NATIONAL MEAT
ASSOCIATION h 1970
Broadway, Suite 825, Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 763-1533 Fax (510) 763-6186 h Email Address: [email protected] h http://www.nmaonline.org
Edited
by Kiran Kernellu
August
26, 2002
NMA'S
SUMMER BOARD MEETING AND CONFERENCE
At NMA's Summer Board Meeting and Conference earlier
this month, all NMA committees met and reported activities and recommendations.
These included: a warm reception for new members and a joint meeting of the
Membership Committee and Associate Advisory Committee to discuss the Exposition
and Convention plans for Las Vegas in March 2003. The Membership Committee also
warmly welcomed the members of Eastern Meat Packers Association that has
recently affiliated with NMA to receive NMA's information but will retain its
important identity as EMPA and be listed as an affiliate group in NMA's 2003
Membership Directory.
NMA's Beef Committee received excellent updates from
both Dr. Ken Peterson, Assistant Deputy Administrator of FSIS, on current
changes and from Mr. Bill Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator of AMS on
the USDA's commodity purchase program and Country of Origin labeling
implementation. Of particular interest, Sessions told the Beef Committee about
the policy recently announced by AMS that clearly defines the parameters for
USDA certification of brand programs. An announcement of this policy notice was
in Lean Trimmings August?? and is available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/certprog/beefpol.htm. Concern
was expressed about organizational changes under consideration at FSIS that may
further confuse the operations line authority and NMA staff was instructed to
raise this issue at the Administrator level. The Committee also heard about a
research proposal and will continue its consideration. The Processed Meats
Committee received information from Becca Hendricks of the National Pork Board
about pork mycology and muscle profiling and continued to discuss ways in which
HACCP auditing and evaluation can help further processors address the RTE
standards. The Small Stock Committee heard about new product concepts for lamb
from Dr. Robert Vance, and received an update on the final phase of the NMA
lamb promotion and marketing project. The Food Safety & Regulatory
Inspection Committee, once again, had a very full agenda with much discussion
about the new Salmonella notice and USDA's recall policy. The Workplace Issues
Committee received excellent update information from Rick Alaniz and John
Linker with Alaniz & Schraeder and John Barbieri/Matt Kelleher and Kevin
Vollmer of State Fund.
Finally, the Strategic Planning Committee, which is
comprised of NMA's officers and the chairs of all committees, discussed in
detail the draft plan they developed in April and updated it. They expect to
have it available for distribution within a month. Financial reports for NMA's
fiscal year ending June 30 were presented and accepted along with a report on
NMA's investments. The Strategic Planning Committee is working with NMA staff
to identify a location in Wisconsin as a site for its Summer Conference in
August 2003, and confirmed San Antonio, Texas for its 2004 Convention site. New
staff members, Kiran Kernellu, NMA Communications Manager, and Shawna Thomas,
Washington Government Affairs Liaison, met with attendees during the meetings.
Page 2
VIVA!
The Center for Consumer Freedom reported that last
week the animal rights group, Vegetarians International Voice For Animals
(VIVA) was ordered by Great Britain's Advertising Standards Authority to cease
its public pronouncements declaring that meat eaters are more likely to die
from "killer diseases." See page 3 of last week's issue of Lean
Trimmings for more information on VIVA.
ANIMALS RIGHTS GROUPS' ADVERTISING
The Center for Consumer Freedom reported last week
another attack on the meat industry. The Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine (PCRM) criticized the Atkins diet because it emphasizes a high protein
diet. Dieters on this program tend to increase their consumption of meat. PCRM
president Neal Barnard cautioned doctors of "serious legal risk" if
they prescribe the Atkins diet. He called the diet "a racket" and
advised to "take your money to the produce stand" in a Chicago
Tribune article.
HealthScout News discovered that the American
Medical Association has repeatedly censured PCRM. Atkins vice president Michael
Bernstein stated, "[PCRM] is an extremist vegetarian animal-rights
group…their agenda is neither medical nor scientific; it is political."
PCRM is closely affiliated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
and has accepted over $1.3 million from animal rights organizations. Some of
these said animal rights organizations have ties to violent terrorist groups.
