Wednesday, March 25, 2009

My address to the Senate Inquiry into Meat Marketing

The following are excerpted from the notes of my address to the Senate Inquiry which will be delivered tomorrow.


An Australian National Beef Grading System is an idea that is 40 years overdue.

It is an idea that according to the Meat Industry’s Strategic Plan forecast in 1996 has the potential to provide a $1.2 billion annual payout to the Australian Beef Industry.

A payout that can be achieved at current retail prices if every person in Australia were to eat just one extra serving of beef each week.

The cost/benefit to the Australian Beef Industry of a national beef grading scheme is overwhelming.

In recent years per capita beef consumption has increased or broken even in countries with beef grading or legislation limiting the age which cattle can be killed for the domestic market but declined in countries such as Australia and New Zealand who have no beef grading system or rely on voluntary schemes.

The cost/benefit issues will be dealt with in detail later but first I would like to discuss the history of attempts to introduce a national beef grading system in Australia.


The US has had a successful consumer orientated Beef Grading System underpinned by legislation in place for almost 90 years.

There has been a long and checkered history to try and introduce a similar national beef grading system into Australia.

Professor Yeates from the New England University in New South Wales began calling for the introduction of an Australian Beef Grading System in the 1960’s.

In the late 80’s and early 90’s as Chairman of the NSW Meat Industry Authority John Carter almost achieved the introduction of a Gold and Purple Beef Grading System but it wasn’t to be.

The Qld Beef Authority had a coloured beef branding system in the 1980’s. Western Australia currently has statutory provision for “Tender Gold” and “Lot Fed” branded beef from animals that have no more than two permanent incisor teeth and the AUS-MEAT language provides for participation in a national carcass branding scheme embracing Gold for grass fed cattle and Purple for grain fed cattle up to 30 months with older cattle being branded Bronze.


The Food Amendment (Meat Grading) Bill introduced by Richard Torbay the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in the NSW Parliament late last year, seeks to implement the 2004 Beef RMAC Beef Grading Truth in Labelling Forums recommendations and to introduce a consumer orientated beef labelling code backed by legislation.

A voluntary Beef Labelling Code which if adopted by the Retailer and breached could result in a $55,000.00 fine for an individual and $2.7 million fine in the case of a corporation.

As you are aware Federal Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke at the request of his NSW counterpart, Ian McDonald has put a national consumer orientated meat grading system on the agenda for the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council (PIMC) to be held in Hobart on 24th April 2009.


The Australian Consumers Association suggests that the consumer orientated language should either be a colour or a star system details of which will need to be road tested through focus groups and consumer surveys before adoption. There is plenty of precedent for the successful use of both colour and star grading systems in food retailing.

The ACA advises that they have renewed interest in the Beef Grading proposal since they took over Grocerychoice from ACCC. The ACA now want to publish direct comparisons between supermarkets in particular suburbs and regional centres and believe that the proposed grading system would help them make direct comparisons for price, ie they would be able to compare Woolworths Gold with Coles Gold etc.

At the moment each supermarket has its own quality coding system which makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons.


A quick check of the meat sections of our supermarkets exemplifies the lack of uptake and/or compliance with the Budget Voluntary Code for beef from animals with 8 teeth.

As you walk through the supermarkets you will see the use of the words “Economy”, “Special Value”, “Premium” and “Budget” denoting beef from older animals.

As the Australian Consumers’ Association Choice Magazine said back in 2003 “the word Budget isn’t enough by itself to let you know that the meat you are buying is from older animals”.

Why not label so called Budget Beef for what it is – “Old Cow Beef and Old Ox Beef”.

If AUS-MEAT can call beef from animals up to 18 months old “yearling beef” and beef from animals from animals up to 30 months old “young beef” why can’t we call beef from an old cow at the end of her breeding cycle “Old Cow Beef”?


The main benefits which are set out in the Hunt Partners Submission to this Inquiry can be conveniently summarised as follows:

First, as the Australian Consumers’ Association Choice Magazine said back in 2003 “Australian Consumers will know what they are getting before they buy.

Secondly, as I said earlier, the Meat Industry Strategic Plan forecast in 1996 that the introduction of a Consumer Orientated Beef Grading System would provide a $1.2 billion annual pay out to the Australian Beef Industry.

This giant windfall can be achieved at current retail prices if every person in Australia eats just one extra serving of beef every 3 weeks.

Thirdly, beef per capita consumption in Australia has fallen by over 25% since 1982. In the same period in the US which has had a well publicised legislative underpinned Consumer Orientated Beef Grading System for almost 90 years consumption declined by just 6%.

Fourthly, following the mad cow disease scare in the UK the UK Government in 1998 introduced a law making it illegal for anyone to sell beef in the UK for the domestic market from an animal over 30 months of age. By the year 2003 against all odds beef consumption in the UK increased by 4.8 kilograms per person.

Fifthly, as I said earlier, in recent years per capita beef consumption has increased or broken even in countries with Beef Grading or Age Legislation but declined in countries such as Australia and New Zealand who have relied on voluntary schemes.

Sixthly, with the exception of mince meat for hamburgers, South Korea, Korea and Japan require all imported beef to come from animals with 6 or less permanent teeth and the European Union and North African countries require all imported beef to come from animals with 4 or less permanent teeth.

In the United States most of the table beef consumed on the domestic market comes from cattle 22 months of age that have been fattened in feed lots.

Finally, Industry sources estimate that up to 30-40% of the beef sold on the Australian domestic market comes from old cows that have ended their breeding cycle.

As incongruous it seems, the Australian consumer is the only consumer who eats table beef from Australian animals with 8 permanent teeth.


For more detail, the Hunt Partners written submission to the Inquiry can be accessed via the link in the 'Related Links' list in the right hand column of this page.

No comments:

Post a Comment