| View this email as a Web page | Please add Beef Quality Strategies to your Safe Sender list. |
|
|
|
| A Penton Media Property | |
| June 13, 2007 | |
|
|
|
|
Table of Contents Pet Poisoning Spurs Consumer Interest In Verification NAIS Pilot Project Summary Available Leveraging The Work You're Doing Understanding QSAs And PVPs Choosing Verification Partners Questions & Comments Content sponsored by AgInfoLink Commentary Pet Poisoning Spurs Consumer Interest In Verification Concerns over pet health could advance the development and adoption of animal and food traceability standards more than wonderments about livestock security and human health ever have. "...it's been a complex investigation that has led us places that we may not have predicted. Like any good investigation, we've gone where the leads have taken us," says David Acheson, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assistant commissioner for food protection. In fact, the pet food recall that began in March has all the stuff of a pulp-fiction best seller. There's poison and fatalities. In this case, it's pet food tainted with melamine and melamine-related compounds that sickened and killed an unconfirmed number of dogs and cats. According to FDA, the agency has received about 18,000 calls from pet owners -- about half of them have been documented in the agency's data base. Of those, FDA says about half report the death of a pet that owners believe is related to the tainted pet food. There's also deception and foreign intrigue. Two Chinese companies have so far been tagged as the suppliers of substances tainted with melamine and related compounds. At first, FDA thought the melamine was in wheat gluten and rice protein used in making pet food. By the middle of last month, the agency deduced it was actually flour laced with melamine that came into the country mislabeled as either wheat gluten or rice protein. Speculation is that the Chinese exporters added melamine to the flour to boost the protein content to a level similar to that of wheat gluten or flour. By the time U.S. investigators reached China, the two companies had been dismantled and investigators were unable to question their officials. Reportedly, the Chinese government has detained these officials, however. Finally, as in all classic yarns, this one includes a domino effect. First, it was about 60,000 hogs in eight states restricted from market because they had received feed manufactured with remnants of the contaminated pet food. By the middle of May, these hogs were cleared for entry into the marketplace. About 10 days later, 80,000 breeder birds in Indiana were restricted from market because they also could have eaten feed made with the tainted pet food. Ultimately, risk analysis opened the market doors. Most recently, FDA reported that a Canadian manufacturer was recalling commercial fish feed after discovering the presence of melamine. As many as 198 fish farms received the feed -- two of them in the U.S. still had their fish being held from market as of May 16. Though FDA emphasizes that risk analysis indicates there's little risk to people who might consume livestock fed tainted feed, consumers understandably are asking a growing list of questions that could reignite interest in national animal ID and animal ID-related issues. Re-thinking food safety Between the common link of pet ownership and the raw numbers involved in the pet food recall, it's easy to understand why some in the food industry regard the debacle as the tipping point in the debate surrounding standardized livestock ID and the verification systems enabled by it. According to the Pet Food Institute (PFI), there are 63 million dogs and more than 81 million cats in the U.S. (2005); more than half of the 111 million U.S. households have at least one. So, figure at least 55 million households with at least one dog or cat. Further, according to PFI, dog and cat food sales in 2005 reached a record $14.1 billion; it was $11.1 billion in 2000. So, at least 55 million households with 144 million dogs and cats, spending just over $14 billion on feed alone. These are the folks who, according to various reports, filed more complaints with FDA in a few weeks than the agency normally receives in a year. Among the logical questions pet owners are asking are: How did melamine get into the wheat gluten (flour) to begin with? Don't such companies test feed ingredients to verify what the supplier's label says? If it can happen with pet food, what about human food? "I have watched FDA chase too many imports with too few resources for too many years," said John Dingell, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as he opened a Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing in April. The hearing was aimed at assessing FDA's ability to maintain the safety of the U.S. food supply. It included folks affected by the pet food recall, as well as those affected by two other recent and widely publicized recalls having to do with salmonella in peanut putter and E. coli in spinach. "Whether the life-threatening product is a counterfeit drug or tainted food, FDA lacks enough properly trained and motivated personnel to do an increasingly difficult job... They have some serious accounting to do regarding the game of roulette they are playing with the lives of Americans," Dingell said. At the same hearing, Lisa Shames, acting director of natural resources and environment for the General Accounting Office, explained the fragmentation of the nation's food safety oversight with 15 agencies administering 30 laws related to food safety. Adding to the confusion is where the dividing lines are drawn between agencies. As an example, Shames pointed out USDA is responsible for pizza that has meat toppings; otherwise, it's the responsibility of FDA. "USDA is responsible for regulating only about 20% of the food supply. In contrast, FDA, which is responsible for regulating about 80% of the food supply, accounted for only about 24% of the expenditures," Shames explained. Without a firm grip on tracking standards for products and their ingredients, it's easy to imagine consumers, spurred ahead by concerned pet owners, supporting flawed concepts like country-of-origin labeling (COOL) in the mistaken belief that knowing where a product is from also means that you know what's in it. Incidentally, COOL -- on the books to begin in September 2008 -- continues to draw criticism from folks who will have to manage the law. The curret cool law is simple in concept but includes draconian