Despite progress, beef industry faces threats
Kansas cattle producers, meatpackers grapple with danger of bioterrorism
Dec. 15, 2006
Chris Green
Harris News Service
A $6 billion economic behemoth, the Kansas beef industry flourishes as part of what boosters call the safest and most efficient food supply in the world.
 |
| Curtis Kastner, director of Kansas State University's Food Science Institute, places meat in the postprocessing pasteurization lab in the university's meat science building. |
But despite recent progress in making the beef production chain even safer, one of the state's key economic livelihoods continues to face potential threats, most notably fears of bioterrorism.
In a series of stories over the past five days, Harris Group newspapers have examined issues and potential problems surrounding beef safety -- from field to fork.
Before it can feed millions around the nation and world, cattle and then beef travel a journey of at least five stages.
"There's a lot of complexity there that maybe is beyond some of the other segments of agriculture, although I don't think it's totally unique," Kansas Agriculture Secretary Adrian Polansky said.
Cattle raised and sold by the state's ranchers join other animals traveling on trucks to Kansas feed lots or Flint Hills pastures, where they are fattened before hitting the kill floor of one of the state's beef-packing plants.
Most consumers buy the beef in supermarkets or restaurants.
The long journey is creating challenges in light of the potential for animal disease outbreak. A voluntary program designed to keep track of where beef cattle originate and travel is just starting, and it faces skepticism from long-independent cattle ranchers.
Plus, agriculture's sheer importance to the nation's economy and food supply has given rise to fear that terrorists might try to exploit safety or security gaps in beef production.
"If you look at the importance of that industry and the devilishness of the terrorists to really try to probe for weaknesses in our security, impact our economy and terrorize us, this is one route they might try," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a former Kansas agriculture secretary.
Economic repercussions of a biological calamity in the Kansas beef industry would be substantial for the entire nation.
Many states' agricultural sectors rely upon each other to prosper, said Jim Stack, director of Kansas State University's new, $54 million Biosecurity Research Institute.
'Significant threat'
To deal with food security concerns, the state is now home to Kansas State University's National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, which includes the new Biosecurity Research Institute.
The program covers both naturally occurring and intentionally introduced threats, said Ron Trewyn, vice provost for research and dean of K-State's graduate school.
"We're trying to come at this from multiple directions to deal with anything that might occur," said Trewyn, who oversees the national center.
A significant threat to Kansas' beef industry is foot and mouth disease, a virus wiped out in the United States decades ago but still widespread abroad.
 |
Stack |
 |
Trewyn |
 |
Jaax |
Jerry Jaax, K-State veterinarian and associate vice provost for research compliance, said the disease's reintroduction here could spread quickly and easily.
"The threat is a significant one that would not require rocket science to perpetrate," Jaax said.
Effective countermeasures, such as a vaccine, would help against such an attack, Jaax said. But it also would be "very, very important" to know where the disease outbreak originated in the supply chain, Jaax said.
In Kansas, however, there's been a tepid response to a voluntary U.S. Department of Agriculture program designed to record where cattle are raised and housed.
Just 10 percent of the state's 330,000 cattle premises have signed up to join the National Animal Identification System. The national goal is to register 25 percent of premises by late January, a USDA spokesman said.
Ultimately, it should allow investigators to isolate the point of a disease outbreak within 48 hours.
Todd Domer, a spokesman for the Kansas Livestock Association, said that the only way for the government to increase participation would be to do "a better job of selling the need for the system."
The state's ranchers remain concerned about the privacy of their business information. Costs and additional liability are also a concern.
Polansky said the USDA has sent mixed messages about the purpose of the program. The secretary expects tough questions about the program from Democrats if, as expected, they assume control of Congress next month.
However, incoming 2nd District Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., said there's no good reason for making registration mandatory.
Beef producers value a safe industry, but they are concerned about having to afford all kinds of equipment, Boyda said.
"Every cattleman I've talked to is outspoken against it," she said.
A larger issue
Not every safety issue facing the state's beef industry involves cattle production. The meat processors also face issues as they try to protect the food supply from contamination.
Curtis Kastner, director of K-State's Food Science Institute, said the stand-by approach among meat-processors is to "keep it clean, keep it cold and keep it moving."
That, when combined with thermal or organic carcass treatments and safe handling when restaurants or consumers prepare beef, "does a lot to make the product safe," he said.
But the human factor also plays a part in maintaining that safety. Some question whether a transient meatpacker work force, occasionally found to carry fake ID's, poses a security risk.
Although the majority of new packing plant workers seek only to earn a living, experts say, the potential exists for a foreign or domestic bioterrorist to slip in along a large supply line of meat.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., who represents the 4th District, said the issue plays into the wider debate of immigration policy.
The nation's economy has a demand for immigrant workers, because the economy has been growing faster than the U.S. population, he said. But federal officials also need to secure the country's borders and keep track of entries.
"We need to establish the borders of this country and figure out the needs of our growing economy but also create a safe economy," Tiahrt said.
To prevent bioterrorism, Brownback said, the nation needs strong intelligence.
And, he pointed out, when terrorists have entered the country in the past, it has been through legal means.
"But the size and scale of immigration in this country is such that you are not really looking for a needle in a haystack, you're looking for a needle in a hayfield."
Opening markets
Some hotly debated issues in the beef industry, however, could be more about marketing than safety, Polanksy said.
There's a difference between efforts to trace animal disease origins and to maintain beef's integrity so foreign markets will buy.
Marketing issues include mandatory country-of-origin labeling -- included in the 2002 Farm Bill but never implemented -- which could resurface in a Democratic-majority Congress.
There's also a small Arkansas City beef-packing plant's quest to attract Asian buyers by testing all of its slaughtered cattle for mad cow disease.
The USDA banned Creekstone Farms from doing such testing, saying there is no scientific need. Cattle tested would be slaughtered at ages before when the disease first shows up.
Other companies say they're worried all companies would be forced to test. Creekstone Farms has taken the issue to court.
Although Polanksy said he believes today's federal testing program ensures a safe beef supply, he also supports companies' rights to test as a way to promote their products.
Brownback said he supports Creekstone Farms' right to test at will. But since Japan ended its ban on U.S. beef this past summer, he figured it was less of an issue.
Polansky said the "jury's still out" on how Asian markets will react.
"My thought is that it would still likely dramatically increase the exports to Japan if Creekstone or other companies had the ability to provide those test results."
Making food safer
Beef safety's importance hardly takes place in a vacuum, Stack said. The state's animal and plant industries are interrelated and interdependent, he said.
Much of the state's wheat, corn, sorghum and soybeans are used for animal feed, with more than 70 percent of the state's corn going to feed cattle.
So any organism that disrupts the state's beef supply also hurts the grain market.
And once foreign markets close to U.S. beef or other products, they can be tough to reopen, Stack said.
Efforts to protect beef and other agriculture industries from terrorism can come with a bonus of ensuring overall food safety.
Reputable beef safety systems make all Kansas products more marketable worldwide, Tiahrt said.
"We can export our products creating a level of confidence for consumers in other countries that will help our economy," he said.
