and not far from its intra-day high of $US1.0757.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released international trade figures
for December which showed a rise in the surplus to $1.709 billion, reports The
Australian Financial Review.
Total exports rose 2 per cent to $27.7 billion, the second highest level
on record, while imports were also up, by 1 per cent.
Commonwealth Bank currency strategist Joseph Capurso
said the Australian dollar had gained ground after the stronger than expected
trade figures.
"It's quite unusual that the trade figures would move the Aussie
dollar, but that seems to be what started to push it up," he said.
"Our exports were up and that was seen as a good sign."
Mr Capurso said the main focus for markets would be the
release of US non-farm payrolls data for January, due out on Friday night, the
key measure of employment growth.
The Australian
dollar hit a peak of $US1.1081 on July 27, 2011, its highest level since the
fixed exchange rate era ended in December 1983.
Russia to remain world's largest beef
importer
Beef Central
03 Feb 2012
Russia is expected to remain the world’s largest importer of beef
in 2012, according to industry reports.
Quoting United States Department of Agriculture projections, Meat and
Livestock Australia this week said Russia was forecast to increase import
volumes by one percent to 1.06 million tonnes this year.
Russia is Australia’s fourth largest export market for beef, taking
54,088 tonnes in 2011, according to MLA. Australia’s largest export
markets for beef last year were Japan (342,188t), the US (167,820t) and Korea
(146,356t).
Exports of Brazilian beef to Russia were significantly curtailed in May
last year when Russia placed an embargo on a number of beef export facilities
from Brazil. Under the arrangements only 84 of Brazil’s 249 licensed
export plants can sell meat without restrictions to Russia.
MLA said the restrictions saw Brazil’s exports to Russia fall from
a high of 33,854t in May last year to a low of 11,051t in September.
“Alternative suppliers to Russia are expected to benefit from the
continued restrictions on Brazilian beef and the redirection of Brazilian
product to other markets, largely in the Middle East and in their own domestic
market,” MLA said.
Russia’s first deputy prime minister
Viktor Zubkov this week stated that Russia was hoping
to cut imports from 27pc of consumed meat to 15pc in the next few years.
He was referring to all sources of meat including pork and poultry, but
added that the country is focusing on increasing its own production of beef.
“We have serious reserves for increasing beef output,” he
said, according to a Reuters report. “The market niche for this product
is basically free.”
He said Russia needed to develop national standards for beef in order to
reduce imports of high quality beef from other countries.
At the same time prime minister Vladimir Putin
pledged to support livestock farmers concerned by the potential impact that
meat imports could have on their industry after Russia’s entry to the
World Trade Organisation. Reuters reported that Mr Putin indicated Russia may extend tax breaks enjoyed by
agricultural producers, taking into account the forthcoming WTO membership.
“There are instruments of protection…The state will support
agricultural producers,” he said.
Virus prompts import ban
Meanwhile, Russia suspended live-animal imports from parts of Germany,
the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Belgium on Wednesday following
the spread of the newly discovered Schmallenberg
virus in the region.
The virus, named after the German town in which the outbreak was first
identified in August last year, is spread by insects and causes miscarriages
and birth defects in sheep, goat and cattle. The European Food Agency said
during the week it believed the disease was not transmissible to humans.
Russia was
Australia’s fifth largest market for cattle exports by volume and value
last year, taking 30,568 head of primarily beef breeding cattle worth $56.5
million.
John Maday, Managing
Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork
February 2, 2012
During Cattlemen’s College at the Cattle Industry Convention in
Nashville Wednesday, Western Kentucky University animal scientist Nevil Speer, PhD, conducted some quick, electronic surveys of the
audience. The session, on profiting during volatile times, was filled beyond
the room’s capacity. One of the questions Dr. Speer
asked beef producers in the audience was: “Do
you plan to expand your herds during the next one to five years?”
The instant response was somewhat surprising, with 73 percent saying
“yes,” 16 percent saying “maybe” and just 10 percent
indicating they do not plan to expand. Those producers see opportunities in a
growing beef market, in spite of the volatility and challenges Speer outlined in his presentation.
A significant shift in price trends drives the current optimism. Looking
back, Speer notes that from around 1980 to 1998, pork
and poultry attracted about $112 per capita in new spending at the retail
level. During the same period beef gained only about $6. Since then, growth in
domestic and export demand has shifted beef and cattle into new trading ranges.
