Food safety

Indifference was also one of the criticisms raised against the meat and fast-food industries in their attitude to food safety during the early 1990s. In the USA and Europe there were several serious food scares at this time. In Europe, the scares started with algal toxins in Crustacea and shellfish, carcinogens in packaging films, Salmonella in fresh chicken, Listeria in precooked chilled chicken and Botulinum in pork. They got worse as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and Escherichia coli O157 emerged in beef and veal, and the decade ended with worries about the hazards of genetically modified foods.

On top of this, there was public criticism in Europe about farm animal welfare, and in particular about keeping dry sows in stalls, long-distance transport in sheep, lameness in broilers and confining layer hens in cages. The meat industry became a focus for attention in general protest movements, and the public became disenchanted with farmers and meat processors. At times, the image and prospects of the meat and livestock industry seemed depressing.

The general protest movement is now directing its attention at other targets, but it caused some lasting effects on the way things are managed in the meat and livestock industry. The food safety issues of the 1990s led to traceability systems. Traceability was originally intended as a way of tracking the origins of a food from the consumer back to its farm of origin. This could allow transfer of culpability for a food scare, whilst implementing food safety control measures. An important consequence of this development has been reduced market access to high-value markets for subsistence livestock farming, because this sector is not in a strong position to introduce the support needed for traceability systems, especially in poorer countries. In industrialized countries, traceability has resulted in an abundance of animal ear tagging and paperwork aimed at monitoring livestock movement and changes in ownership.

The introduction of livestock traceability was supported by governments as a means of controlling outbreaks of exotic diseases. In the EU traceability is achieved through animal passports and movement records. Animal passports and movement records are potentially useful for:

● tracing and identifying contact or suspect animals in disease control programmes

● providing evidence of the vaccination status of animals

● tracing products that pose a risk to human health back to their farm of origin

● identifying animals that have been treated with drugs that preclude the carcass from human consumption

● predicting the spread of a disease

● limiting the number of animals that need to be confined or slaughtered during an epidemic

Animal passports were seen as a way of strengthening national biosecurity in a free trade economy. There have, however, been animal welfare disadvantages that have offset the benefits. The additional handling required in checking that an ear tag corresponds to a passport is stressful for the animal. Cattle are held in crushes to read the ear tag, and as with most crush work this can upset the animal and lead to bruising. Inconsistencies between ear tag and passport numbers at busy livestock markets can cause delays in unloading other stock, and tempers can get taxed. Questions get asked whether risk management has to impose such interference with otherwise simple procedures. Risk management is seen by some as too intrusive and disruptive. Others accept it and get on with it, but need reassuring that there are benefits.

The food scares of the 1990s had other long-term effects. Consumer confidence in food safety has shifted away from government control towards trusted branded products. Some companies have benefited, whilst others have had their reputation ruined by a food scare and have gone out of business. The threat of closure added impetus to adopting auditing systems, which checked on standards used further up the supply chain. Animal welfare concerns are being managed in a similar way, using the auditing approach adopted in food safety. In-house animal welfare accreditation schemes are now common and they are often requested by bulk-buying customers. Some major meat retailers and fast-food companies have recognized their role in maintaining standards in animal welfare as well as food safety, and they have exerted pressure in adopting recognized welfare standards through market access entitlements. In this way, the meat industry is becoming more self-regulated on animal welfare as well as food safety, and government authorities in some countries are now less concerned with defending or inspecting the commercial sector. Concerns about food safety have also been a strong impetus in promoting healthy eating and organic foods, and those markets are now flourishing in many countries, particularly for fruit and vegetables.

Healthy eating

Meat is often considered by meat eaters as ‘good for health’, but meat does not enjoy any status as a health food. It is not stocked on the shelves of health food shops and there are no health food counters that promote ‘healthy meat’. Amongst the different meats, pork has the least reputation for being good for health, because of its associated layer of fat, whereas poultry has a higher health image (Verbeke et al ., 1999).

Meat consumers are moving away from buying fresh meat towards buying processed products and eating out. They are relinquishing control over the ingredients they are eating and this is not entirely consistent with healthy eating. Processed foods are not synonymous with healthy foods, in terms of the amounts of fat, salt and synthetic ingredients they contain. With the exception of fish, it seems unlikely that meat will gain a strong position as a health food whilst this trend towards processed products continues.

Organic and free-range livestock farming

In the EU, about 3% of farmland is used in organic farming. It is not a large part of the agricultural industry, but the biggest contributors are in Germany, Italy, France and the UK.

The original aims in the organic movement were developed during the early and mid-20th century. The concepts included:

● biodynamic farming, in which there is an emphasis on rotational cropping, balanced nutrition for both plants and animals and rejection of inorganic fertilizers

● composting organic wastes and non-chemical control of plant pests and diseases

● autonomy of the farm, including self-reliance, recycling of nutrients, minimum cultivation methods and the role of local farms serving local communities

The present focus in organic farming is in producing crops, milk and meat that are pure and free from contamination with agrochemicals or veterinary residues, and in a manner that is ecologically sustainable. In some organic associations the marketing aims have broadened to encompass animal welfare. For example, in EU countries, pigmeat that is labelled organic should come from pigs that have had access to an outdoor area and are provided with more space and litter than in conventional intensive systems. The boundaries and distinctions between organic and welfare-friendly farming methods could become blurred in the future, especially if branded products acquire archetypal labels and images.

The images that organic foods have amongst the public are one step removed from the organic farming methods promoted by the organic food associations. The present images amongst the public have more to do with purity of the food and health benefits than with the production method, but the two are not always synonymous. To the consumer, beliefs about health, safety and meat flavour are more important than farming methods, the environmental benefits and animal welfare (McCarthy et al ., 2003).

There are also discrepancies between organic farming standards and animal welfare standards. The following animal welfare concerns have been raised about organic farming methods, but not all of them have been substantiated:

● poorer control of endo- and ectoparasites ● greater risk of injuries because organic producers are less likely to dehorn cattle

● greater distress when cows and calves are separated in dairy herds, because this usually occurs at least 2 days after calving in organic farming systems, by which time bonding has developed

● increased risk of uncontrolled mastitis, because of reduced use of antibiotics

● greater risk of injuries, lameness, hypothermia and sunburn in organic (outdoor) pig units, but this is not exclusive to organic production systems

● greater risk of high mortality in layer hen flocks through disease and no beak trimming on organic farms

These potential disadvantages are offset by providing for behavioural needs in organic farming systems. There can also be some less obvious benefits, such as reduced aggression in outdoor organic pig finishing systems (Cox and Cooper, 2001).

Organic aquaculture has just started, and the standards are based on natural breeding, natural pond walls or banks, feed sources that grow within the pond, using organic feedstuffs as supplementary feed, and an emphasis on homeopathic disease prevention rather than relying on chemical treatment. It is too early to guess how this will evolve.