MICROBIOLOGICAL
CRITERIA FOR FOODS
The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods
(NACMCF) will hold a public meeting on August 28, 2002 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. at the Jurys Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. The Committee is to
consider the Codex "Discussion Paper on Proposed Draft Guidelines for the
Validation of Food Hygiene Control Measures;" introduce "defining
pasteurization;" introduce the new charge on Campybolacter; report on
subcommittee activity on Microbiological Performance Standards for Raw Meat and
Poultry Products. The agenda is at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ophs/nacmcf/meetings.htm.
INSTITUTE
OF MEDICINE/NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
The Committee on Review of the Use of Scientific
Criteria and Performance Standards for Safe Food of the Institute of
Medicine/National Academy of Sciences will hold its fifth annual meeting August
27-29, 2002 in Washington, D.C. On August 27th, there will be an open session
from 11:00 a.m. to noon. Any organization or person may address the committee
for no more than ten minutes during this time. Those interested in addressing
the committee should register in advance with Ms. Sanait Tesfagiorgis at (202)
334-2911 or mailto:[email protected].
Page
3
REMEMBERING
MARC SALCIDO
Marc Salcido, former president of Butchers Union
Local 126 (now UFCW #1288) in Fresno died of a heart attack on July 26. He was
64. Marc, the son of migrant farm workers, began an apprenticeship as a meat
butcher in 1958, became a representative of the Union in 1980, and was
subsequently elected President of the Local.
He served on prestigious various assignments for the labor movement, but
never forgot the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with all workers,
as he represented his members. NMA
Executive Director Rosemary Mucklow worked with him on benefit trust funds, and
remembers his energetic involvement to speak for the workers whom he really
cared about. We extend our condolences
to his wife and family in their loss.
ACADEMIC
SELECTION COMMITTEE
On
behalf of the directors of the NMA Scholarship Foundation, members of NMA, and
NMA staff, many thanks to the members of the Academic Selection Committee. They
are:
· Professor Robert Vance, Cal Poly
State University
· Dr. Steven Jones, University of
Nebraska
· Professor John Henson, California
State University, Fresno
· Professor Steven Lonergan, Iowa
State University
· Professor Ernest Hawkins, Brigham
Young University
PROFESSOR
ROBERT VANCE
Dr. Robert Vance, Professor of Animal Science at
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA was selected to be
the recipient of NMA's highest award, the E. Floyd Forbes, at NMA's Convention
to be held in March 2003 in Las Vegas, NV.
Dr. Vance's career in academia began in 1979 at Cal
Poly and he continues to teach meat and animal science courses there. In announcing the award, NMA President Ted
Miller noted that Bob Vance, through his career instruction of undergraduates,
has sparked the interest and launched the meat industry careers of hundreds of
students who have gone through his classes.
Further, he has guided NMA's Scholarship program, working with NMA's
Education Committee over the past twenty years.
For those who know Bob Vance, he was very surprised
to learn of his selection at the NMA Board meeting in Sedona this month. Two of
his former students, Lynn and Bob Delmore, were on a mission to be sure that he
was in the meeting that morning!
Bob Vance stands tall with previous E. Floyd Forbes
honorees, and NMA is looking forward to hearing from many of his former
students as we prepare to honor him for his priceless contribution to the meat
industry.
NMA SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
Congratulations
to the following scholarship recipients!
v David Schroeder, University of
Nebraska
DeBenedetti
Memorial Scholarship
v Kristin Leigh Voges, Texas A&M
University
Al
Piccetti Memorial Scholarship
v Jennifer Wonderly, Cal Poly, San
Luis Obispo
Edie
Schmidt Memorial Scholarship
v Jessica Meisinger, Iowa State
University
NMA
Scholarship
v Mindi Dannell Russell, Kansas
State University
NMA
Scholarship
v Allison Adkins, University of
Wisconsin
NMA
Scholarship
v Donald Andrew Moss, University of
Nebraska at Lincoln
NMA
Scholarship
v Kelton Kale Mason, Texas A&M
University
NMA
Scholarship
Scholarship
recipients are invited to attend NMA's MEATXPO '03 for an awards ceremony.
