News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 Cattle 
 Butchers grilled: no shortage of bull about organic beef 

Butchers grilled: no shortage of bull about organic beef

31 Jul, 2009 06:27 AM
CONSUMERS are not the only ones confused about the difference between regular and organic beef, it seems.

Many of the butchers selling the premium product are no wiser than their customers but are happy to spin ill-informed yarns, according to a survey by the consumer advocacy group Choice.

In metropolitan Sydney and Melbourne, more than half the 29 surveyed butchers claiming to sell organic beef were unable to verify their claims or were ignorant of the certification bodies authorised to guarantee a product’s organic status.

Some butchers even believed the beef they were selling as organic was certified by the RSPCA.

Only 11 butchers were able to provide coherent information on which certifier they relied on to prove the beef they were selling was organic.

There are only seven bodies authorised by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to certify organic produce, and none are in NSW.

Given the retail value of the Australian organic market was more than $600 million last year, with some sectors growing by as much as 30 per cent a year, the level of ignorance among organic beef retailers was disturbing, said Choice’s spokesman, Christopher Zinn.

"About two-thirds weren't necessarily passing on accurate information. It hardly helps consumer confidence in this growing market," he said.

To obtain certification, growers must show their produce is free of hormones, antibiotics, pesticide and herbicide and not genetically modified – and, in the case of meat, that the animal is free to roam.

Unlike meat intended for the export market, however, certification for domestic products claiming to be organic is not mandatory.

Standards Australia is developing a standard for organic products but it will not be mandatory once introduced.

However, the standard will make it easier for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take action against retailers and suppliers making misleading or deceptive organic claims.

Until then, the best indicator of authenticity without a certifier's logo is the price, Choice said.

The much higher costs associated with raising cattle intended for the organic market means consumers should expect to pay between $35 and $69 a kilogram for genuine organic rump at the moment, even though some of the butchers surveyed by Choice were selling such meat for as little as $23 a kilogram.

The organic meat specialist Sam the Butcher was selling organic rump for $34.90 yesterday from its Bondi premises.

The manager, Wayne Dunstan, said customers were prepared to pay a premium mainly for health and environmental reasons.

"We get a lot of parents buying organic because they're worried about their kids' allergies," he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I especially love the butcher shops that display big signs advertising hormone-free meat. My wife won't let me go anywhere near them because I always front them and ask what factory their meat is made in.

If it doesn't have hormones in it. It didn't come from a living animal

Posted by Qlander, 31/07/2009 7:29:16 AM
I eat organic because I'm not into GM and all the other crap they put in things these days.
Posted by Sam, 31/07/2009 1:01:23 PM
Any meat claimed to be "organic" must be certified in order to protect all members of the participating supply chain. Up to now, many unscrupulous operators have taken advantage of the absence of the ceritifcation requirement - this has adversely impacted on the organic meat industry. Mandatory certification cannot arrive soon enough.
Posted by AB, 3/08/2009 6:15:33 AM
People need to look for the 'logo'. If the butcher is dispalying a logo from an accrediteted organic body this will ensure it is produced according to the organic standards. The most popular logo is the Australian Ceritifed Organic's 'Bud Logo'.
Posted by QK, 3/08/2009 8:31:01 AM
There is absolutely no evidence or research that shows a difference in food safetly between organic beef and non-organic beef. The National Residue Survey supports this statement. The organic movement plays on consumers' unfounded fears to the detriment of all producers. To feed an increasing world population, we need to produce more food, not less, as we would if we all went organic. Most of southern Australia cannot viably support livestock without the appropriate use of fertiliser, health treatments and vaccinations.
Posted by JW, 3/08/2009 8:43:17 AM
Qlander - the reality about the hormones in beef are that if the animal is put in a feedlot, they are given hormonal growth promotants to ensure they maximise their feed conversion. Butchers that advertise 'HGP Free' or no growth promotants, source their animals from farms that raise them without artificial growth promotants usually free-range. So in fact you should be asking the butchers that don't promote hormone free which meat factory they come from because a feedlot is the equivalent of a meat factory with hormonal growth promotants.
Posted by Enviromeat, 3/08/2009 9:23:29 AM
Enviromeat, not all animals in feed lots have been given HGP. The main HGP is oestrogen. It gives steers about 10pc increase in their metabolic efficiency. (Think girls and boys. Boys can open the door of the fridge and virtually inhale the contents with hardly any weight gain. While girls only have to think about food to put on a kilo).

Because heifers have naturally occurring oestrogen their initial weight gain in feed lots is much faster than steers. A lot HGP-free meat is actually from lot fed heifers.

Personally, I think lotfed beef is bland and tasteless. It can be identified by firm white fat and pinkish meat. Pasture fed meat tends to have a yellowish hue to the fat. And a deeper cherry red colour to the meat.

However, not all pasture-fed meat is HGP free. I use oestrogen implants on my pasture fed steers because it gives them a 10pc increase in weight without needing any more pasture.

Posted by Qlander, 5/08/2009 6:00:24 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
29 July, 2009
30 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the Federal Government got the balance right between water buybacks and investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure in the Murray Darling?

Yes
(3.8%)

No - there should be more investment in infrastructure
(73.8%)

No - there should be more emphasis on water buybacks
(13.7%)

Undecided
(8.7%)

Total Votes: 416
Poll Date: 26 July, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...