This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 24th, 2008 at 10:00am and is filed under Organic foods, Media and information, Food Safety, Local, Produce, Meat, Farming, Agriculture, Labels, Ranching, Food Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I recently came across a survey of 500 ‘typical’ households in the Midwest done by the University of Nebraska. They interviewed the primary grocery shopper about her/his attitudes and opinions about locally grown and processed food, including meat, as well as organic and all-natural .
99% of respondants had purchased locally grown or produced food at one time or another. The top three reasons for purchasing local were freshness, better taste and supporting local farmers.
The top reasons for purchasing organic or all-natural were no chemicals/pesticides/herbicides/antibiotics, more healthy/nutritious and because they taste better.
The top criteria for purchasing meat locally were: Food safety, quality of the meat, USDA inspection, tenderness and juiciness. The terms “grass-fed”, “organic” and “free-range” were ranked last.
Although the survey was performed in 2001, the results are still enlightening today. Consumers find a taste difference with locally grown food [ever compared a homegrown tomato to one from the store?]. Safety is a concern for meat, but USDA inspection is trusted. Residue are of concern to those purchasing organic.
Any speculations about how things might have changed in the 7 years since the survey? Sadly, I’m not sure the average consumer is any more factually informed about those things that concern them than they were 7 years ago [many of our readers excepted]. In fact, given the amount of propaganda in media as these issues become marketing tools, I’m afraid many are more misinformed than they were 7 years ago.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:08am
What’s really interesting is that people list food safety as a top concern - I doubt that’s changed in 7 years.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:01pm
I’m sure people are less assured by the USDA-inspected label than they were 7 years ago. All of the major meat recalls have come from USDA-inspected plants. As a meat producer myself, it seems more folks want to know the reputation of the slaughterhouse and whether the animal was killed ‘humanely’. Sure would be nice if all of the violations that a particular slaughterhouse racked up over time became public information and that perhaps they were given a grade or score. That would benefit both the rancher trying to find the best slaughterhouse and the consumer trying to find the safest meat.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:02pm
Rebecca–I agree that transparency in both processing plant violations and brand labels is desirable.
However, since it is necessary to process in a USDA-inspected plant to legally sell beef in most (if not all) places, it is not surprising that all major recalls occurred in USDA-inspected plants.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:45pm
Actually, a lot of meat is processed in small custom facilities or retail butcher shops (both standalone or within supermarkets), as well as within restaurants who break down whole animals or primals. I find it ironic that having a USDA inspector standing over your shoulder does little to nothing to improve food safety. Also, there are a large number of states that have determined that state inspection is equivalent to USDA inspection in terms of retail sales. But you are right in terms of sheer volume.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:51am
Rebecca: I stand corrected. I was meaning inspection in general, not strictly USDA. My beef is processed at a local plantunder a USDA-trained state inspector, so I guess is not technically USDA-inspected. And I agree with you that it is silly that state-inspected meat is not considered equivalent to USDA-inspected.
Those large plants do undergo additional random testing for E. coli, compared to the smaller plants. I’m not at all sure what the real relative incidence of food safety issues are in the big versus small plants. On the one hand, the number of people affected on a small-plant problem might keep it from being identified. On the other hand, the closer relationship between the processor and consumer tends to keep accountability higher than any amount of regulation and inspection can.