Lean Trim Imports (Used for “”) = Experience shows that USDA assurances “Packing plants generate a lot of trim, called 50/50 trim (50% lean/50% fat), that is mixed about the safety of “equivalent” foreign meatpack- with lean trim (usually 90% or 95% lean), to make a variety of products. About ing standards are worth less than the (toilet) paper 1.1 billion pounds of lean trim was imported in 2011 to mix with 50/50 trim. Trimmings they’re printed on. After all, these determinations of used for LFTB have too little lean to be used for 50/50 trimmings so that meat was “equivalence” come from the same senior USDA lost to consumers until the LFTB process was invented. The U.S. beef industry produces officials who “assured” American consumers that about 850 million pounds of LFTB annually. This food would be lost without this recov- LFTB/“pink slime” is pure, 100% beef.) ery process.” (Bold emphasis added.) reported on just how – Source: Kansas Department of Agriculture online Fact Sheet titled, “Lean Finely Tex- flawed the USDA foreign meatpacking plant certifi- tured Beef (LFTB): a Safe Beef Product” cation program is. That February 25, 2002 story cited problems USDA inspectors found when they visited the Carnes Valmo packing plant in Her- a recent year. Remember that many raw materials by Pete Hardin mosilla, Mexico – and how they were unable to fix going into “pink slime” include imported beef trim- INTRODUCTION: Last month, in the hectic the problem after reporting it to higher-ups in Wash- mings. days before printing the paper, a key fact contained ington. Some highlights from that story: in Paris Reidhead’s long article concerning the Free-Trade rules hog-tie U.S. inspectors “pink slime” controversy was not properly appreci- “The arrangement worked until U.S. inspec- ated by the editor-publisher. That fact: U.S officials are limited to merely certifying tors paid a rare visit to the plant in May 1999. In 2011, 1.1 BILLION pounds of imported, that foreign meatpacking and processing standards Greeted by filth and flies, the visitors cut off trade at lean beef “trim” entered the U.S. – in great part for are approximately “equivalent” to ours. once — or thought they did. use in production of “Lean Finely Textured Beef” “Shanks and briskets [were] contaminated (LFTB, popularly dubbed “pink slime”). American consumers are at the mercy of an with feces,” a U.S. Department of Agriculture offi- That “trim” is carcass cuttings – literally impotent regulatory scheme: industry self-inspec- cial later wrote of his tour of the plant floor. In the scraped off foreign floors often con- tion on the honor system, with plenty of incentives refrigerator, he wrote, “A disease-condemned car- taminated with feces, deadly pathogens, and other to cheat. Real inspection has been neutered by glob- cass was observed ready for boning and distribu- filth. Lean trim is approximately 90% meat/10% al “Free Trade” rules. Federal officials are power- tion in commerce.” fat.. The U.S. needs large volumes of lean, foreign less to monitor packing plant conditions and enforc- “But even before the U.S. team left for home, trim to blend into fatty (50% lean) U.S. trim to pro- ing any real standards to protect public health. Mexican officials went to work to restore Carnes duce LFTB (“pink slime”). That material is added Valmo’s right to sell meat to Americans. Over the fol- to ground beef as an “extender,” or cheap filler. Global meatpacker consolidation lowing months the plant regained its export license, a major concern switched owners and changed its name, yet the Ground beef/: 50% of beef use In recent decades, concentration in the meat- USDA never returned. Instead, the agency relied on 1.1 BILLION pounds of imported, lean for- packing business has reduced competition at the Mexico as the primary enforcer of U.S. sanitation eign beef carcass trimmings in 2011? Let’s work expense of American beef and dairy producers and laws — a standard flunked by five out of 10 Mexican through some meaty numbers … consumers. “Four giant companies — Tyson, plants visited by U.S. inspectors that spring.” 1.1 BILLION lbs. of lean trim imported during Cargill, Brazil-based JBS, and National Beef — 2011 equals – in terms of lean meat – 1.25 to 1.5 now control about 80 percent of the U.S. beef mar- Under the WTO system of equivalency, not million U.S. dairy cull cows. That’s roughly 40% to ket,” the watchdog site Grist.org reported in an only are U.S. inspectors not physically onsite at for- 50% the nation’s worn-out milk cows sent to April 15, 2011 online report. eign , they usually don’t even slaughter in 2011. U.S. dairy culls are lean – 85- The animal protein business is becoming inspect a tiny percentage imported meat and meat 90% meat. That’s the desired meat-to-fat ratio for essentially global. The best example is JBS S.A., products at the port of entry. Too often, U.S. offi- firms producing ground beef. the world’s largest beef packer headquartered in São cials merely perform “paperwork inspections” at the In 2011, U.S. per capita consumption of beef Paulo, Brazil. “With 140 production facilities border on a small percentage of meat products was right around 58 lbs. Beef industry sources worldwide and over 120,000 employees, JBS is entering the U.S. explain that ground beef constitutes virtually half of the largest animal protein processor in the all U.S. beef consumption – around 28-29 pounds world,” the firm’s Web