The rendering industry has known for years it was/is the unknown and largely unappreciated link in the food chain. It was only when someone closed a plant or stopped pick-ups that the industry’s value was “recognized.” We thank the cow that stole Christmas in 2003 for putting the spotlight on rendering, bringing challenges, but also the opportunity to explain the industry to public and elected officials. It is industry efficiency and technical prowess that ensures those parts of the animal that aren’t edible or wearable are converted into feed and consumer product ingredients, not only maintaining the quality of those products, but keeping disposal sites around the country devoid of animal parts while mitigating zoonotic disease risks.
The reason I restate the obvious, at least to the readers of this publication, is I attended a meeting in early May in Kansas City, MO. The purpose of the meeting was to learn from journalists and others how to talk about the food production system to the media so we shift from being the bad guys of food safety and animal well-being – at least in the eyes of the press – to getting at least a little credit for the incredible good things we do.
In listening to the farmers, veterinarians, and ag economists in the room, a fascinating albeit disturbing message emerged. While U.S. food producers and the industries that serve them are the best in the world at what they do, to read mainstream media is to pick up on the unmistakable drumbeat of retreat from technology, efficiency, and, ultimately, affordability, or as one Iowa veterinarian put it, “We’re the only major industry in this country that’s being told to go backward.”
We’ve battled the critics of animal agriculture for years. The animal rightists want meat off the dinner table, and failing that, raise those animals as your grandfather did, abandoning housing in favor of open spaces, and dumping life-saving and animal health products that prevent and treat disease and control microbial loads. The environmental groups want animals raised in groups of 50 or less, making sure those animals don’t smell, don’t defecate or urinate, or eat feeds that might produce dust. The food police say all foods must be organic or “natural,” while being devoid of fat and other nasties. And now the media is saying that if all of these things are combined, and you season this recipe with the admonition to buy only “locally,” global warming will end, disease will be eradicated, and the 100-acre family farm will be economically viable.
U.S. governments – local, state, and federal – aren’t much help in this societal landslide. An excellent example is the pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) rule changes. Inherent in this proposal is the naïve notion that media, politicians, activist groups, and consumers will embrace the federal government in a group hug for doing “the responsible thing” by not only taking specified risk materials (SRMs) out of the feed chain, but by deeming deads and downers over 30 months as automatically radioactive. Not only does this proposal ignore the technical proficiency of modern rendering, but it may create a carcass disposal issue horrific to contemplate because it ignores the very environmental and disease prevention protection rendering has provided to society for decades. They’re telling us to go backwards.
A good chunk of the problem with misperception and mischaracterization of industry, including rendering, is that media and government are playing to a very small audience when it comes right down to it. The noise comes from the 15 percent of folks who can afford to routinely shop at natural or organic food emporia, who don’t mind paying two or three times the cost of traditional production for foods that have no demonstrable benefit to human health, the environment, or animal well-being. The various activist groups play their fundraising and media messages and their government influence strategies accordingly. Food writers and mainstream media ag/food industry reporters echo these sentiments. Retailers pick up on the message barrage, plug it into their “social responsibility” formula, issue a press release out the door, and the circle is complete. And governments believe this is the “majority” talking, not just the 15 percent.
Attention must be paid to the whole. Reality must be faced. More than 85 percent of the U.S. population can’t or won’t pay 20 to 25 percent of their income for food. This is a country that while truly blessed with an abundance of stuff, arable land is unfortunately not among them. Two-thirds of the United States can’t grow crops, and urban sprawl is encroaching on the one-third of available acres that can.
Industries like rendering, feed production, farming, and ranching cannot afford to rollback the advances they’ve made. Again, attention must be paid to the whole. The U.S. quality of life is in large part due to the professional use of these efficiencies. Low disease rates, environmental stewardship, crop and animal quality, variety and well-being, and affordable food are all the result of the demand for, the development of, and the judicious use of technology. The goal here must be to maximize the benefits of these advances, while striving to make even greater strides forward – never backward. And a last word to the “natural, organic, and local” crowd: Be careful what you ask for.
This is Not a Dead Issue
Speaking of animal carcass disposal, the National Renderers Association (NRA) was among a coalition of Washington, DC-based animal producer and feed industry groups that met with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials to talk animal disposal in the context of the pending FDA proposal on changing the ruminant feed rule. The message from the coalition was short and sweet: Absent a federal government plan to facilitate and assist industry in trying to comply with a ban on deads/downers over 30 months – should that be the final FDA decision – then both the federal and state governments need to prepare for environmental, zoonotic disease, and related problems.
It was frustrating to hear that after so much federal time and money has been spent on BSE mitigation, serious discussions among USDA, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency on animal disposal haven’t happened. This explains the consistent message related to disposal: “Disposal of carcasses and SRMs should be conducted in accordance with state and local regulation.”
The bottom line: Industry will be the catalyst for federal discussions and an invitation-only roundtable will be held in Washington among affected groups, the agencies that need to be involved, and folks representing state government. We’ll keep you posted on any progress made.
View from Washington - June 2006 Render