Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (April 2008)

More vertical integration, what many consider the “evil empire” afflicting segments of food production, is headed toward dairy. As in other industries, most vertical integration pressure will come from the top down, in an effort to squeeze as much money out of incremental margins as possible. But in an evolving business climate, I think more dairy pressure will ultimately come from the bottom up.

As I mentioned previously (February 2008 Midwest DairyBusiness, “Who’s sustaining what?”), I attended the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum ’08. I wish I would have counted how many times I heard the comment – or a variation of it – from a speaker who said “it is the responsibility of the cooperative/processor/marketer/retailer to protect the perception of the consumer.” It’s pretty tough to build a case against that comment, since consumers ultimately pay the bills and, if you believe conventional wisdom, “the consumer is always right” (purchasing imitation pet testicles for their neutered pets’ self esteem, aside).

Disheartening in my conversations was not once did I hear a single comment claiming any responsibility to protect the integrity and livelihood of the supplier/producer. I asked. That’s troubling at a time when producers are being attacked on so many fronts, especially in animal welfare, production technology and environmental areas.

The checkoff-funded Midwest Dairy Association and others are creating tools to “promote” producers. Some small dairy companies base their entire marketing programs on producer integrity. But many others have focused so hard on the products that they have lost sight of producers and, in my 30 years in ag journalism, I have never heard from so many producers who believe they are being hung out to dry by their business and organization leaders. I guess it’s a cruel world.

So my first case for more bottoms-up vertical integration is that, if those on top are throwing you under the bus, why not get your own bus?

Second, playing into bottoms-up vertical integration is the emerging trend of consumers seeking locally sourced food from someone they know and trust. Numerous studies show farmers rank among the highest on the consumers’ reputation meter. What better way to put a face on a product than to put your face on your product?

Third, each step in the food chain – from production of the raw product to processing, packaging, marketing and transporting – adds value, costs and friction. As producers become more savvy marketers and are able to manage volume processing and packaging, it enables them to embrace those steps, instead of outsourcing them.

That ties in with a final ingredient – capital. Many “artisans” strive to make a direct connection to consumers on a small scale, but often lack the financial resources. As larger producers combine knowledge with capital, vertical integration becomes possible. Throw in the ability to reduce transportation costs and generate energy from manure, and the path becomes even smoother, with social and environmental pluses.

There are reasons why processing, packaging and marketing have become specialized. It’s a tough business, compounded by competition, policies and regulations at every level. Bottoms-up vertical integration takes work and money, and undoubtedly many will fail. It adds risks at every level. There are business cemeteries full of people who have already tried. It will take the right people, with the right products, in the right markets.

But I’m hearing from more entrepreneurs who, when push comes to shove, would rather press their noses up against their own bottoms, and not against someone else’s.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

buyers-beware

Permalink

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (February 2008)

The buzzword at the International Dairy Foods Association’s Dairy Forum ’08 was “sustainability.” While the word gives everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling they’re doing something – anything – to make the world a better place to live, the definition of “sustainability” can be elusive and confusing. Many Dairy Forum speakers used the term to cover environmental and social aspects of milk and dairy product production, packaging and transportation.

While such goals are admirable and, like objects in our rearview mirror – closer than they appear – one of the messages I took home was that everyone needed to jump on the bandwagon, not only to be good global citizens, but also to capture the “value-added” premiums the marketplace is apparently willing to pay for a “sustainable” label.

Hey, I’m a capitalist, and if it ended there, great. But it doesn’t. While many find “sustainability” hard to define, they are sure they know it when they see it. Many of these same people want to impose their enlightened vision of “sustainability” on others. In many cases, the inconvenient truth is that the push for “sustainability” has more to do with market share than it does with being environmentally and socially conscious.

As I write this, there is an outgrowth of this dilemma. Under pressure to be more “sustainable,” several universities are in the “Catch-22” position of losing commercial markets – and much-needed funding from the sale of milk or crops – or give up researching approved technologies. Who wins there?

No doubt about it, we can all do better when it comes to caring for the present and future condition of our planet. But when it comes to “sustainability,” I left the Dairy Forum with some unanswered questions:

• Where does the balance of efficient, economic production – using available knowledge and applying technology to produce food in quantities to feed a world population rushing headlong toward 7 billion people – fit in our definition of “sustainability?”
• Isn’t that what modern agriculture is about – sustaining life in a responsible manner?