After holding steady at around $60 to $80 per hundredweight for several years,
fed cattle moved into a trading range between $80 to $100 per
hundredweight from 2003 to 2009. Since 2009, the trading range jumped
again, to as high as $120 per hundredweight.
Speer estimates
aggregate feedyard revenues during 2011 at $33
billion, compared with under $17 billion in 1998. Those returns don’t
equate with feedyard profits, he notes, but represent
cash returned back through the production chain.
Higher cattle prices result, in part, from shorter numbers. U.S. cow
herds have been shrinking since 1996, Speer notes, as
have the number of beef-cattle operations, with a total reduction of about
160,000 producers since 1992. Most of that decline has occurred in operations
with fewer than 50 cows.
Beef demand also contributes, especially growth in exports, which added
$19 per hundredweight or $235 per head to the value of fed cattle during
2011.
But higher cattle prices are just half of the story, as per-cow cash production
costs average about $500. Volatility in feed prices has grown as corn carryover
stocks shrink and feed prices become more closely tied to energy markets,
globalization and commercial investments in commodities. Weekly changes in corn
futures prices averaged $0.09 in 2006 and $0.16 in 2007 before jumping to $0.28
in 2008. That volatility stabilized somewhat during 2009 and 2010, but the
weekly price change in 2011 averaged about $0.22.
So what can producers do to capitalize on high cattle prices and profit
during such volatile times? Speer recommends several
steps to consider.
•Lock in margins.
•Pay down debt.
•Refinance long-term debt.
•Increase working capital.
•Manage production costs.
•And finally,
carefully and conservatively evaluate expansion opportunities.
STEC shedding on hides and in-plant
Drovers CattleNetwork
Geni Wren, Bovine Veterinarian Magazine
February 1, 2012
Geni Wren
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Not all Escherichia coli is created the same. E. coli
O157:H7 is only one of the shigatoxin-producing E.
coli (STECs) of interest. At the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association’s Cattlemen’s College Feb. 1, Terry Arthur, PhD, Meat
Animal Research Center, spoke about STECs and their prevalence on hides and in lairage.
“Cattle hide is the major source for E. coli O157:H7carcass
contamination at processing,” Arthur said.
He described a 2003 study in a commercial processing plant that used a
chemical hide sanitizer for dehairing on cattle
post-slaughter. Incoming animals were 77% positive for the pathogen. Of those
cattle that did not get chemically dehaired, 50% were
positive for E. coli. Only 1.3% of the cattle that were chemically dehaired were positive for E. coli.
“We wanted to determine in a given pen what was
the rate of shedding that would cause 50% to have contamination on hide?”
Arthur said. “What would an effective pre-harvest program look
like?”
A study followed 300 animals over nine months and looked at fecal
shedding and how it affected hide contamination. Animals were categorized into
four E. coli-shedding groups:
•Cattle that were not shedding E. coli O157:H7;
•Low shedders at less than 200 CFU/g;
•High shedders over 200 CFU/g to 10,000 CFU/g; and
•Super shedders over 10,000 CFU/g
“Once you cross 20% fecal prevalence, hide prevalence goes to about
100%,” Arthur said. “If you can develop pre-harvest intervention to
keep fecal prevalence below 20% and keeping shedding below 200 CFU/g, you have
something that will reduce hide contamination.”
But contamination can continue after the animal leaves the feedlot.
Cattle were sampled at the feedlot before being loaded onto trucks,
trucks were sampled, and cattle were sampled again at processing. What was
discovered was that hide prevalence increased when cattle were sampled on the
slaughter chain. What this means, Arthur said, is that
“effective feedlot intervention may be negated by transport and lairage issues.”
Fingerprinting of the bacterial isolates that were found showed that on
29% of the isolates on the hide and carcass at the processing plant matched the
feedlot isolates. Arthur said 2% matched isolates from the truck, and 69% were
of unknown origin.
“This told us there is a large amount of contamination occurring
after animals leave the feedlot. Over 80% of the isolates on the carcasses did
not come from the feedlot,” he said.
According to Arthur, a typical commercial plant has many areas where as
many as 4,000 cattle can go through a day, including the loading dock, scale,
holding pens, alleys, snakes and tubs.