site says. “An internation- last year. Importing lean beef trim in volumes equal al industry leader, JBS has production and pro- Different circus, same act: cheap to roughly half of the U.S. dairy culls in a year’s time cessing plants in Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Aus- imports bust U.S. producers’ prices wields a tremendous, harmful blow to the price-set- tralia, USA, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, China Processors using cheap beef trim imports to ting, supply/demand balance for dairy culls. If any- and Russia.” (Emphasis added.) bust down dairy cull cow prices shouldn’t surprise thing, lean dairy cull cows and steers should com- JBS acquisitions in the U.S. have included the nation’s dairy farmers. Over the past dozen-plus mand premium prices – for their desired meatiness. Swift Foods in 2007, followed by the beef division years, milk producers have become accustomed to of Smithfield Foods in 2008, and a major interest in price-busting imports of cheap dairy proteins. 70% of U.S. ground beef “slimed” chicken processor Pilgrim’s Pride. JBS is vertically That’s the common theme in reviewing the impact At peak use – before some food firms (like integrated at every stage … operating giant beef cat- of imported lean beef trim and dairy protein pow- McDonald’s) were forced, by public outrage, to quit tle feedlots in Colorado, Texas, Kansas, and other ders such as Milk Protein Concentrates (MPCs): using ground beef supplemented with “pink slime” states, as well as supermarkets around the world. eroding this nation’s dairy farmers’ prices received – that material was added to 70% of U.S. ground These big meatpackers have worked closely for milk, cull cows and steers. Using imports of . Do a little more math: with the American Meat Institute – another major suspect foreign proteins to bust dairy farmers’ milk 15% (LFTB/“pink slime”) X 28-29 lbs. per industry group – and beef checkoff-funded Nation- and cull cow prices is not a random occurrence, but capita ground beef consumption = 4.2 to 4.35 lbs. al Cattlemen’s Beef Association to fight mandatory rather a complex, deliberate, cynical strategy engi- per capita of “pink slime” consumption annually. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and other key neered by many major corporations Next: multiply 4.2 to 4.35 pounds by 308.7 policies. The growing economic and political power to achieve the following goals: million persons (the national head count based on of these beef industry forces threatens Americans 1) Lower-cost, imported sources of raw mate- official U.S. 2010 Census data). Result: 1.297 to who produce and consume beef. rials add to supplies. 1.343 BILLION pounds of “pink slime” slithered 2) In turn, those imports function as a sup- down the throats of unsuspecting U.S. consumers for “Equivalent” but not “Equal” ply/demand sledge to beat down domestic produc- Under international trade law, the U.S. oper- ers’ prices for milk/meat. (The age-old : stick [Note: Throughout this article, imports of ates on the principle of “equivalency,” ... USDA’s it to the farmer – supplies are up, prices must fall.) lean “trim” are discussed in terms of their vol- Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) requires that 3) U.S. consumers allegedly benefit from ume compared to dairy cull cows, we must also slaughterhouses in foreign countries meet sanitary “cheaper food” … without honest discussion of seri- recognize that dairy steers are a key source of standards “equivalent” to those in effect in the U.S. ous food safety questions involved. Fact is: foreign- U.S. meat. In simpler, bygone days, the Global food sanitary standards are dictated by the sourced trim has been documented as the culprit in male/female ratio of dairy calves was nearly Codex Alimentarius. According to USDA’s Web site, numerous ground beef recalls involving various con- 50:50. In recent years’ technologies that “sex” the Codex Alimentarius “operates within the U.N. taminations, such as E. coli. and . semen used to artificially impregnate dairy ani- Food and Agricultural Organization to establish mals have dramatically boosted the percentage international food standards that protect the health of Safety? Federal officials look the other way! of female dairy calves (relative to bull calves). consumers and ensure fair practices in trade.” And USDA personnel do not inspect foreign Dairy steers – particularly Holsteins – are sig- Given the powerful economic incentives to cut beef slaughterhouses. Quite frankly, in the case of nificant sources for the nation’s lean beef sup- costs – and the strong political forces ( those 1.1 BILLION pounds of lean, imported beef ply. In recent months, the combination of tight lobbyists and beef-state politicians in Washington, trim … the notion of importing beef trim off foreign U.S. beef supplies and sexed semen technolo- D.C.) involved – interpretating what’s “equivalent” slaughterhouse floors to put in the ground beef sup- gies have so discombobulated the U.S. dairy gives USDA bureaucrats a lot of wiggle room. plies for U.S. consumers is enough to gag a maggot. industry that healthy Holstein bull calves are Efforts to inform consumers where their - In the name of a “cheap ,” federal and state frequently worth more than same-sized, healthy burger comes from through retail Country of Origin agencies have intentionally looked the other way con- female calves.] Labeling were delayed by years of beef industry cerning questions of food safety. Under both Demo- stonewalling and bureaucratic foot-dragging at cratic and Republican administrations, giant food USDA. (See sidebar story.) 