You Can Practically Taste It With Your Eyes

New at Reason: Ron Bailey predicts technology will end the label wars.

Comments

[junyo]

Story's kinda behind the curve. They've been ear tagging and using syringe injected RFIDs in cattle for a few years. The problem isn't the tagging. The problem is a comprehensive tracking system for the tags. I've worked in the tech side of food manufacturing/warehousing for a few years and the difference between the well run operations and the not so well run is stunning. At a large poultry producer with an organized, linear supply chain their standard for a recall was the ability to track from a customer pakage back to the farm within two days. At a new facility we upgraded the systems and were able to do that in 15 minutes. Where I currently am (different product, same industry) we don't even track down to the case level, so we can kinda tell you when it was produced (pallet level, within a 12 hour window) and then they can backtrack (via paper records) to where the raw materials came from. With no mandatory standard for how it's done, and the only real drills being an occasional internal QA process audit, or a mock recall drill, it's going to take somebody suing a couple of manufacturers out of business before good tracking systems are the norm rather than the exception.

[s.m. koppelman]

I can't figure this one out. Is Mr. Bailey uninformed this time around, or is he being disingenuous again? As commenter Junyo noted, cattle, for one, are tagged already. So are shipments of grain. So are pallets of berries, individual candy bars, and cans of watery light beer.

Resistance on the part of the livestock and beef industry is coming from two major sources as far as I know: small livestock farmers and meat packers and distributors. The small farmers generally don't bother to keep records tied to the tag numbers of cattle they buy and sell, even if they received it tagged, so it's a hassle they'd just as soon avoid. The louder complaints seem to be coming from the processors and distributors, who have become comfortable working with large batches of meat from 20 or so animals at a time, sometimes from multiple sources and even multiple countries of origin.

The industry made a bet that they would be able to hold back the same kind of product trackability that makers of cottage cheese, snack cakes, corn chips and soft drinks have had for years. They (foolishly, I'd argue, given trends in other developed countries) built themselves a system that assumed labeling and comprehensive tracking would never be mandated. They thought their lobbyists and PACs were unstoppable. Whoops.

I'm not sure what RFIDs embedded in cattle will accomplish if the goal is to be able to track the bits of that cow after it's sliced and ground up, mixed with the meat of 19 other cows, and shipped piecemeal to 8 states. RFID and/or retinal scans are a big improvement in efficiency over the ear tags currently used in that they're less finicky and less prone to loss in transit, but that's about it. There still have to be new tags for the rest of the product lifecycle -- whether they're RFIDs or printed labels or something else -- put on each of the products that come from the animal carcass and you still need the same end-to-end tracking the industry is bellyaching about regardless of whether the tags are barcoded stickers or RFID chips. As far as implementing end-to-end tracking and labeling goes, the only difference between RFID and printed tracking labels is the piece of equipment applying the tags and the piece of equipment that scans them at each waypoint.

[Kevin Carson]

I'm glad Ron made it clear he supports voluntary labelling rights. Labelling mandates are only one side of the regulatory coin; the other side is labelling *prohibitions*, eagerly sought by agribusiness interests that want to stifle the free flow of information.

[Rick Barton]

From Ron's article:
For example, if the Europeans get their way, California wine makers would not be allowed to call their wines burgundy or champagne or Wisconsin cheese makers couldn't label their cheeses feta or parmesan.

Why should we be part of a body, which might force
California wine makers to comply with their European competitor's wishes? How did we get into this? Is it Gatt? How can we get out?.

On labeling:
The best situation for consumers seems to be one in which labeling is neither required nor prohibited by the government. This way, labeling on products will come as the result of market driven consumer desire; responsive to both customer wishes and to opportunity afforded by technological innovation.

If the process is kept free of government regulation it will be fluid, and innovations in labeling that we cannot even anticipate at this time may come to fruition.

[s.m. koppelman]

Rick, I think I remember that link you're talking about. It was to an article that discussed Schwarzenegger's participation in a closed-door meeting senior Enron management had with several key California Republicans, Schwarzenegger among them, just prior to the start of the market manipulations that were mistaken for an "energy crisis". Sorry I didn't spell it out.

As far as asking aloud whether Mr. Bailey here is uninformed or disingenuous, where's the cheap shot?