Speaking of questions, one of the fundamental questions of any geographically based industry is this: once weakened or lost, can it be regained? In my lifetime, that question has arisen in Detroit’s auto industry and across steel country – now the Rust Belt. It is also a question faced by the Midwest dairy industry in the 1990s, as investment, cows and young brilliant minds moved elsewhere. In some cases, dairy producers were unable to sustain against activists with a different vision of animal agriculture and the regional geography. That impact was probably felt nowhere more so than Minnesota.

Can the Midwest dairy industry be sustained and grow? That remains to be seen. Years ago, I probably would have said “no.” But as Minnesota Milk Producers Association executive director Bob Lefebvre details in the February 2008 issue of Midwest DairyBusiness (see “A change from within”), it takes more than changing downward spirals in cows and infrastructure, but also a change in mindset and leadership, before it’s too late. It’s happening in the Midwest.

We’re in a dairy era some say has a “triple bottom line” – economic, environmental and social. Whether for the sake of future food production, or the health of a regional dairy industry, the only sustainable “sustainability” is built on practicality; not on a single definition, and not in a rush for market share based on whatever social tail that is wagging the dog.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (April 2008)

More vertical integration, what many consider the “evil empire” afflicting segments of food production, is headed toward dairy. As in other industries, most vertical integration pressure will come from the top down, in an effort to squeeze as much money out of incremental margins as possible. But in an evolving business climate, I think more dairy pressure will ultimately come from the bottom up.

As I mentioned previously (February 2008 Midwest DairyBusiness, “Who’s sustaining what?”), I attended the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum ’08. I wish I would have counted how many times I heard the comment – or a variation of it – from a speaker who said “it is the responsibility of the cooperative/processor/marketer/retailer to protect the perception of the consumer.” It’s pretty tough to build a case against that comment, since consumers ultimately pay the bills and, if you believe conventional wisdom, “the consumer is always right” (purchasing imitation pet testicles for their neutered pets’ self esteem, aside).

Disheartening in my conversations was not once did I hear a single comment claiming any responsibility to protect the integrity and livelihood of the supplier/producer. I asked. That’s troubling at a time when producers are being attacked on so many fronts, especially in animal welfare, production technology and environmental areas.

The checkoff-funded Midwest Dairy Association and others are creating tools to “promote” producers. Some small dairy companies base their entire marketing programs on producer integrity. But many others have focused so hard on the products that they have lost sight of producers and, in my 30 years in ag journalism, I have never heard from so many producers who believe they are being hung out to dry by their business and organization leaders. I guess it’s a cruel world.

So my first case for more bottoms-up vertical integration is that, if those on top are throwing you under the bus, why not get your own bus?

Second, playing into bottoms-up vertical integration is the emerging trend of consumers seeking locally sourced food from someone they know and trust. Numerous studies show farmers rank among the highest on the consumers’ reputation meter. What better way to put a face on a product than to put your face on your product?

Third, each step in the food chain – from production of the raw product to processing, packaging, marketing and transporting – adds value, costs and friction. As producers become more savvy marketers and are able to manage volume processing and packaging, it enables them to embrace those steps, instead of outsourcing them.

That ties in with a final ingredient – capital. Many “artisans” strive to make a direct connection to consumers on a small scale, but often lack the financial resources. As larger producers combine knowledge with capital, vertical integration becomes possible. Throw in the ability to reduce transportation costs and generate energy from manure, and the path becomes even smoother, with social and environmental pluses.

There are reasons why processing, packaging and marketing have become specialized. It’s a tough business, compounded by competition, policies and regulations at every level. Bottoms-up vertical integration takes work and money, and undoubtedly many will fail. It adds risks at every level. There are business cemeteries full of people who have already tried. It will take the right people, with the right products, in the right markets.

But I’m hearing from more entrepreneurs who, when push comes to shove, would rather press their noses up against their own bottoms, and not against someone else’s.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

buyers-beware

Permalink

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (February 2008)

The buzzword at the International Dairy Foods Association’s Dairy Forum ’08 was “sustainability.” While the word gives everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling they’re doing something – anything – to make the world a better place to live, the definition of “sustainability” can be elusive and confusing. Many Dairy Forum speakers used the term to cover environmental and social aspects of milk and dairy product production, packaging and transportation.