Page
4
NATIONAL
SUMMARY OF MEATS GRADED
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service released the
summary report of meats graded for the month of July, 2002. For all quality
graded beef, Choice was 57.5%, up from 56.9% in June. Select was 39.3%, down
slightly from 39.9% the previous month. And Prime was 3.1%, down from 3.2% in
June. For a copy of the entire report which covers beef, lamb and mutton, NMA
members send a self-addressed/stamped (37˘) envelope to Kiran Kernellu at NMA
or visit it online at www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mgc/mgc-pubs.htm.
NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION
NMA - East: 1400 - 16th St. N.W., Suite 400, Washington D.C.
20036 Ph. (202) 667-2108
NMA - West: 1970 Broadway, Suite 825, Oakland, CA 94612 Ph.
(510) 763-1533 Fax (510) 763-6186
Edited
by Kiran Kernellu
August
26, 2002
COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
LABELING
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service requested
comments, information and data as to how best to structure and implement the
two year voluntary country-of-origin labeling (COOL) mandated by the 2002 Farm
Bill. National Meat Association and
Southwest Meat Association, on behalf of their members distributed throughout
the United States, filed these comments.
At best, the Agricultural Marketing Service has been
asked to implement the will of the Congress, but it does not have the tools for
the purpose. Further, AMS is expected
to publish "hurry-up" guidelines to carry out the voluntary
guidelines. This spells the ingredients
for a train wreck. We would suggest
that AMS seek additional time from Congress so that it may proceed in an
orderly fashion.
The AMS guidelines should clarify how packers and
retailers are to comply with the law in several specific areas. These are:
What is expected as country-of-origin labeling for
beef, pork and lamb that is produced substantially, but not entirely within the
United States?
Under the new law, neither beef, pork nor lamb may
be labeled as having a U.S. country-of-origin, unless it is born, raised, fed,
slaughtered and processed in the United States. The new law prohibits labeling beef, pork or lamb which is
substantially raised, produced and slaughtered in the United States, but which
began its life in another country (Canada or Mexico, most likely) as of U.S.
origin. Common sense would seem to
require that meat produced from such livestock be labeled as:
"substantially of U.S. origin" or "of U.S. and XXX country
origin," but that kind of labeling does not seem to be authorized by the
new law.
Agricultural Marketing Service's guidelines must
clarify how product of mixed U.S. and foreign origin is to be labeled during
the "voluntary" phase of this program. If meat raised substantially in the U.S. must be labeled as
having a country-of-origin other than the U.S., such labeling will be
inherently false and will apparently violate the First Amendment ban against
compelled false statements, and even more egregious since the compelling party
is the United States government.
The USDA/AMS must clarify in its forthcoming
guidelines how country-of-origin is to be tracked and audited.
The statute sets forth an audit verification system
providing for certification of origin, mandatory identification and considers
existing certification programs. The
new statutory provisions specifically prohibit a new mandatory livestock ID
program and suggest, instead, that verification and audit can be based on one
or more of five existing voluntary verification programs. AMS must be precise in its guidelines in
regard to which of these existing programs should be used as a model, and
provide details as to how that program(s) should be used.
Economic Impact Requirement
Assuming that AMS interprets the new law to allow
statements of mixed origin to accommodate meat from two different countries,
AMS needs to address the economic impact on producers and packers if retailers
shun these products, preferring instead to purchase meat which can be labeled
as having a single country-of-origin, which could be either the U. S., Canada,
or some other country that legally sends meat into the U. S. If retailers
discriminate against meat other than that originating in the United States by
definition, then producers of feeder livestock, for example, Canada and/or
Mexico and their traditional rancher and feeder customers in the U.S. could be
damaged by the resultant changing patterns of trade.
Changing patterns of livestock and meat trade along
the U.S.-Canada and the U.S.-Mexico borders could raise the price of meat in
some markets, particularly in the Northeast, Northwest and Southwest U.S. with
resulting adverse impacts on both producers, consumers and packers. These impacts on product of mixed origin
could begin immediately during the "voluntary" compliance period,
because retailers would have an economic incentive to change their buying
patterns to support their voluntary labeling.
Thus, there may be an immediate compliance burden on U.S. and foreign
livestock producers, prior to the imposition of mandatory country-of-origin
labeling requirements. AMS must address
the likelihood and extent of this impact.