“As animals come through they pick up contamination from super
shedders,” he said.
The good news, Arthur said, is sampling showed
that in plants with a hide wash cabinet, only 4% of the cattle were positive
for E. coli O157:H7.
“Contamination from lairage is easily
washed off if the plant has the ability to do so,” he said, adding that the majority of plants have
gone to using hide wash cabinets, but he’d like to see it more widely
used across the industry.
Super shedders are the major contributors to E. coli O157:H7 in the
feedlot and likely in lairage.
“The lairage environment can be a larger contributor to E. coli
contamination than the production environment,” Arthur said. “Some
form of hide intervention should be used to remove lairage-derived
contamination, and we need to identify components of super-shedding.”
E. coli and WDGS in feedlot diets
Drovers CattleNetwork
Geni Wren, Bovine Veterinarian Magazine
February 1, 2012
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- In the beef
safety section of Cattlemen’s College at the National Cattlemen’s
Beef Association annual convention Feb. 1, the link between Escherichia coli
O157:H7 and the feeding of wet distiller’s grains (WDGS) was discussed.
Meat Animal Research Center researcher Elaine Berry, PhD, outlined
studies looking at different levels of WDGS in growing and finishing diets and
the effect on E. coli prevalence in hides and fecal matter.
Berry said in one study where controls were fed no WDGS in the ration and
others were fed 40% WDGS, fecal samples during finishing in the controls was
1.5% versus 15% positive samples in the 40% WDGS group.
Hide samples were similar in that 33% of the cattle fed 40% WDGS were
positive for E. coli on the hide, versus 9% in the controls.
“High WDGS levels in the finishing diets did increase E. coli
O157:H7,” Berry said.
“This indicates mechanisms by which E. coli increases, and may
point to potential control points.”
She said, however, that eliminating WDGS is not the goal, but rather
“can we reduce E. coli when feeding? Can we feed WDGS initially and then
remove it from the diet before finishing?”
Another study was done to determine just that.
Cattle were fed a silage-based growing diets with WDGS included at none,
40% and 70%. After the growing phase of 56 days the percentage of WDGS in the
diet was reduced to none, 15% or 40%, and the cattle were fed another 56 days.
At finishing, fecal samples showed that the WDGS-free controls were 2%
positive; the 40% group was 35% positive; and the original 70% group was 38%
positive.
“The treatment group maintained on the 40% WDGS had higher levels
than animals fed no WDGS, and when shifted from the higher diet to the lower
diet, that group shifted significantly lower. Hide
contamination was significantly higher in the 40% WDGS group than the controls,
Berry said.
“Feeding high
levels of 40% and 70% WDGS can increase E. coli prevalence in feces and
hides,” she said. “But reducing the amount fed as well as the
timeframe may reduce E. coli."
Agencies issue update on Salmonella
investigation
MeatPoultry.com, Feb. 1, 2012
by Meat&Poultry Staff
ATLANTA – The Centers for Disease Control and the US Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service issued a final update report on
their investigation of a multi-state outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium
infections that were linked to ground beef sold from Hannaford Supermarkets.
The investigations, which started in mid-December, revealed that 20
people in seven states were infected with the foodborne pathogen and seven
people were hospitalized, according to CDC. The victims ranged in age from 1
year to 79 years old. They reside in Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.
The CDC said the strain of Salmonella Typhimurium
is resistant to several commonly prescribed antibiotics, including amoxicillin,
ampicillin and streptomycin. Investigators used DNA "fingerprint"
technology to identify cases that may have been associated with the outbreak.
The State of Maine Health and Environment Testing Laboratory and the New York
State Department of Health isolated the outbreak strain from two separate
samples of leftover ground beef purchased from Hannaford stores.
Hannaford, which is
based in Scarborough, Maine, cooperated fully with investigators, and initiated
a recall of an undetermined amount of fresh ground beef products on Dec. 15,
2011. The various ground beef packages bear sell-by dates of Dec. 17, 2011, or
earlier and were sold at Hannaford stores throughout Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York and Vermont, according to FSIS.
