Livestock Market Digest
Page 6
December 15, 2014
Agriculture can’t allow outsiders to define sustainability BY TROY MARSHALL IN MY VIEW FROM THE COUNTRY, BEEF MAGAZINE
t first blush, one would think that defining sustainabilityand efficiency shouldn’t take more than few moments. Sustainability, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is defined as “harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” USDA has already produced a legal definition of sustainable agriculture. According to U.S. Code Title 7, Section 3103, sustainable agriculture means “an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term:
A
n Satisfy human food and fiber needs. n Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends. n Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls. n Sustain the economic viability of farm operations. n Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” Efficiency is even easier to define; simply divide outputs by inputs. Certainly there are different types of efficiency; for example, we can measure economic efficiency or biological efficiency. The relationships for both are
pretty simple to calculate, and while economic efficiencies change according to costs of inputs and outputs and the like, the concepts seem pretty straightforward and well-defined. Yet, these concepts are not nearly so simple in application. That’s because politics and marketing have become the drivers in these discussions, and both tend to care far less about facts and far more about creating perceptions. Sadly, politics and marketing are also seen as a zero sum game, where there are not two winners but decided victors and losers. Thus, we have a lot of confusion about what the words “sustainable” and “efficiency” mean and how they can be achieved. The fact that they’re interrelated isn’t the important concept. The
key is that as marketing and political tools, they are being manipulated to achieve predetermined goals by those involved. Some of it’s laughable and should be ignored. After all, agriculture has made great strides in sustainability since the Great Depression, and even greater strides in efficiency. In fact, the rate of progress in efficiency has been staggering. In 1970, the U.S. needed an inventory of 140 million head of cattle to produce the same amount of beef product as we do today with 90 million head! We were able to do that by improving reproductive efficiency and growth and carcass traits. We’re just now beginning to measure and identify feed efficiency, which promises to spur
even more dramatic improvements in cattle efficiency. Yet, there are some who claim efficiency is strictly outputs or inputs, and some reduce the debate to absurdity via simplification. For instance, some marketers claim smaller cows are more profitable in every environment. Forget the fact that such a premise would result in the never-ending chase for smaller and smaller cattle. Meanwhile, the disciples of output would have us soon producing cattle that resemble elephants. Such extremes in view are admittedly in the minority, and the mainstream rejects such claims with little thought. In a broad sense, efficiency is fairly easy to define, but it is unique to each individual operation.
McDonald’s Wants Industry Help In Defining Sustainable Beef BY AMANDA RADKE IN BEEF DAILY, BEEF MAGAZINE
he beef industry’s largest customer, McDonald’s, has announced it will spend the next 18 months defining sustainable beef. Bob Langert, McDonald’s vice president of sustainability, spoke at the recent 2014 Cattle Industry Summer Conference in Denver, CO, where he told the crowd, “Just thinking you’re sustainable isn’t enough anymore; you’ve got to prove it.” Gene Johnston for agriculture.com reports on Langert’s speech in an article entitled, “Fast-Food VP Challenges Cattle Industry.” Here is an excerpt: “McDonald’s buys a lot of beef – 2 percent of the entire world’s supply. Through its 34,000 worldwide franchise locations, it sells about half of all fast-food burgers, an average of 75/second. That’s more than Wendy’s, Burger King, Sonic, Arby’s, and Jack-in-the-Box combined. By 2016, McDonald’s intends to source and sell hamburger beef that fits the new criteria (whatever that is) and be applied worldwide.” McDonald’s doesn’t currently have a definition for “sustainable beef,” but Langert saysMcDonald’s wants the beef industry to help define it. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Beyond that, we don’t know the definition. You will help us create it. Let’s do it before someone else does it for us. Start by measuring things. How much do you contribute to your com-
T
munity? How much energy have you saved in the last few years? People want to know how much you care. It’s part of the sustainable answer.” With 69 million customers going to McDonald’s on a daily basis, the chain sells a lot of beef and has the power to be extremely influential in public perceptions about our product. Take, for example, the company’s bad reputation for making America fat; the company rebranded and revamped its menu — offering apple slices, oatmeal, yogurt and better salad options to meet the needs of the health-conscious customer. The beef industry certainly has a great opportunity to sit down with McDonald’s and shape the discussion about sustainability in beef production. We better make the most of this opportunity or risk others doing the defining for us. Businessweek.com sees McDonald’s promise to serve sustainable beef in 2016 as a direct result of Chipotle’s successful campaigning for its all-natural burritos. In an article entitled, “McDonald’s Gives Itself A Year And Half To Get Into Chipotle-Fighting Shape,” Businessweek.com reports that McDonald’s rebranding will focus on adding more fruit and vegetable options and offering sustainable beef, a la Chipotle. According to the article, “The goal of McDonald’s is to become a more trusted and respected brand. The McDonald’s brand — eroded over the
