Traceability among Hot Topics at International Livestock Congress
Published: Jan 13, 2011
This week's meeting of the International Livestock Congress (ILC) in Denver saw a lively discussion of several trade-related issues affecting the U.S. livestock industry. None, however, drew more intense attention from attendees than traceability.
For many years, traceability of U.S. meat products has been viewed as a potential marketing tool in some international destinations, but a mandatory “price of admission” in only a select few markets. This may change, however, as more countries have begun to require traceability for their own domestically produced meat.
This trend is one of the reasons behind the ILC's roundtable session entitled, Traceability: Can We Do it on a Voluntary Basis? The panel discussion was moderated by Leann Saunders, president of IMI Global, Inc. and a member of the USMEF Executive Committee. Paul Clayton, USMEF senior vice president for export services, was a member of the panel.
Clayton highlighted the importance of exports to the U.S. livestock industry by noting that nearly one-fourth of U.S. pork production is shipped to foreign markets. For beef, the export portion is about 11 percent – but this can be somewhat misleading.
“Some people see a figure of 11 percent and underestimate the importance of export markets,” Clayton said. “What they don't realize is that from 90 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughtered, the short ribs and short plates are exported - as well as many of the variety meats and underutilized cuts. How would we deal with that if the export markets closed?”
For many years, traceability of U.S. meat products has been viewed as a potential marketing tool in some international destinations, but a mandatory “price of admission” in only a select few markets. This may change, however, as more countries have begun to require traceability for their own domestically produced meat.
This trend is one of the reasons behind the ILC's roundtable session entitled, Traceability: Can We Do it on a Voluntary Basis? The panel discussion was moderated by Leann Saunders, president of IMI Global, Inc. and a member of the USMEF Executive Committee. Paul Clayton, USMEF senior vice president for export services, was a member of the panel.
Clayton highlighted the importance of exports to the U.S. livestock industry by noting that nearly one-fourth of U.S. pork production is shipped to foreign markets. For beef, the export portion is about 11 percent – but this can be somewhat misleading.
“Some people see a figure of 11 percent and underestimate the importance of export markets,” Clayton said. “What they don't realize is that from 90 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughtered, the short ribs and short plates are exported - as well as many of the variety meats and underutilized cuts. How would we deal with that if the export markets closed?”
Clayton also pointed out that even when trading partners don't impose traceability requirements on a mandatory basis, private and commercial standards set by buyers in international markets may have an equally powerful impact on a producer's ability to export. This sentiment was echoed by fellow panelist David Moss, CEO of Livestock Identification Services, based in Calgary, Alberta.
“Multinational corporations have a longer reach than government ever will,” Moss said. “Canada's producers have little choice but to respond to market demands for traceability, because 50 percent of our beef production is exported.”
Also on the panel was Brian Bolton, president and CEO of Allflex, who said his company currently works with animal traceability programs in 40 different countries.
“Every one of these programs was met with producer resistance – and in some cases very vocal and adamant resistance,” Bolton said. “But today, no country that has a program would be willing to give it up.”
Bolton cited Michigan's traceability program – originally implemented due to bovine tuberculosis – as an example of a mandatory program that has worked efficiently and for the benefit of producers.
“People often talk about field trials,” he said. “But you already have a field trial – it's Michigan.”
“Most food products today have some level of traceability as those products move into the marketplace,” Clayton said. “The dilemma we are facing more and more frequently is whether we need traceability that connects the live animal to the finished product. Our industry needs to look closely at this situation and formulate workable solutions.”
“Multinational corporations have a longer reach than government ever will,” Moss said. “Canada's producers have little choice but to respond to market demands for traceability, because 50 percent of our beef production is exported.”
Also on the panel was Brian Bolton, president and CEO of Allflex, who said his company currently works with animal traceability programs in 40 different countries.
“Every one of these programs was met with producer resistance – and in some cases very vocal and adamant resistance,” Bolton said. “But today, no country that has a program would be willing to give it up.”
Bolton cited Michigan's traceability program – originally implemented due to bovine tuberculosis – as an example of a mandatory program that has worked efficiently and for the benefit of producers.
“People often talk about field trials,” he said. “But you already have a field trial – it's Michigan.”
“Most food products today have some level of traceability as those products move into the marketplace,” Clayton said. “The dilemma we are facing more and more frequently is whether we need traceability that connects the live animal to the finished product. Our industry needs to look closely at this situation and formulate workable solutions.”
