Meat labelling
Meat labelling
You may have noticed the recent media coverage being given to the age of our beef – namely, the idea that the number of years an animal has lived determines its eating quality. The issue has drawn a lot of attention from the national television media and inspired a number of stories causing consumers to doubt the quality of our beef products.
Why has the issue of ‘old cow’ received so much attention lately?
The recent debates are a result of an unfortunate backward step for the beef industry - the New South Wales Food Amendment (Beef Labelling) Act 2009, which came into effect in that state on 31 August 2010. Under the guise of improving consumer certainty about beef products, the NSW Primary Industries Minister Steve Whan agreed to introduce the scheme, meaning beef sold at retail must be labelled according to its age. In his press release, Minister Whan claimed the scheme allows consumers to identify “younger more tender cuts...best suited for a bbq” and “older meats... more suited to stews and casseroles”.
The changes mean that from 1 January 2011, if retailers in NSW use age as a description, beef must be described as:
AgForce Cattle strongly opposes the scheme (and has done so publicly) but this is not to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes. It is because any labelling scheme which purports to deliver ‘truth’ to consumers must be based on science. This is where the NSW scheme falls short – it is based on the misguided notion that the age of an animal (assessed by the number of teeth) dictates meat eating quality.
The Australian beef industry has been segregating carcasses based on the maturity measure of dentition for decades. This is why we still see teeth used commonly as a quality indicator up the supply chain, and in the new NSW labeling scheme. But scientists now know that the number of permanent incisors an animal has is irrelevant when it comes to assessing how well the beef will eat.
For this reason, the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system incorporates a far more relevant maturity measure, ossification, which assesses an animal’s ‘physiological age’ and says a great deal about how well an animal has lived its life, especially from a nutritional standpoint.
Ossification proves that, while two animals may be the same ‘chronological age’ (in years) they can have vastly different meat quality depending on their diet, environmental conditions and other stressors they may have been exposed to. To tell consumers that meat from both cattle is the same is just a lie. The US acknowledges this and its grading system does not rely on dentition as a maturity measure at all.
While more cattle are graded to meet MSA specifications each year, there is still a lot of beef that goes ungraded. But the NSW labeling scheme’s quick-fix of saying ‘the more teeth an animal has the worse it will eat’ is not the answer to improving consumer certainty. Any meat scientist from Australia or the US would agree. What will go a long way towards sorting out the non-MSA graded carcasses to ensure that consumers don’t get served up a steak from an older animal that has had a rough life, or just as importantly from a young animal that may have had some severe setbacks at an early age then quickly fattened, is to measure its ossification instead of counting its teeth.
Grading by ossification will mean that 6 and 8-tooth animals that have had a lifetime of good nutrition (and are likely to eat extremely well) are not wasted as mince patties. AgForce Cattle has called on all beef-producing states to push for ossification to replace the measure of dentition for all beef in Australia and will continue to work through the Cattle Council of Australia to ensure this message is delivered.
Why should I be worried if it’s a NSW scheme?
Because the NSW scheme allows the NSW Minister to decide to enforce “low grade” or “low quality” as a label. While he has thankfully agreed not to force the use of “low grade” or “low quality” labels under the scheme yet, he will review the need for these labels in 12 months.
AgForce is vehemently opposed to the idea that any industry should be forced to label a product "low quality or low grade". Unlike the existing “budget” grading voluntarily used by some retailers to market a cheaper product, in 12 months time it could be a legal requirement in NSW that producers see a derogatory term on beef. If the Queensland beef producer would not buy a “low grade – low quality” input for their business, how can we expect a consumer to buy “low grade – low quality” beef?
The NSW government says the scheme is a win for producers who “were previously disadvantaged by non enforceable voluntary labelling”. But there is no evidence that a reduction in price in one market category (“economy” beef) will create increased price in another (“yearling” or “young” beef). Nor is there mention of the new compliance costs that industry, already burdened with high costs of government regulation, will face as a result. AgForce will never support imposing more costs upon industry without measurable industry benefit, as will happen under this NSW scheme.