"Restaurant A" Revealed to be Taco
Bell
Food Safety News
Fast food chain has a history of outbreaks; public
health experts suggest reevalution of nondisclosure
by James Andrews | Feb 02, 2012
On Wednesday, Food Safety News editor Dan Flynn broke news of the
identity of "Restaurant Chain A" as Taco Bell in the 10-state
outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis that sickened at
least 68 individuals in October and November 2011.
The disclosure came from officials at the Oklahoma State Department of
Health's Acute Disease Service, who responded to a records request from Food
Safety News by supplying a document implicating Taco Bell as the fast-food
chain involved in the outbreak.
Sixteen Oklahomans reportedly became infected with Salmonella during the
outbreak. According to the document, eight out of 12 individuals available for
interviews ate at Taco Bell during the outbreak exposure window. The remaining
four victims refused interviews or could not be reached.
In its January 19 outbreak report, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) said that 60 percent of the victims reported eating at various
locations of a single Mexican-style restaurant chain -- Restaurant Chain A --
in the week before the outbreak's onset on Oct. 13, 2011. Outbreak
investigators determined that the illnesses likely were caused by a
contaminated ingredient from one of the fast-food chain's suppliers.
Of the victims who ate at this chain, 94 percent reported eating ground
beef, while 90 percent reported eating lettuce. But ground beef was ruled out
as a likely source because the chain's procedures for handling and thoroughly
cooking ground beef were said to be appropriate and safe.
The CDC chose not to name Taco Bell in the case because the outbreak had
already ended and the agency wanted to keep cordial relations with chain as it
cooperated with investigators. Oklahoma public health officials said they gave
the CDC until Tuesday to direct them on how to respond to document requests.
When the CDC did not give directions, Oklahoma released the documents.
Before and after learning the identity of "Restaurant Chain A,"
Food Safety News repeatedly reached out to Taco Bell for comment. On Wednesday
evening, the company released a statement to the media.
"The CDC indicated that some of the people who were ill ate at Taco
Bell, while others did not. They believe that the problem likely occurred at the
supplier level before it was delivered to any restaurant or food outlet. We
take food quality and safety very seriously," the statement read.
Following the CDC publication of its January 19 outbreak report, Food
Safety News had asked Taco Bell and five other major Mexican-style fast food
chains to confirm or deny an association with the outbreak. Taco Bell did not
respond.
Taco Bell's history of outbreaks
This is not the first outbreak in which an unidentified "Restaurant
Chain A" later turned out to be Taco Bell.
In 2010, the CDC investigated two separate Salmonella outbreaks linked to
a Mexican-style fast food chain, "Restaurant A," eventually revealed
as Taco Bell. Those outbreaks resulted in 155 reported illnesses, including 42
hospitalizations. In that case, the CDC adopted the same approach of
nondisclosure, initially choosing not to name Taco Bell.
The CDC estimates that for every confirmed case of Salmonella, 38 more
cases go unreported, suggesting that many more people
were likely sickened in the 2010 and 2011 outbreaks. Typical Salmonella
infections can result in diarrhea, abdominal cramps, fever, nausea, vomiting
and fatigue lasting one to seven days.
In 2006, Taco Bell was linked to an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 that
sickened at least 71 individuals, hospitalizing 53 and resulting in eight cases
of hemolytic uremic syndrome. That time, the CDC was upfront in identifying
Taco Bell.
According to BusinessMart, there are more than
5,800 Taco Bell franchises in the United States serving more than 2 billion
meals a year.
Nondisclosure: Public health experts weigh in
In an interview with msnbc.com published Tuesday, Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of foodborne, waterborne and
environmental diseases at the CDC, defended the nondisclosure in the latest
outbreak, noting that the practice is used on a case-by-case basis but
supported by a longstanding precedent of withholding names when the public no
longer faces an immediate health threat.
Former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) food safety undersecretary
and Food Safety News contributor Dr. Richard Raymond disputed that reasoning,
but said Tauxe should not be the focus of blame.
Raymond suggested that food industry lobbyists might put pressure on
government agencies to not disclose names.
"Obviously, they don't like their stores being linked to
recalls," he said. "It takes a lot of political power and clout and
intestinal fortitude to fight the lobbyists," he added.
When asked if government agencies might fear lawsuits from companies named
in outbreaks, Raymond said it was likely, but agencies that have conclusive
evidence should have nothing to fear.