While such goals are admirable and, like objects in our rearview mirror – closer than they appear – one of the messages I took home was that everyone needed to jump on the bandwagon, not only to be good global citizens, but also to capture the “value-added” premiums the marketplace is apparently willing to pay for a “sustainable” label.

Hey, I’m a capitalist, and if it ended there, great. But it doesn’t. While many find “sustainability” hard to define, they are sure they know it when they see it. Many of these same people want to impose their enlightened vision of “sustainability” on others. In many cases, the inconvenient truth is that the push for “sustainability” has more to do with market share than it does with being environmentally and socially conscious.

As I write this, there is an outgrowth of this dilemma. Under pressure to be more “sustainable,” several universities are in the “Catch-22” position of losing commercial markets – and much-needed funding from the sale of milk or crops – or give up researching approved technologies. Who wins there?

No doubt about it, we can all do better when it comes to caring for the present and future condition of our planet. But when it comes to “sustainability,” I left the Dairy Forum with some unanswered questions:

• Where does the balance of efficient, economic production – using available knowledge and applying technology to produce food in quantities to feed a world population rushing headlong toward 7 billion people – fit in our definition of “sustainability?”
• Isn’t that what modern agriculture is about – sustaining life in a responsible manner?

Speaking of questions, one of the fundamental questions of any geographically based industry is this: once weakened or lost, can it be regained? In my lifetime, that question has arisen in Detroit’s auto industry and across steel country – now the Rust Belt. It is also a question faced by the Midwest dairy industry in the 1990s, as investment, cows and young brilliant minds moved elsewhere. In some cases, dairy producers were unable to sustain against activists with a different vision of animal agriculture and the regional geography. That impact was probably felt nowhere more so than Minnesota.

Can the Midwest dairy industry be sustained and grow? That remains to be seen. Years ago, I probably would have said “no.” But as Minnesota Milk Producers Association executive director Bob Lefebvre details in the February 2008 issue of Midwest DairyBusiness (see “A change from within”), it takes more than changing downward spirals in cows and infrastructure, but also a change in mindset and leadership, before it’s too late. It’s happening in the Midwest.

We’re in a dairy era some say has a “triple bottom line” – economic, environmental and social. Whether for the sake of future food production, or the health of a regional dairy industry, the only sustainable “sustainability” is built on practicality; not on a single definition, and not in a rush for market share based on whatever social tail that is wagging the dog.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (April 2008)

More vertical integration, what many consider the “evil empire” afflicting segments of food production, is headed toward dairy. As in other industries, most vertical integration pressure will come from the top down, in an effort to squeeze as much money out of incremental margins as possible. But in an evolving business climate, I think more dairy pressure will ultimately come from the bottom up.

As I mentioned previously (February 2008 Midwest DairyBusiness, “Who’s sustaining what?”), I attended the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum ’08. I wish I would have counted how many times I heard the comment – or a variation of it – from a speaker who said “it is the responsibility of the cooperative/processor/marketer/retailer to protect the perception of the consumer.” It’s pretty tough to build a case against that comment, since consumers ultimately pay the bills and, if you believe conventional wisdom, “the consumer is always right” (purchasing imitation pet testicles for their neutered pets’ self esteem, aside).

Disheartening in my conversations was not once did I hear a single comment claiming any responsibility to protect the integrity and livelihood of the supplier/producer. I asked. That’s troubling at a time when producers are being attacked on so many fronts, especially in animal welfare, production technology and environmental areas.

The checkoff-funded Midwest Dairy Association and others are creating tools to “promote” producers. Some small dairy companies base their entire marketing programs on producer integrity. But many others have focused so hard on the products that they have lost sight of producers and, in my 30 years in ag journalism, I have never heard from so many producers who believe they are being hung out to dry by their business and organization leaders. I guess it’s a cruel world.

So my first case for more bottoms-up vertical integration is that, if those on top are throwing you under the bus, why not get your own bus?

Second, playing into bottoms-up vertical integration is the emerging trend of consumers seeking locally sourced food from someone they know and trust. Numerous studies show farmers rank among the highest on the consumers’ reputation meter. What better way to put a face on a product than to put your face on your product?

