ACTIONS speak louder than words. That’s why it became a symbol of trust in the Canadian food supply when many fast food restaurants began serving 100 percent home-grown beef last summer.
That’s why it would amount to a symbolic slap if McDonald’s goes ahead with a proposal to ban meat from older cattle in its Canadian restaurants.
McDonald’s has made no decision, but it is considering banning meat from cattle older than 30 months as part of an ongoing review of its operations since BSE was discovered in an Alberta cow on May 20.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
McDonald’s has been on the leading edge of responding to consumer demands for years. It insists on high standards and humane animal treatment from suppliers. It can argue that banning older cattle from its meat continues along this course.
But clearly Canadians have made no such demands this time.
In fact, we have responded to the BSE crisis by eating more beef as a show of support and trust in our producers and in the system. And it was consumer demand last summer that pressured restaurants to switch to all-Canadian beef in the midst of the BSE crisis.
Rather than a response to public demand, McDonald’s proposed ban could undermine public confidence and fuel irrational fears, driving consumers away from beef and, therefore, away from McDonald’s.
As well, if large domestic users stop buying beef from older cattle, it would be a major blow to the beef industry’s recovery plan. The Canadian beef industry has been trying to find new markets for its older beef since many foreign buyers banned Canadian beef last spring.
Most scientists believe younger cattle pose a lesser risk of BSE because of the disease’s five-year incubation period. Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans has been linked to eating beef contaminated with BSE.
However, safety measures already in place provide adequate assurance. For example, brain, spinal cord tissue and other high risk materials from cattle are not allowed in the food chain.
There is also the question of who would pay the added costs if McDonald’s were to insist upon using only younger cattle. Would farmers get the same price for their top grade cattle even though they were sold for hamburger and not prime cuts? Would McDonald’s pay a premium? Would consumers pay more for it?
The McDonald’s proposal raises many questions and potential pitfalls. But there is an easier solution.
Instead of chasing ethereal consumer dollars that could fuel harmful and unfounded fears, the restaurant could crack open its advertising budget and redirect money to reassure consumers of the safety and quality of the systems already in place.