8— The Milkweed • June 2012 Continued on page 9 = 40%-50% of All U.S. Dairy Cull Cow Meat in 2011 processors’ profits have trumped any questions about demand balances governing sales of milk and meat meat processors have used – and continue to use illegal and/or unsafe food materials and ingredients. – why U.S. dairy farmers could even afford health – massive quantities of cheap, foreign proteins to Imports of meat and meat products entering insurance and retire with dignity … and perhaps hold down prices paid to U.S. dairy and the U.S. are inspected only at the U.S. border. even transition on the dairy farm to the next gener- producers for at least the past decade. Mean- About two percent of all food imports are actually ation without being accused of child abuse. while, U.S. citizens have been variously denied physically inspected. In 2011, about 90 million lbs. Such economic benefits would accrue, IF U.S. safe, legal food products. of imported lean beef trim entered the U.S. each dairy farmers’ cull cow and steer prices weren’t being Using imports of cheap, foreign proteins to month – likely in frozen form. Most border cross- negatively impacted by price-busting, foreign bust U.S. farmers is no secret to dairy. That’s ing “safety” inspections of imported frozen meat slaughterhouse floor scraping. What would the emo- exactly what has done for more than and meat products are conducted visually or by the tional spirits of dairy farm families be, not to mention a dozen years, through imports of Milk Protein schnozoola. A significant percentage of imported many the psyches of many persons who provide vital Concentrates (MPCs). Cheap imports of low- food products that are actually inspected at the U.S. services and supplies to dairy farmers, IF … grade dairy and beef proteins distort U.S. sup- border are rejected for a variety of reasons, includ- ply/demand and prices received by domestic ing quality and safety. Unfortunately, a significant Conclusion dairy and livestock producers. amount of rejected shipments of food imports snake Imports of foreign beef slaughterhouse And the nation’s food safety is seriously their way into the U.S. for human consumption. floor scrapings … are only HALF the story. The compromised. In the case of “pink slime,” the Importers merely direct rejected food products to “bigger picture” is the following: U.S. dairy and historic use of slaughterhouse floor “trim” has other border crossing points – a practice known as “port shopping.” Major Roadblocks Slow U.S. COOL Meat Labeling Rules What if $28-$30/cwt. milk? Despite more than a decade of effort by the United States; from animals born and raised in Quick math reveals this shocking fact: import- grassroots beef producers and their allies in Con- Alaska or Hawaii and transported for a period of ed lean beef trim in 2011 equaled the amount of gress, consumers still don’t have reliable informa- not more than 60 days through Canada to the beef yielded from slaughter of 40-50% of all U.S. tion on where the hamburger and ground beef sold United States and slaughtered in the United dairy cows sent to slaughter last year! The price- in supermarkets comes from. The big meatpackers, States; or from animals present in the United depressing impact of imports of low-grade beef trim supermarket chains, and other middlemen will do States on or before July 15, 2008.” leads to wild speculations about what prices U.S. just about anything to stop consumers from know- More often, consumers face meat from dairy farmers might receive for their milk and ing where their meat was raised. mixed sources of origin. According to USDA: slaughter animals (culls and dairy steers). Further, Congress did approve mandatory “Country of “If meat covered derived from if a far greater percentage of beef were sourced Origin Labeling” (COOL) legislation in 2002 as part U.S. and mixed origin animals are commingled from U.S. livestock, what would values would U.S. of the farm bill, but not much came of it. The beef during a production day, the resulting product dairy farmers see for their livestock –heifer and bull industry despised everything about the new labeling may carry the mixed origin claim (e.g., “Product calves, open heifers, bred heifers, milk cows, culls requirements. Beef magazine, an industry publica- of U.S., Canada, and Mexico”). and steers? Various “meatheads” (thank you, tion, last year described COOL as an “ill-conceived “Meat from animals imported for immediate Archie Bunker) defending pink slime boo-hoo that notion turned into a burdensome but toothless law.” slaughter in the U.S. shall be designated as “Prod- if U.S. meat processors had to replace the amount of Despite broad grassroots support among uct of Country X and the U.S. “pink slime” sold to U.S. consumers with meat from farmers and ranchers, industry opponents blocked Imported meat “for which no production additional beef animals, they’d need to buy 1.25 to implementation of COOL at every turn for seven steps occur in the US retain the origin as declared 1.5 million more cattle annually. Imagine the posi- years. An army of lobbyists funded by powerful to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.” tive economic effect on rural America that