Third, each step in the food chain – from production of the raw product to processing, packaging, marketing and transporting – adds value, costs and friction. As producers become more savvy marketers and are able to manage volume processing and packaging, it enables them to embrace those steps, instead of outsourcing them.

That ties in with a final ingredient – capital. Many “artisans” strive to make a direct connection to consumers on a small scale, but often lack the financial resources. As larger producers combine knowledge with capital, vertical integration becomes possible. Throw in the ability to reduce transportation costs and generate energy from manure, and the path becomes even smoother, with social and environmental pluses.

There are reasons why processing, packaging and marketing have become specialized. It’s a tough business, compounded by competition, policies and regulations at every level. Bottoms-up vertical integration takes work and money, and undoubtedly many will fail. It adds risks at every level. There are business cemeteries full of people who have already tried. It will take the right people, with the right products, in the right markets.

But I’m hearing from more entrepreneurs who, when push comes to shove, would rather press their noses up against their own bottoms, and not against someone else’s.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

buyers-beware

Permalink

You must be logged in to post a comment.

William Henning, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Meat Science
The Pennsylvania State University

Consumer concerns have once again been raised after 143 million pounds of ground beef was recalled this week from a California firm that manufactures and distributes ground beef to retailers and schools. The problems initially surfaced when a member of a special interest group (The Humane Society of the United States; HSUS) filmed a case of brutal animal handling of a cow that was unable to get up and posted it on YouTube. Normally, this would have been a case of animal cruelty that would have been dealt with by the USDA and the plant in question. Since the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service is responsible for animal welfare in packing plants, this should have been all handled within the regulatory system for animal handling. However, it was apparently revealed later that this non-ambulatory cow was, in fact, harvested and entered the food supply that raised the food safety questions. Since non-ambulatory animals are not considered fit for processing due to the possible relationship with BSE (mad cow disease), it should been prevented from entering the food supply.

The fact is that many safeguards are in place, including controls over what cattle can be fed, restrictions of cattle and beef products entering the United States from certain countries, prevention of the use of non-ambulatory cows, testing of suspicious animals, control of the materials that go into the food chain to prevent tissue that could harbor the disease from entering the food supply. BSE is very rare; over one million cows of the highest risk have been tested and found negative, which led both the regulators and the industry to believe that the production practices have been working. Current regulatory measures in place further ensure that no high-risk animals would enter the food chain and that, in the event of a failure such as this, there are strict controls over what products can be consumed. Animals are considered “at risk” if they are deemed be older than 30 months by USDA inspection of their dentition (teeth). If they are “30 months or older”, they are identified and segregated. They are then processed later in the day’s production, after all the “Under 30” month cattle have been processed to prevent any cross contamination of risk materials. The “30 month and over” carcasses are processed under close USDA supervision to ensure that all risk materials are removed and segregated.

Since these controls are in place, and given the very rare incidence of the disease, it is clear to food safety specialists and scientists that the beef supply is indeed safe from BSE and there should be no concerns on the part of consumers. However, the USDA has taken the position, that since the first safeguard was breeched, the company should conduct a Class 2 Recall. Recalls are based on risk. Class 2 recalls are voluntary and ones in which there is no proven or imminent risk, but are precautionary safeguards to assure consumers that extra steps are being taken to assure safety. The recall is huge, - yes, it seems excessive, but the USDA policy requires the longest possible time that product could be in the market to be used as the benchmark for the scope of the recall. Yes, most of this product will have been consumed, and only a small percentage of the total will be recovered. It does sent a message to all beef processors that there is no room for error when it comes to food safety and the USDA is serious about this.

In this case, much of the product has gone to school lunch programs and under the government purchase program has gone under even closer scrutiny as the product is inspected closely throughout production to ensure it meets both quality and safety specification established by the USDA.

The bottom line is that beef is extremely safe and there is NO BSE threat. This recall is more procedural, that is a plant employee broke the rules and now the plant is required to take precautionary safeguard, even though no threat of food safety exists. My children and grandchildren will still continue to enjoy the beef I prepare for them.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

No Differences Found in the Composition of Conventional, rbST-Free and Organic Milk

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

• Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.
• Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.
• Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

Permalink

Comments are closed.