tracking requirements, while expressly forbidding implementation of the necessary standardized livestock ID system that would make COOL achievement most cost-effectively possible, let alone practical. For instance, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) recently reported, "Mandatory COOL for seafood is failing to deliver the benefits promised by the law. It has not increased sales of U.S. seafood. At the same time, the supermarket industry's cost to comply with the law is up to 10 times higher than USDA estimated when it issued the interim final rule for labeling seafood." ADVERTISEMENT  Verification Services AgInfoLink is experienced in providing verification solutions for the livestock industry. AgInfoLink offers age and source verification under our USDA-approved Process Verified Program (PVP). We also offer third party verification for Natural and other marketing claims. Take advantage of market opportunities through verification. Contact AgInfoLink today for more information. Phone: 800.287.8787 Email: info@aginfolink.com Web: www.aginfolink.com News NAIS Pilot Project Summary Available If you're looking for a snapshot of the strengths and challenges associated with implementing a national animal ID system at the speed of commerce, check out USDA's National Animal Identification System (NAIS) "Pilot Projects/Field Trials Summary" report issued last month. It documents the findings of the 16 pilot projects conducted as part of the NAIS implementation effort. It also provides a summary of collective observations. Among them:
ADVERTISEMENT Traceability Starts Here For over nine years, AgInfoLink has provided traceability solutions to the industry's most innovative producers and organizations. From data collection and storage to secure data sharing and reporting, our wide range of products allows us to design a solution for you. Now it's your turn to experience the benefits of animal identification! Pick up the phone and call AgInfoLink today to find out what we can do for you! Phone: 800.287.8787 Email: info@aginfolink.com Web: www.aginfolink.com Management Leveraging The Work You're Doing "The more layers of added value you have to market, the more potential bidders you can attract. It opens up doors to additional markets," says John Henn, livestock and meat program manager for the Wyoming Business Council. He's describing the impetus behind the Wyoming Verified Program (WVP) begun last year, which enables producers in the state to document the age and source of their calves for prospective buyers. Producers can also document the eligibility of calves for natural beef programs, and will soon be able to document them as non-hormone treated cattle (NHTC), too, which will make them eligible for export to Europe's burgeoning beef market. WVP is one of the first state programs to utilize a Process Verified Program (PVP) as an opportunity for producers. As an approved partner in AgInfoLink's USDA PVP, attributes of cattle flowing through WVP are verified by a third-party independent source. That means the cattle also comply with requirements for USDA's Beef Export Verification program, making them eligible for export to countries that have an age-restriction on cattle. Henn points out WVP's natural requirements make the calves eligible for almost any natural beef program. "Having ranched here myself, I know it's tough for producers to add value to their calves. You have preconditioning, Beef Quality Assurance certification, performance history and reputation. For a low cost, this program opens up the door to three more markets that potentially offer a premium," Henn explains. How it works To be eligible for WVP certification, producers must have verifiable and documented birth dates and a National Animal Identification System (NAIS) premise ID number. Obtaining a premise ID is free and should be easy. In most states it's available through the state agriculture or livestock agency. In Wyoming, the premise ID comes through the state livestock board. Contact information for the recording agency in each state can be found at animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml. Birth records for WVP can be individual birth dates or the date the first calf was born during the season, with the bull-turnout date recorded. These have to be written records for verification and individual animal traceability. "It can be as simple as writing down the date of the first calf on a calendar and keeping the calendar on file. Just that could be worth an extra $10-40/head," Henn says. "Virtually all the producers who have enrolled in this program so far were already keeping the kind of records they needed for the program." Basically, WVP participants can currently sign up free of charge, including a site audit by Henn. As producers choose to enroll calves, it costs them $3.25-3.75/head, with most of that cost accounted for by the required RFID tag. The RFID tag must contain a 15-digit number that is uploaded to AgInfoLink's database. That database houses the necessary animal records -- birth and source documentation; natural documentation for those who are eligible and want to include it -- which can follow the animal as it changes hands. The tags are also compliant with NAIS. "Participants can purchase the tags anywhere as long as they're program compliant. I didn't want to limit participants to any single tag manufacturer or distributor," Henn says. Working under AgInfoLink's PVP, Henn also points out WVP and AgInfoLink will be able to add additional verification/marketing claims as demand warrants. For instance, he's already wondering if there will be room for a future claim that calves have tested negative for persistent infection with the BVD virus. What it's worth As for premium potential, while such verification offers no guarantees, Henn says some WVP participants garnered $3-11/cwt. more for their calves last year compared to similar weight and class cattle selling at auction the same day. It all goes back to attracting more bids. In the case of the producer who got $11/cwt. more, Henn explains the ultimate buyer didn't care about the verifications, he just wanted the calves because he knew how they performed. But folks who also wanted the verifications pushed him to that premium level. "No one can guarantee that you'll get more money if your calves are verified for these attributes. But I can guarantee that if you don't verify your calves through a program like this you won't get a premium for the attributes if one is being paid," Henn says. Perhaps