When government requirements create market uncertainty, the business
economy suffers. This ill-advised
change in statutory requirements has the potential for a huge economic cost to
the livestock and meat industry. AMS
has the unenviable task of trying to produce guidelines to carry out a
legislative political promise made in the Congress that is unlikely to satisfy
anyone, and will seriously harm many. (See page 2 of the August 5, 2002 edition
of Lean Trimmings and the front page of the June 17, 2002 edition of Herd on
the Hill for more on COOL.)
Page 2
COOL
GETS COOL RECEPTION
Final regulations are due at the end of next month
for country-of-origin labels (COOL) on meat, produce and fish. COOL has
received a cool reception all around, reported Reuters. U.S. trading partners
call it 'protectionist'. American foodmakers call it a costly and unfair
burden. Amidst a growing crowd of protestors, it's clear that the task of
finalizing the regulations will be a torrential ordeal.
Although the Bush administration has been vocal in
its complaints, citing the heavy cost to the U.S. food industry and possible
violations of international trade agreements, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
intends to implement the program in line with Congress' plan. The American Farm
Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union successfully lobbied for the
COOL program to give American ranchers an advantage, that is, a way for
consumers to distinguish U.S. produced meat from those of competitors. There is
a glitch in that line of thinking. As reported in the June 17, 2002 edition of
Herd on the Hill, cattle born in Canada and Mexico are raised, slaughtered, and
processed in the U.S. in significant numbers, according to the General
Accounting Office's (GAO) January 2000 report entitled, Beef and Lamb,
Implications of Labeling by Country of Origin. U.S. cattle are sent for
slaughter to Canada and Mexico in equally significant numbers. It's likely that
the number of imported cattle has grown in recent years coinciding with the
growing American demand for beef, but the new country-of-origin requirements
would not brand these cattle as American. Not only would this hurt American importers,
but it may set us on a path for similar treatment from our neighbors. Americans
eat a substantial amount of beef, lamb and pork, and a lot of that meat is
imported. In fact, our meat is often derived from well-traveled livestock. The
American Meat Institute (AMI) stated "the cumulative effect [of COOL] will
be to drive value out of [the] meat production chain, capital investment out of
rural communities and some smaller operations out of business," in its
comments to AMS.
The costs of implementing COOL are sizeable.
Estimated annual costs of $182 million for meatpackers and processors to
maintain information solely on the country of origin of beef don't include the
costs to packers and processors of then identifying and maintaining
country-of-origin information for meat from cattle that were imported and
raised in the United States. A system for tracing animal origin would have to
be instituted, as COOL becomes mandatory in 2004. U.S. packers, processors and
grocers could pass the incurred costs from COOL forward to the consumer.
Congress didn't provide AMS with additional funds to manage the COOL program,
which leaves the industry to bear the expenses. Higher retail prices just might
get in the way of consumers "buying American," and negate the intent
of Congress and those who lobbied for COOL.
CHECKOFF CHECKS BACK INTO COURT
Judge Richard Cebull of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana will hear arguments about the legality of the national
mandatory beef checkoff program on September 23rd. According to InfoMeat, Judge
Cebull has advised all parties involved to focus on the matter of
"government speech," specifically whether the checkoff qualifies as
such. Government speech is exempt from the freedom of speech requirements of
the First Amendment. The government will argue that the checkoff is
"government speech," which the plaintiffs, who want to abolish the
checkoff, will contradict.
The subject of "government speech" is also
apt to surface while another U.S. District Court in Michigan examines the
constitutionality of the pork checkoff program.
SENIORS NEED EXTRA PROTEIN
As reported in a recent Meatingplace.com article,
older adults need more protein than younger adults. Protein insufficiency can
reduce the body's disease-fighting abilities. Dr. Roger Landry, preventive
medicine specialist and consultant to The Buckingham, a Houston-based life care
retirement community, recommends that seniors avoid rigid dieting, which often
results in them mistakenly cutting their protein. Eating lean cuts of meat is
especially beneficial. The Buckingham serves protein-rich meals that include
such foods as lamb chops, beef medallions, and sea bass in order to provide a
sensible and healthful diet for their residents. At least three meals per day
should include protein.