Seeking Alpha

Consumers will get to know their meat better starting Saturday

  • New meat labeling rules in the U.S. that start on Saturday aim to help consumers understand exactly where their products have originated from in the wake of meat contamination issues.
  • The new labels will include a biography of sorts on the animals consumers are eating - with detailed information on where livestock was born, raised, and slaughtered.
  • The USDA estimates that compliance will cost the meat industry between $53.1M and $192.1M, although the development could be an advantage to U.S. producers.
  • Related stocks: Tyson Foods (TSN), Hormel Foods (HRL), Sanderson Farms (SAFM), Seaboard Corporation (SEB), Hillshire Brands (HSH).
Comments (12)
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2156) | Send Message
     
    "Hi, my name was Ralphie. I grew up on a small farm just outside of Texarkana..."
    21 Nov 2013, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7410) | Send Message
     
    More government BS only adding costs for the producers that will be passed on to the consumer. Simply one more cost of a bloated bureaucracy.
    21 Nov 2013, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • SimonSaysShort
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    "...although the development could be an advantage to U.S. producers".
    Yep, consumer protection = downfall of America. You nailed it.
    21 Nov 2013, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    they have to justify their government job somehow. I just find it odd that in a country like the United States it is cheaper to produce food overseas and import it than to do it here.

     

    I thought with our efficient and friendly government, we would have a huge advantage.
    21 Nov 2013, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (406) | Send Message
     
    yes, nanny state..if some in your family die, just have more children...once enough deaths, the markets/groceries will realize and not buy the product from the particular supplier..buyer beware...
    21 Nov 2013, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7410) | Send Message
     
    topcat
    How many people in your family died because this wasn't the law 50 years ago? Or, last year?
    Let me guess. NONE.
    21 Nov 2013, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2156) | Send Message
     
    wyo

     

    It is only very recently that beef sold as fresh was allowed from foreign countries. It had been limited to stuff like Dinty Moore beef stew or canned tamales. But we allow imports now from countries we have good trade relationships with. Canada produces more than they can consume and Mexico sells it here because they can get a lot more for it than in Jalisco.

     

    No one dies of anything but do recall that there have been entire herds liquidated because of 'mad cow' disease. Labeling helps keep tabs on sources so if there is a problem it is traceable.

     

    Beef consumption has fallen steadily since the late '70's in part over fears that it is less healthy than other meats. Poultry has risen more than enough to offset the decline but we see so much of it in the form of wings and nuggets that one has to wonder if the health crowd even thinks about their rationale.

     

    A big trend in food is to favor foods with local content. Labeling will help settle issues of source and - to an extent - safety, which should help spur demand. Higher demand, of course, means that ranchers and processors should be rewarded with higher prices than if he system was left alone.

     

    A good example is the success of the various Angus programs. Angus beef, in general, is among the most flavorful and tender (it's a breed thing). Angus is also a dominant breed in US herds but the Angus 'brand' is worth about 50c a pound more than generic beef. Worth it? To the ranchers and their partners, dam straight.
    21 Nov 2013, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7410) | Send Message
     
    Randal
    Angus has been labeled as such for a long time, voluntary by the producer. Just like many other producers to try to get their products to "stand out" from the crowd and demand a higher price.
    See, no need for more regulations.
    21 Nov 2013, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2156) | Send Message
     
    wyostocks

     

    I did see hamburger the other day that was labeled similar to what you see on olive oil or OJ these days. The label read (approximate)

     

    Product of The USA, Canada, Mexico or Australia. This doesn't alarm me too much because US feedlots have brought in Canadian and Mexican cattle for decades with rare problems with disease and quarantines. I'd give Australia or New Zealand the benefit of the doubt because they are smart operators. A lot of lamb comes from those countries so the inspection is rigorous.

     

    But would you feel as safe if it included China or Belize? Last year's scandal was the proliferation of horsemeat in a few very ordinary processed foods in Europe. The people owning the brands, such as Nestle and Ikea (Swedish meatballs? Yum!) were stunned. The meat purveyors suggested they should have known all along it wasn't beef.

     

    I'm not one for meddling with things that work, but if we're going to be importing this stuff, I want to see that my steaks and burgers are homegrown.
    21 Nov 2013, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • Mattster
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Thank you govt for making meat producers accountable for quality. Ridiculous those here essentially saying 'I wish we had a small govt so I can eat horsemeat without knowing it!'
    21 Nov 2013, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    I do like labeling on imported food, if only because I won't eat anything from China. That can be tough to do when your children are young, and like apple juice. You can find domestically produced juice for the same price, you have to look around.

     

    I think that is a valid concept in that domestic producers would label it as such, and anything not labeled as such, one would avoid. That would be a voluntary program, however. U.S. producers would be self-policing.

     

    Under this system instituted, there will be thousands and thousands of pages of rules a food producer will have to review, which means an entire compliance department will have to be created to do so, and buildings full of government lackeys praying (well, not in the Obama regime as praying makes you an enemy of the State) someone makes a mistake so they can assess a fine and prove their job actually has a purpose.

     

    Why imported food is so much cheaper is a discussion for another day, but our government primarily believes in the New World Order one-world government concept, which dovetails nicely with what multinational corporations want as well.
    22 Nov 2013, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2156) | Send Message
     
    taxman

     

    My ex MIL used to rail against everything Chinese - and then promptly buy nearly everything from them without regard as to origin. One day she surprised me by complaining that all the produce was from overseas. It was winter and she'd seen all the fruits were from Honduras and the melons and pineapples from Argentina and so forth.

     

    In fact, lots of the produce on our shelves comes from the multinationals such as Dole or Del Monte and they have massive operations in agriculturally productive areas. The locals wonder, correctly, if their own prices would not be lower if so much wasn't shipped out. It is a similar observation to our own obsession with ethanol. If we weren't trying to make moonshine to run our cars, wouldn't livestock and grain prices be lower? Yup.

     

    But the types of labeling required would be just another task for the USDA. And it might be a good idea for other reasons: with corporate takeovers and such, portions of agriculture are becoming foreign owned. I don't lose sleep over it, but Swift Meats is owned by a Brazilian corporation and the global supply chain is increasingly complex.

     

    http://bloom.bg/1aEeY4G

     

    I don't need a genealogy report, just let me know if it is from North Dakota or North Korea.
    22 Nov 2013, 05:02 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)