The problem with nondisclosure, Raymond and other public health experts said, is that government agencies cannot reasonably
anticipate the consequences of withholding the information and should instead
err on the side of transparency. For one, in some restaurant-related outbreaks,
consumers could be storing contaminated leftovers in their freezer for weeks
before reheating them, he said.
To illustrate the importance of transparency, Raymond compared food
recalls to car recalls: When a car is recalled once for a bad part, most
customers appreciate the company's notification and cooperate to get the
problem fixed. But if the manufacturer routinely issues recalls for faults,
customers eventually become wary and decide to stop giving the manufacturer
their business.
The same logic applies to foodborne illness outbreaks, Raymond said. The
public understands that companies cannot prevent every outbreak, but they want
to know that those responsible are working to keep the same thing from
happening again. If individuals never learn who sickened them, no one gets
publicly held accountable.
University of Minnesota environmental health professor Craig Hedberg, Ph.D. said that companies who do not come forward
about outbreaks miss their opportunity to publicly correct their mistake. He
said that companies who proactively take responsibility often regain public
favor, citing the examples of Jack in the Box after the 1993 E. coli O157:H7
outbreak and Schwan's after the 1994 Salmonella outbreak from contaminated ice
cream.
"If my food company was involved in an outbreak, I would certainly
want to appear to be ahead of the curve and not trying to run away from
anything," Hedberg said. "If they appear to
have something to hide, it feeds public anxiety. It's much more damaging than
confronting the outbreak upfront and highlighting your response."
During his tenure at the USDA from 2005 to 2008, Raymond worked to
establish new standards for informing the public on which groceries stores were
selling recalled food. Before Raymond's changes, the agency only revealed the
product name, the identifying code and the region of the country where it was
sold.
"The rationale behind naming the stores was that people don't always
remember what brand they bought and don't keep the package to see the code once
they've opened it," Raymond said. "If I have leftover spaghetti in
the fridge with contaminated beef and then I hear about a recall, I might not
remember who made the beef, but I'll probably know what store I bought it
from."
Raymond said he hoped the FDA and CDC would amend their policies in light
of public reaction to recent outbreaks.
"We tried to
set a precedent with the USDA," he said. "I don't know why we can't
have rules and regulations for letting people know where they ate that got them
sick."
Better beef sales: Beef up knowledge at the
meat case
Drovers CattleNetwork
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
February 1, 2012
NASHVILLE, TENN. – The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)
and the Beef Checkoff Program partnered with Merck Animal Health to launch
Better Beef Sales, a new web-based retail training program to help boost
knowledge about today’s beef and how it’s produced.
These organizations recognized the need for more training of meat-counter
employees after Merck Animal Health conducted a series of consumer panels. The panels
found that consumers identify the staff behind the counter as experts. Carrie
Thomas, account manager for food chain affairs for Merck Animal Health, said
the need for training was quickly confirmed during retailer discussions.
“We conducted four panels in two cities. One of the key take away
messages from those meetings was consumers still identify the person in the
“white coat” behind the meat counter — the
‘butcher’ — as the beef expert,” said Thomas. “And,
we want them to be beef experts. To do that, we need to arm them with
information about today’s beef supply and how it’s produced.”
Consumer decisions about the products they buy are now far more complex
than they were in the recent past. Some consumers take into account how animals
were raised, sustainability, animal welfare and a whole host of practices
employed by cattle-farm families and ranchers. Questions on those topics
aren’t always easily addressed by the individuals responsible for putting
beef on people’s plates — retail meat counter employees. This new
initiative is intended to bridge the knowledge gap between the consumer and
their food. Retail employees can play a critical role in bridging that gap.
Better Beef Sales education program consists of a series of six web-based
training modules for the retail meat counter employees on the front lines of
consumer marketing. Topics covered in the videos include: types and quality of
beef offered today; sustainability of today’s beef; animal welfare
practices; beef-improvement technologies; and ways retailers can add value to
the meat case.
“As cattle numbers continue to decrease and retail beef supplies
become tighter, it’s going to take more effort to keep beef center of the
plate,” said Thomas. “We want to make sure retail employees and consumers
understand how their beef is produced and how these wholesome, quality products
end up on our dinner tables.”
To learn more about the Better Beef Sales retail education program, visit
beefretail.org.