If he's unaware that RFIDs and biometric tracking accomplish nothing beyond enabling faster scanning, and that they require the same national database and quantity of scanning equipment that ear tags or numbered tattoos do, he's uninformed. If he thinks rapid DNA testing offers any help at all in tracking the meat of a given cow once it's combined with the meat of 20 other animals and ground into hamburger, he's again uninformed. How would rapid DNA testing enable targeted recalls of meat or other foodstuffs? Labeling lets you locate the boxes and indivudual packages in your inventory. On the other hand, a recall with nothing to go on but DNA would require that every package of meat forward in the supply chain would have to be individually tested.

On the other hand, if he's aware that RFIDs are just another physical form for the same end-to-end tracking label via the same tracking system the industry is fighting -- and that he's arguing against -- he's being disingenuous.

Simple, really.

Given Mr. Bailey's extensive knowledge of agribusiness issues and policy, and his propensity this week for advancing a policy he opposes as the alternative to another policy he opposes, I'd put my money on "disingenuous".

[Rick Barton]

Ron,
Why might regulations have to be made about what should not be labeled? Even if: "cheap ubiquitous labeling also raises some troubling civil liberties and privacy concerns" surely restricting labeling, (as long as the labels are not making false claims) is clear violation of free speech.

What are these concerns? It's hard to imagine something coming up that wouldn't be resolved fairly in a free environment. I realize that utopia is not an option here but it's got to be a lot more equitable than a government prohibition of some labeling.

[Rick Barton]

s.m.:
"where's the cheap shot?"

It's where you said:
"is (Ron) being disingenuous again?"

[Ronald Bailey]

To all:
First, thanks junyo for more information on how deeply labeling and tracking technologies have already penetrated production and distribution chains--I am obviously behind the curve.

Second, my main point (obviously garbled by my prose)is that voluntary labeling and tracking systems will arise when they become sufficiently cheap and offer enough benefits; even small producers will adopt them. Any resistance to that trend by producers is futile. This is once again a case where activists are getting out in front of parade that has already taken off and will later take credit for "protecting" consumers.

Third, mandatory schemes for "social" labeling are problematic--for example, if a product is labeled "fair trade" does that imply that other imported products are "unfairly traded?"

Finally, privacy activists have already noted cheap ubiquitous labeling also raises some troubling civil liberties and privacy concerns. Instead of political decisions being made about what should be labeled, regulations will have to be made about what should NOT be labeled.

[keith]

Ron, I'm unclear: is your unease with "Fair Trade" a push for mandatory compliance; or the semantics of the word "Fair"?

Would it make you feel better if there was an ISO document on what constitutes fair trade? (tounge kind of in cheek)

Arguably, the coffee business was saved from commodity hell by the luxury coffee business de-commodifying it, by marketing varetals, specialty beans, and yes, "Fair Trade" beans. Similarly, I have heard that Kobe beef in Japan is often sold with a Polaroid of the exact source animal on display. The change to coffee took vision, risk-taking and quality execution on the part of the like of Starbucks and leaving behind the tunnel vision of coffee conglomerate operatiors like Folgers (P+G) and Maxwell House (Kraft).

I heard a Whole Foods Market radio spot on my commute yesterday: come to Whole Foods for our all-vegetarian-diet beef. Awesome. I'd believe a "vegetarian diet" label at Whole Foods much sooner than at other supermarkets, because I believe they do independently check supply chains and I know they drop suppliers who misrepresent their products. Whole Foods, I wish you superior profits for your vision and efforts. Please feel free to clean IBP's clock.

[s.m. koppelman]

Ron, I agree with you that regulations will have to be made regarding what should not be labeled. But just because it's true of razor blades and denture cream, that doesn't mean it's true of all products.

It's going to take regulation or the threat of financial liability to get the meat industry to extend tracking and labeling across the entire supply chain from farm to store shelf. The only obvious beneficiaries are retailers (who have an easier time complying with recalls) and consumers (who are better informed). Meatpackers and processors will have to reengineer their production lines to insert the scanners and sensors necessary to follow a given animal's parts as they're batched and ground up with the parts of dozens of others to make burger patties, burrito filling and whatever regardless of how cheap the one RFID embedded in the cow becomes.

Country-of-origin labeling may not be necessary on the finished product. From a public-health standpoint it's arguably of little use and smacks of protectionism. But if comprehensive full-lifecycle tracking is in place, the information will be there already, trackable through the label on every single package of frozen White Castles and every supermarket package of oxtails. Should this information be actively blocked at some point in the distribution chain?