What is AgForce doing to prevent this happening in our state?
AgForce will continue to drive home to our state’s leaders that any form of labelling legislation must be voluntary and underpinned by the Domestic Beef Retail Register. We support Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin’s view that this type of legislation is unnecessary, counter-productive, and will only increase costs across the board without giving the consumer a better meat-eating experience. We will continue to work with Minister Mulherin to ensure his government does not repeat the mistakes of his NSW counterpart.
“The science of guaranteed good eating”
The discussion about the NSW labelling scheme has also opened up debate in NSW on the merits of the industry’s grading system, MSA. To refute some claims being made in NSW rural press, AgForce Cattle president Grant Maudsley wrote to the editor of The Land on 2 September 2010, affirming that MSA is world-leading consumer grading science. Mr Maudsley noted that the MSA program’s receipt of the 2010 Eureka Award for excellence in interdisciplinary science is testament to its success.
Globally, MSA is the only grading system backed by robust fact-based consumer taste-test research, grading meat according to the values consumers are looking for - consistency, tenderness and predictability of eating quality.
MSA has directly contributed $366 million to the value of the industry and Australia's economy since its inception in 1999. Over 1.25 million cattle were MSA graded in 2009-10. The growing momentum of MSA continued in 2009-10, with the majority of beef processors applying MSA as the minimum standard to underpin the eating quality of some or all of their brands.
To ensure more producers are aware of and can share in the benefits of MSA grading, Meat and Livestock Australia will be holding another round of MSA Producer Days across Queensland in the coming months. Dates and locations will be available soon. MLA has also introduced an online registration system, allowing beef and sheep producers to register for the MSA program by visiting the MLA website.
This quick and easy program allows producers access to a MSA registration number and password instantly through a 5 step process. Visit www.mla.com.au/msa and click on “MSA producer registration” to register.
For more information, contact AgForce Cattle policy director Andrew Simpson on 3236 3100.
You may have noticed the recent media coverage being given to the age of our beef – namely, the idea that the number of years an animal has lived determines its eating quality. The issue has drawn a lot of attention from the national television media and inspired a number of stories causing consumers to doubt the quality of our beef products.
Why has the issue of ‘old cow’ received so much attention lately?
The recent debates are a result of an unfortunate backward step for the beef industry - the New South Wales Food Amendment (Beef Labelling) Act 2009, which came into effect in that state on 31 August 2010. Under the guise of improving consumer certainty about beef products, the NSW Primary Industries Minister Steve Whan agreed to introduce the scheme, meaning beef sold at retail must be labelled according to its age. In his press release, Minister Whan claimed the scheme allows consumers to identify “younger more tender cuts...best suited for a bbq” and “older meats... more suited to stews and casseroles”.
The changes mean that from 1 January 2011, if retailers in NSW use age as a description, beef must be described as:
- Yearling (<18 months)
- Young (18 months to 2.5 years)
- Intermediate (2.5 years to 3 years)
- Mature (3 to 3.5 years) or
- Economy (>3.5 years)
AgForce Cattle strongly opposes the scheme (and has done so publicly) but this is not to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes. It is because any labelling scheme which purports to deliver ‘truth’ to consumers must be based on science. This is where the NSW scheme falls short – it is based on the misguided notion that the age of an animal (assessed by the number of teeth) dictates meat eating quality.
The Australian beef industry has been segregating carcasses based on the maturity measure of dentition for decades. This is why we still see teeth used commonly as a quality indicator up the supply chain, and in the new NSW labeling scheme. But scientists now know that the number of permanent incisors an animal has is irrelevant when it comes to assessing how well the beef will eat.
For this reason, the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system incorporates a far more relevant maturity measure, ossification, which assesses an animal’s ‘physiological age’ and says a great deal about how well an animal has lived its life, especially from a nutritional standpoint.
Ossification proves that, while two animals may be the same ‘chronological age’ (in years) they can have vastly different meat quality depending on their diet, environmental conditions and other stressors they may have been exposed to. To tell consumers that meat from both cattle is the same is just a lie. The US acknowledges this and its grading system does not rely on dentition as a maturity measure at all.