MARKET
To place your ad, contact Caren at 505/243-9515, ext. 21 or caren@aaalivestock.com
years by service problems, dietary concerns, lack of blockbuster product launches, and recent employee-pay issues — isn’t one many consumers feel too good about anymore. In fact, one study shows that 38 percent of online conversations about McDonald’s over the past year have been negative. “To create a dining experience customers will feel good about, McDonald’s has turned a West Coast restaurant into a learning lab to gather feedback about the food, environment, and other aspects of dining at the Golden Arches. Core products, such as the Big Mac, Egg McMuffin, and fries — three items that
account for about 40 percent of sales — will be at the center of the food efforts, and expect menu additions to be focused around premium beef and chicken items, breakfast food, and coffee and blended ice drinks.” I hope that McDonald’s doesn’t go down the path of Chipotle. It’s important our consumers know that conventionally raised beef really is sustainable. It’s also nutritious and safe. However, if McDonald’s has certain specifications it would like beef producers to meet, I’m positive the industry will rise to the occasion to produce the beef our number-one customer demands. Hopefully, McDon-
ald’s can then sell said beef without bashing conventionally raised beef in the process. And that’s going to be the difference between Chipotle and McDonald’s — one makes its money by bashing conventional agriculture while the other works to improve the industry by actually working with ranchers and not against them. What do you think about McDonald’s promise to serve “sustainable beef?” How would you define sustainable beef? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. The opinions of Amanda Radke are not necessarily those of Beefmagazine.com or the Penton Farm Progress Group.
Personhood Denied BY NANCY E. HALPERN, DVM, ESQ. POSTED IN ANIMAL RIGHTS, PERSONHOOD
n a stunning decision, the Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department in the State of New York denied personhood status for Tommy, the chimpanzee, expressly rejecting The Nonhuman Rights Project fundamental assertion that chimpanzees are “legal persons.” In the Order, which upheld the lower court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas, the Court addressed the issue presented directly: “This appeal presents the novel question of whether a chimpanzee is a ‘person’ entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus . . . the petitioner requests that this Court enlarge the common-law definition of ‘person’ in order to afford legal rights to an animal.” The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., on Behalf of Tommy v. Lavery, Case No. 518339, Slip. Op., (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 4, 2014). The Court declined to do so. “Petitioner does not cite any precedent – and there appears to be none – in state law, or under English common law, that an animal could be considered a ‘person’ for the purposes of common-law habeas corpus relief. In fact, habeas corpus relief has never been provided to any nonhuman entity.” Slip. Op. (citations omitted). But the Court did not stop there. It went on to discuss when, why, and how society provides rights consistent with legal personhood and what responsibilities are associated with those rights,
I
citing to the legal scholarship of Richard L. Cupp Jr., a law professor who has written extensively on this topic. Consistent with Cupp’s position, “[c]ase law has always recognized the correlative rights and duties that attach to legal personhood,” that nonhuman animals do not have. The Court also addressed petitioner’s assertion that since non-human entities like corporations have been afforded personhood-type rights, there is no bar to do the same for non-human animals. “Associations of human beings, such as corporations and municipal entities, may be considered legal persons, because they too bear legal duties in exchange for their legal rights.” While ultimately rejecting that a chimpanzee should be afforded “the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus [because] unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions,” the Court listed the specific legal protections that have been afforded to animals, including chimpanzees in New York. These “rights,” like the protection against cruel treatment, are routinely ignored by activists claiming that animals have no rights. Expect to see many citations to this decision in response to other lawsuits to “free” animals from captivity and “slavery.” The Nonhuman Rights Project announced that it is pursuing an appeal in response to this decision.