DENVER, Colo. – The debate over traceability continues to rage in the United States.
Ranchers support a voluntary system while exporters say selling beef of unknown origins could ultimately bring lower prices.
The lack of traceability is a particular stumbling block for negotiators attempting to resume trade with China.
It is at the top of the list of the 22 conditions that the U.S. needs to meet, said Mark Gustafson, international vice-president for JBS.
“That is a non starter for us to have any hope with China,” he told an international markets committee that met during the recent National Cattlemen’s Beef Association annual convention in Denver.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“More and more countries are not seeing traceability as a non-tariff barrier. They think it is something that we do. They can’t believe it when we say traceability is a problem.”
Animals designated for premium programs already carry identification, such as non-hormone treated cattle destined for Europe and age and source verified cattle destined for Japan.
However, most animals do not. Gustafson said the lack of traceability is America’s Achilles heel that other countries can use as a competitive advantage.
The U.S. sells 300,000 tonnes less beef per year to Japan since the BSE trade ban because of age restrictions and other food safety issues.
The country needs to find new markets for that beef and traceability may be one answer.
“Exports would have greater potential and we need it to grow export markets and keep the ones we’ve had,” he said.
However, Missouri rancher Mike John said many cow-calf producers are suspicious of traceability because they might be held responsible if something goes wrong later up the food chain. As well, many are confused about what traceability means.
John is a director of an animal identification company but supports a voluntary program.
He said a good system requires third party verification and assurances of greater export potential or premiums.
“Most producers I know would participate if they feel they could get a return on their investment.”
Mike Engler, president of Cactus Feedyards with 10 locations in Texas and Kansas, saw traceability as a good commercial tool.
The company has developed its own system to track performance in groups or document drug use and withdrawal times.
It also feeds Mexican cattle, which must be fully identified because of country-of-origin labelling laws.
Those cattle must be shipped on separate days to specific plants where foreign animals are handled.
“We know we will be held responsible for the cattle we deliver to the packing plant,” Engler said. “For some reason the rest of the industry is very suspicious.”
He said he knows plenty about the cattle once they arrive at the yards, but he rarely knows their earlier history. A number of farms could be represented in a single pen. Performance information could be returned to the farms and improvements made if they were fully identified.
Traceability may at some point have to rely on DNA databases.
Gustafson said maintaining DNA archives is not difficult for large companies such as JBS and would have an added advantage during food recalls because they could target specific lots of meat rather than order large wholesale recalls.
As for readability, Engler prefers using electronic ear tags at his feed yard, but Gustafson said JBS can read whatever system is used.
However, standards are needed so that tags can be read easily on the farm, auction or packing plant.
Traceability is also a critical component for animal disease control so that infections are found and quickly eliminated.
Meat consultant Graeme Goodsir from Pennsylvania said Great Britain successfully used its system to trace animals in its BSE and foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks.
“If we ever have the misfortune of an outbreak like that, we will be in terrible trouble,” he said.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture backed away from a mandatory, national system last February and now promotes a voluntary program with the states and tribal councils handling most of the work.