While more cattle are graded to meet MSA specifications each year, there is still a lot of beef that goes ungraded. But the NSW labeling scheme’s quick-fix of saying ‘the more teeth an animal has the worse it will eat’ is not the answer to improving consumer certainty. Any meat scientist from Australia or the US would agree. What will go a long way towards sorting out the non-MSA graded carcasses to ensure that consumers don’t get served up a steak from an older animal that has had a rough life, or just as importantly from a young animal that may have had some severe setbacks at an early age then quickly fattened, is to measure its ossification instead of counting its teeth.
Grading by ossification will mean that 6 and 8-tooth animals that have had a lifetime of good nutrition (and are likely to eat extremely well) are not wasted as mince patties. AgForce Cattle has called on all beef-producing states to push for ossification to replace the measure of dentition for all beef in Australia and will continue to work through the Cattle Council of Australia to ensure this message is delivered.
Why should I be worried if it’s a NSW scheme?
Because the NSW scheme allows the NSW Minister to decide to enforce “low grade” or “low quality” as a label. While he has thankfully agreed not to force the use of “low grade” or “low quality” labels under the scheme yet, he will review the need for these labels in 12 months.
AgForce is vehemently opposed to the idea that any industry should be forced to label a product "low quality or low grade". Unlike the existing “budget” grading voluntarily used by some retailers to market a cheaper product, in 12 months time it could be a legal requirement in NSW that producers see a derogatory term on beef. If the Queensland beef producer would not buy a “low grade – low quality” input for their business, how can we expect a consumer to buy “low grade – low quality” beef?
The NSW government says the scheme is a win for producers who “were previously disadvantaged by non enforceable voluntary labelling”. But there is no evidence that a reduction in price in one market category (“economy” beef) will create increased price in another (“yearling” or “young” beef). Nor is there mention of the new compliance costs that industry, already burdened with high costs of government regulation, will face as a result. AgForce will never support imposing more costs upon industry without measurable industry benefit, as will happen under this NSW scheme.
What is AgForce doing to prevent this happening in our state?
AgForce will continue to drive home to our state’s leaders that any form of labelling legislation must be voluntary and underpinned by the Domestic Beef Retail Register. We support Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin’s view that this type of legislation is unnecessary, counter-productive, and will only increase costs across the board without giving the consumer a better meat-eating experience. We will continue to work with Minister Mulherin to ensure his government does not repeat the mistakes of his NSW counterpart.
“The science of guaranteed good eating”
The discussion about the NSW labelling scheme has also opened up debate in NSW on the merits of the industry’s grading system, MSA. To refute some claims being made in NSW rural press, AgForce Cattle president Grant Maudsley wrote to the editor of The Land on 2 September 2010, affirming that MSA is world-leading consumer grading science. Mr Maudsley noted that the MSA program’s receipt of the 2010 Eureka Award for excellence in interdisciplinary science is testament to its success.
Globally, MSA is the only grading system backed by robust fact-based consumer taste-test research, grading meat according to the values consumers are looking for - consistency, tenderness and predictability of eating quality.
MSA has directly contributed $366 million to the value of the industry and Australia's economy since its inception in 1999. Over 1.25 million cattle were MSA graded in 2009-10. The growing momentum of MSA continued in 2009-10, with the majority of beef processors applying MSA as the minimum standard to underpin the eating quality of some or all of their brands.
To ensure more producers are aware of and can share in the benefits of MSA grading, Meat and Livestock Australia will be holding another round of MSA Producer Days across Queensland in the coming months. Dates and locations will be available soon. MLA has also introduced an online registration system, allowing beef and sheep producers to register for the MSA program by visiting the MLA website.
This quick and easy program allows producers access to a MSA registration number and password instantly through a 5 step process. Visit www.mla.com.au/msa and click on “MSA producer registration” to register.
For more information, contact AgForce Cattle policy director Andrew Simpson on 3236 3100.