annual meatpacking and food retailing interests – in Such mixed country-of-origin labels are not demand for an additional 1.25 to 1.5 million head of cahoots with the packer-dominated National Cat- very reassuring to consumers looking for safe, domestic beef animals would create!!! tlemen’s Beef Association – waged all-out war- wholesome food. Canada has a history of “Mad But such envisioned higher beef prices would fare to gut implementation of any meaningful Cow” disease and Mexico has had persistent prob- only be the beginning of a rural American economic meat labeling requirements. Based on the opposi- lems with Bovine Tuberculosis. Even worse, glob- resurgence. Absent the impact of price-busting, mas- tion to COOL, these groups have a lot to hide. al “Free Trade” rules make it impossible for sive imports of beef trim used to “dumb down” U.S. Opposing the entrenched industry groups USDA to assure consumers that foreign meatpack- ground beef, The Milkweed projects that U.S. dairy were R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action ing plants comply with U.S. sanitary standards. farmers would see the following impacts on prices Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) caused by need for 50% more lean beef animals: and other independent (non-NCBA) beef produc- WTO Challenge Filed * $28-30 per hundredweight farm milk er groups, which fought ferociously to preserve To make matters worse, Canada and Mexico prices (similar to what Canadian dairy farmers honest meat labeling rules. – two of the largest meat exporters to the U.S. – receive for “in-quota” milk). Additional demand Under heavy pressure, the original 2002 leg- challenged the legality of COOL meat labeling in for dairy beef would reduce U.S. milk output and islation was amended in the 2008 Farm Bill. Then, a 2008 WTO dispute resolution complaint. drive up farm milk prices significantly! after years of continuous meat industry roadblocks Although the dispute resolution panel’s Novem- * The entire dairy livestock price complex and regulatory foot-dragging at USDA, COOL ber 18, 2011 ruling upholds some key parts of the would skyrocket, driven by additional demand was finally implemented March 16, 2009. U.S. meat labeling rule, the WTO found that for lean beef. Under such a scenario, we would COOL applies only to beef and other cov- COOL violates the WTO “equal treatment” prin- likely see: $500 (and up) dairy calf prices – heifers ered products sold in retail packages. Restaurants ciple and unnecessarily restricts trade. The U.S. and bulls; $2,500-$3,000 prices – per head – for and other food service establishments are not cov- appealed the ruling on March 23, 2012. R-CALF Holstein springing heifers and quality milk cows; ered by the labeling rules. USA continues to fight the WTO challenge, while $2,000 (and up, depending upon weight and grade) According to USDA, the COOL “Product of the NCBA and American Meat Institute have wel- for Holstein steers. the U.S.” label can be used only on: “Beef, , comed foreign efforts to kill COOL. The WTO * Higher profitability and values for oper- lamb, chicken, and goat must be derived from ani- appellate panel is expected to issue its ruling in ating U.S. dairy farms. If U.S. dairy farmers were mals exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in late June. generally profitable – based upon honest supply- U.S. Boneless Beef Imports: 2007-2011 World Total and Top Six Exporting Countries, in Metric Tons

Area/Partners of Origin January - December And Consumption Commodities Imported Cumulative To Date Quantities/Values in Thousands of Dollars

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Partner Product UOM Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty World Total 020230 - Bovine Boneless Froz MT 1,586,590 560,604 1,484,363 442,755 1,289,474 466,314 1,275,542 375,563 1,424,016 338,385 World Total 020130 - Bovine Boneless Fr/C MT 1,061,797 290,704 1,001,768 279,479 916,611 289,651 1,112,464 305,606 1,171,478 268,194 World Total TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 2,648,387 851,308 2,486,131 722,235 2,206,085 755,966 2,388,006 681,168 2,595,494 606,579 Canada TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 719,042 240,531 781,073 261,276 684,221 251,012 817,761 262,177 774,065 211,964 Australia* TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 987,219 294,355 870,906 219,914 799,469 262,635 721,994 187,765 711,811 149,186 New Zealand* TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 519,493 167,843 582,812 173,544 469,153 169,571 532,738 153,775 641,260 148,123 Mexico TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 40,775 7,401 33,602 5,557 59,470 10,461 111,439 18,517 189,734 31,300 Nicaragua TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 78,765 28,756 100,439 32,915 77,137 29,606 103,254 33,318 160,692 41,375 Uruguay TOTAL BONELESS BEEF MT 272,942 104,634 76,509 19,489 82,575 22,580 62,531 14,880 63,018 11,076 Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service May 2012 * denotes a country that is a summarization of its component countries. Notes: Canada is listed with clinical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("Mad Cow") disease, according to the World Animal Health Information Database Uruguay is near Paraguay, which has reported cases of Foot and Mouth Disease, according to the World Animal Health Information Database

The Milkweed • June 2012 — 9