I Got a Beef With Beef

In my Future of Food posts I mentioned that we needed a new definition of sustainable where the food industry is concerned.  I decided, purposely, to avoid defining the word because I wanted to use various news stories to highlight how the system could be more sustainable and expand some of my thoughts from the previous posts.  I would not claim prophetic powers, but I must admit the events in Alberta did not completely come as a shock to me, and they shouldn't to you, either.  And so, I will exploit them, here, to expand on some of my earlier thoughts.

In a recent Globe and Mail commentary, Sylvain Charlebois wonders if Canadians will rally around the beef industry the way they did during the Mad Cow episode.  He believes that consumers are more interested in where their food is coming from and are more likely to ask about issues of safety and ethical production.  He notes that the cost of raising beef and the increased dollar have impacted the price of food and goes on to suggest that, with the economic downturn, this combination may be too much for Canadian consumers to ignore.  I think he is right.  I believe that the industry will pay for this in the short term, obviously, but also in the long term.  But, what Charlebois does not discuss is where the blame should be placed.

In the eyes of the Government the blame is undeniably NOT with them.  As another article in the Globe and Mail points out, George Da Pont claims the blame lies solely with XL Foods and that the delay in acting was due to delays in receiving reports from the company.  Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz insists that the government has hired more inspectors while the union claims that's not true and the opposition and press suggest that further cuts are imminent.  In the early stages of the crisis Ritz suggested it was no big deal because no one got sick, then some people went ahead and got sick.

If ever there was a time for consumers in Canada to express their displeasure with the current system through their wallets it would be now.  Clearly the government has decided that it no longer wishes to be the guardians of the public health.  While they can spin their employment numbers any way they want the bottom line is THEY are responsible for inspections.  I assume this means they make notes, fill out forms, etc.  If there are plenty of inspectors why were you waiting for information from the company?  Why were you not in possession of all the documents related to the testing, inspecting and recording?  Why did you have to be notified by inspectors from another country first? Is it because you don't actually do the testing, inspecting and recording but simply pop in for a check once in awhile?

It is easy to lay the blame at the feet of a nameless corporation and accuse them of greed.  But, is it not the very nature of corporations to look for maximum profit off minimum investment?  Is it not also the nature of corporations and humans to put their own good ahead of the good of others?  Anyone who would answer that last question with a no is a liar disingenuous and/or naive.  There is a true conflict of interest when a corporation is left to be their own compliance overseer.  That has always been what the role of government was to be; an arbitrator, rule maker, investigator and protector.  In return we all agree to be loyal, patriotic citizens.  But, corporations the government of Canada are not living up to their parts of the deal. Don't blame an institution dedicated to maximizing profits for behaving exactly as they were predicted to have behaved.

Bottom line: meat processing needs to be done in smaller, local abattoirs.  Limits need to be placed on the amount of market share any one plant can dominate (40% of all meat from one plant is unacceptable).  Inspectors need to be government employees with autonomous powers to shut down production whenever they suspect a threat to public health.  This cost needs to be born by the processors (yes, I know it means higher prices...so what?).  Cattle farms must come under inspection for conditions at the farm and adherence to ethical best practices.  All grain feed producers also need to come under inspection and be certified.  But, mostly, Canadians need to start a new relationship with their food.  We can start by eating less meat.

Imagine What Jeffrey Dahmer Would Have Sent

Ok, so apparently this is a thing now.  At face value the idea of a foodie pen pal exchanging food products sounds quite pastoral and all, but why put another human (all fallible and all) in the chain of supply.  Ok, I get that you are sending items that are not typically available where the other lives, but I see something bad happening out of this someday: accidental food poisoning, intentional poisoning, unexpected items packed with the food.  Maybe I am just a little paranoid and overly cynical about my fellow humans, I'll blame it on my parents insistence on throwing out any homemade treats at halloween.  Still, I'm going to go ahead and forgo this trend.  Thanks.

Additionally, I was thinking, if it's bad for the food industry to ship food all over the place, why is ok for individuals?  I thought we were all supposed to eat locally to save the earth.  I bet the kilometres per kilogram ratio is pretty high on this type of distribution.