Why withhold it from consumers, who may well want to factor point of origin into their purchasing decisions, whether they oppose Brazilian farming practices, or worry about the safety of Australian meat, or for whatever reason don't want to buy a box of chicken patties made from parts of chickens from eight countries at a time? Where in the supply chain could (or should) it be permissible to withhold this one bit of information that's already available automatically as a byproduct of the tracking regime? At retail? At the packing plant?

When it comes to country-of-origin labeling, the issue isn't what information supliers are being required to disclose. It's who has the right to proactively withhold information already on hand.

[Highway]

I know MY unease with the 'Fair Trade' labeling is the push for it to be REQUIRED, not that some people or groups do it on their own. Further, I'm more worried about push that ALL trade subscribe to the principles of 'Fair Trade', which bring up the semantic issues of that phrase. I don't agree with the folks who promote what they call 'Fair Trade', but them paying more for the same product is ok by me. Just don't try and force me to do it.

[Rick Barton]

s.m. koppelman:
"or is he being disingenuous again?"

That's a cheap, unsubstantiated shot. I was going to ask you if had anything to back it up but I don't think I'll bother. I remember a thread about the California recall in which you called Schwarzenegger a "corporate crook" or some such. When I pursued the link you provided as evidence there was nothing there to even remotely justify that characterization.

[Oenophile]

Rick, champagne comes from a specific region in France. All others are sparkling wine.

[junyo]

Meatpackers and processors will have to reengineer their production lines to insert the scanners and sensors necessary to follow a given animal's parts as they're batched and ground up with the parts of dozens of others to make burger patties, burrito filling and whatever regardless of how cheap the one RFID embedded in the cow becomes.

Not disagreeing with you, this is what prevents companies from implementing tracking. But for a lot of businesses, it's also a copout. A lot of tracking can be accomplished via process rather than actual item tagging. For instance, abstract a cow to a logical container containing a number of items. If, as I slaughter and dismember the cow down to pieces and insert him into my processing line I track at the process entry point what container that part came from, as long as the process is sealed (no one can jump in insert an untraced object) you really don't need to actually tag the item. You can track it via the controls on the processing line, carrying that data forward and splitting it when that item is subdivided, etc., until it hits a easily labeled consumer package, at which point the info of which 4 cow's ribs made it into that particular pack can be imprinted and off it goes. Process improvement cost money as well, and compliance with those processes must be rigidly enforced, but it's cheaper than reinventing the whole process. The fact that more businesses don't try and improve their processes despite the enormous liabilty they face already (but watch them scramble to getting process tracking when there's 2% shrinkage) makes me dubious that a strictly voluntary system will result in quick improvement.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,
Not "egregious", I agree, but it did seem a cheap shot for s.m. to ask if he was "being disingenuous again" with out stating when else he thinks Ron had been disingenuous.

Of course this matter pales in comparison to the substance of the labeling issue of this thread. Perhaps I shouldn't have complained.

[s.m. koppelman]

Hey, Rick. You could have saved yourself a lot of agita if you'd just asked me what the "again" was all about.

It was most directly in reference to Mr. Bailey's recent piece on the Endangered Species Act, in which which we were treated to the spectacle of a writer who has written at length about how the DDT ban should be lifted disingenuously pointing out that the DDT ban played a major role in saving the bald eagle and other birds of prey.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

As far as I can tell, what is and what is not a "cheap shot" is largely informed by the bias of the reader. There was nothing particular egregious about s.m.'s statement, and his opinion has merit.

[Russ D]

"Why withhold it from consumers, who may well want to factor point of origin into their purchasing decisions,"

Isn't that a question for the consumers who care to ask of their vendors? Just because it's difficult for you to find out, doesn't make it the government's job to make your private "beefs" easier to deal with.

Any country of origin labelling logically extends to restaurant food. US beef = $2 a pound, Candaian beef = $2.50 a pound, etc. With the latest mad cow scare, it's quite easy to see how government can be used to further it's protectionist schemes when enough pressure is applied.

But the silly thing in all this is that somehow a stupid little label can actually convey exactly what you really want to know. You can correctly apply the label "muslim" to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but it really doesn't convey very much information.

As junyo poits out, it's the supplier rather than the country that really matters in the quality. Unless there's some undercurrent of socialized farming that is the desire of some of these labelling fetishists. Seems to me that if tracking the quality of the suppliers is so important, there's a tremendous market opportunity that someone could be taking advantage of; but as usual, since that market is neglible ot at least "risky", the market "losers" want the government to waste the money instead.