This week’s meeting of the International Livestock Congress (ILC) in Denver saw a lively discussion of several trade-related issues affecting the U.S. livestock industry. None, however, drew more intense attention from attendees than traceability.
For many years, traceability of U.S. meat products has been viewed as a potential marketing tool in some international destinations, but a mandatory “price of admission” in only a select few markets. This may change, however, as more countries have begun to require traceability for their own domestically produced meat.
This trend is one of the reasons behind the ILC’s roundtable session entitled, Traceability: Can We Do it on a Voluntary Basis? The panel discussion was moderated by Leann Saunders, president of IMI Global, Inc. and a member of the USMEF Executive Committee. Paul Clayton, USMEF senior vice president for export services, was a member of the panel.
Clayton highlighted the importance of exports to the U.S. livestock industry by noting that nearly one-fourth of U.S. pork production is shipped to foreign markets. For beef, the export portion is about 11 percent – but this can be somewhat misleading.
“Some people see a figure of 11 percent and underestimate the importance of export markets,” Clayton said. “What they don’t realize is that from 90 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughtered, the short ribs and short plates are exported - as well as many of the variety meats and underutilized cuts. How would we deal with that if the export markets closed?”
For many years, traceability of U.S. meat products has been viewed as a potential marketing tool in some international destinations, but a mandatory “price of admission” in only a select few markets. This may change, however, as more countries have begun to require traceability for their own domestically produced meat.
This trend is one of the reasons behind the ILC’s roundtable session entitled, Traceability: Can We Do it on a Voluntary Basis? The panel discussion was moderated by Leann Saunders, president of IMI Global, Inc. and a member of the USMEF Executive Committee. Paul Clayton, USMEF senior vice president for export services, was a member of the panel.
Clayton highlighted the importance of exports to the U.S. livestock industry by noting that nearly one-fourth of U.S. pork production is shipped to foreign markets. For beef, the export portion is about 11 percent – but this can be somewhat misleading.
“Some people see a figure of 11 percent and underestimate the importance of export markets,” Clayton said. “What they don’t realize is that from 90 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughtered, the short ribs and short plates are exported - as well as many of the variety meats and underutilized cuts. How would we deal with that if the export markets closed?”
Clayton also pointed out that even when trading partners don’t impose traceability requirements on a mandatory basis, private and commercial standards set by buyers in international markets may have an equally powerful impact on a producer’s ability to export. This sentiment was echoed by fellow panelist David Moss, CEO of Livestock Identification Services, based in Calgary, Alberta.
“Multinational corporations have a longer reach than government ever will,” Moss said. “Canada’s producers have little choice but to respond to market demands for traceability, because 50 percent of our beef production is exported.”
Also on the panel was Brian Bolton, president and CEO of Allflex, who said his company currently works with animal traceability programs in 40 different countries.
“Every one of these programs was met with producer resistance – and in some cases very vocal and adamant resistance,” Bolton said. “But today, no country that has a program would be willing to give it up.”
Bolton cited Michigan’s traceability program – originally implemented due to bovine tuberculosis – as an example of a mandatory program that has worked efficiently and for the benefit of producers.
“People often talk about field trials,” he said. “But you already have a field trial – it’s Michigan.”
“Most food products today have some level of traceability as those products move into the marketplace,” Clayton said. “The dilemma we are facing more and more frequently is whether we need traceability that connects the live animal to the finished product. Our industry needs to look closely at this situation and formulate workable solutions.”
“Multinational corporations have a longer reach than government ever will,” Moss said. “Canada’s producers have little choice but to respond to market demands for traceability, because 50 percent of our beef production is exported.”
Also on the panel was Brian Bolton, president and CEO of Allflex, who said his company currently works with animal traceability programs in 40 different countries.
“Every one of these programs was met with producer resistance – and in some cases very vocal and adamant resistance,” Bolton said. “But today, no country that has a program would be willing to give it up.”
Bolton cited Michigan’s traceability program – originally implemented due to bovine tuberculosis – as an example of a mandatory program that has worked efficiently and for the benefit of producers.
“People often talk about field trials,” he said. “But you already have a field trial – it’s Michigan.”
“Most food products today have some level of traceability as those products move into the marketplace,” Clayton said. “The dilemma we are facing more and more frequently is whether we need traceability that connects the live animal to the finished product. Our industry needs to look closely at this situation and formulate workable solutions.”