the strongest testimony to producer satisfaction with WVP is the fact that even when producers don't figure they received a premium they still want to continue participating in the program. Going the next step Henn says the reasons most producers have enrolled in WVP are to expand their markets and get a voluntary head-start on what they figure they will be required to do ultimately. That's how they start anyway. "I've seen some producers go on and use the RFID technology of the program to gather data for management purposes," explains Henn. He says WVP's major challenge has been building awareness among producers in the state, but mostly among buyers of Wyoming calves. As part of that effort, Henn travels to cattle-feeding areas to promote the program. WVP is also set to launch a free Internet-based cattle listing service for WVP participants. "You don't have to be a big gun to participate in the program," Henn says, pointing that the 100 or so producers that will be enrolled in WVP by year's end have herds ranging from 30 to 2,000 head. "It's an easy program to participate in," Henn emphasizes. "Really, the only extra thing a rancher has to do is put in RFID tags before the calves leave the ranch." For more information about the Wyoming Verified Program, www.wyomingbusiness.org or www.aginfolink.com. Understanding QSAs And PVPs It seems so simple. A buyer wants you to verify the age and source of the calves you're selling, even says they're worth more money if you do. They're all wearing your brand and you've got calving records going back to Noah's foundation stock; no problem. But the buyer shakes his head and starts asking about which Quality Assessment System (QSA) or Process Verified Program (PVP) your calves are enrolled in. Huh? At their simplest, QSAs and PVPs are audit and verification programs through which your calves can get the government stamp of approval required by current USDA Beef Export Verification (BEV) programs. Japan requires such BEV documentation for U.S. beef imports to verify that no beef comes from cattle older than 20 months of age. The European Union requires it for U.S. beef imports to verify they comply with the standards of Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC). This same kind of USDA-approved, third-party verification is also finding favor with domestic customers wanting verification of age, source, animal welfare practices and natural beef standards. QSAs and PVPs are alike Both QSA and PVP programs are supported by Quality Management Systems that document specific processes in such a way that auditable claims can be made about cattle in accordance with specific, internationally recognized standards. In the case of age verification, both QSAs and PVPs provide USDA-approved corroboration that the system used for verifying age is accurate enough to withstand periodic audits by a third-party source. Consequently, both programs require records documenting age. Leann Saunders, vice president of IMI Global (IMI), explains these can be calving records for a defined calving season, including when the first and last calf was born and how you know that. IMI helps others build and maintain QSA programs and also offers its own PVP program. "You also have to be willing to share records that support the number you want qualified, such as cow inventory and bull turnout records. Any supporting records you can provide make the process simpler," Saunders says. In other words, both programs require audits by the company providing QSA or PVP services. "Both programs will receive intense scrutiny and auditing," explains Glenn Smith, USA country manager for AgInfoLink, which offers a PVP program for source and age. QSAs and PVPs are also different "The PVP can offer a greater degree of flexibility in working with a producer," Smith says. "The PVP verifies how a producer supports his claim in his current management style. A QSA is stricter in dictating a specific procedure that must be followed." He adds that a PVP can be limited to specific marketing claims like age and source, or it can be broadened to include management practices. You can find the mountain of detail describing both programs at USDA's Web site -- www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/audit.htm. To read the story upon which this article is based, visit: beef-mag.com/mag/beef_age/ ADVERTISEMENT Verification Partner Near You AgInfoLink provides verification services directly to producers and through Verification Partners. These Partners enable producers to take advantage of AgInfoLink services through a local trusted business partner. Contact any of these Verification Partners for more information, or contact AgInfoLink directly. AgInfoLink Phone: 800.287.8787 Email: info@aginfolink.com Web: www.aginfolink.com Verification Partners -- http://www.aginfolink.com/partners.asp Strategy Choosing Verification Partners Whether it's choosing where to buy feed or who to do your taxes, selecting suppliers of verification services has plenty to do with common sense and asking lots of questions. Though by no means a comprehensive list, here's what we've gleaned from chatting with both suppliers and users of these services.
Though QSAs and PVPs are relatively new, some of the folks offering these programs have long-standing reputations in the business offering other products and services. Others are new names. Rookies aren't necessarily less capable of serving you than their longer-toothed peers, or visa versa. The point is that it pays to understand the history of the company, how they came to be in this part of the business, who their clients are, who their references are, and how they're regarded in the industry. ADVERTISEMENT Contact Questions & Comments Please send questions to: Joe Roybal, Editor, BEEF magazine, at jroybal@beef-mag.com |
|
About this Newsletter You are subscribed to this newsletter as #email# To unsubscribe from this newsletter go to: Unsubscribe To subscribe to this newsletter, go to: Subscribe For information on advertising in this newsletter, please contact: Bret Kealy at bret.kealy@penton.com |
|
|
|
To get this newsletter in a different format (Text or HTML),
or to change your e-mail address, please visit your profile
page to change your delivery preferences.
For questions concerning delivery of this newsletter, please contact our
Customer Service Department at: Copyright 2007, Penton Media. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, re-disseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of Penton Media. |