AUSTRALIAN CATTLE IN INDONESIA-DOUBLE STANDARDS ON SAFETY

How hygienic and safe are the meat produced in many developing countries like India, Indonesia etc? Going by the relatively low food poisoning episodes from meat consumption reported in these countries one will be tempted to come to the conclusion that nothing is amiss as far as meat products made in these countries are concerned. But can it be true? The answer can be a resounding yes as well as no! Most of the slaughter houses that process the animals are invariably dirty, personnel working there are shabby and unclean, no refrigeration facility exists, crude slaughter practices are in vogue and so many other faults can be found with the industry. On the other hand most meat products are overcooked at home killing all the dangerous vectors that contaminate them and naturally such over processed foods must be safe. What is amazing is that the very same meat is even exported to many wealthy countries and the importers do not find any fault with them as reflected by low rate of rejection of these consignments at the receiving ports.

Meat industry in developing countries are undergoing significant changes and modernization is the "mantra" with the help of some of the advanced countries like Denmark. Hygienically sound and mechanized abattoirs, are being established in many developing countries, primarily to meet the stringent quality standards of the importers and safety assurance is ensured through rigorous inspections by qualified personnel deputed by the buyers. It was not long ago there were ramblings in Australia about the safety of fish imported from Asian countries as fish is alleged to be raised using animal excreta! However, the concern appears to be more about the low cost at which the fish is being imported which makes the local fish supplies expensive. Probably economic concerns seem to be far out weighing any genuine quality considerations!

There is no condoning of unsafe practices of raising and processing food whereever they occur but such concerns should not have an "apartheid flavor" as reflected by the shrill noises made about unsafe foods from Asian countries. With ISO quality protocols, HACCP regimes for safety assurance and many other global systems of safety certification being available for overseeing food quality, the origin of food should not make any difference when governed by these systems. Look at the clamor in some developed countries for printing the "country of origin" on any foods retailed in their markets which can only serve to generate a sense of ill-feeling towards any thing that is coming from the so called "dirty" countries, most of them in Asia. If this is not discrimination what else it is? What is the meaning and relevance of WTO if such practices are allowed to harm free global trade?

A recent report from Australia exemplifies the blatant practice of double standards by that wealthy country towards a relatively poor country like Indonesia. It appears 80% of the cattle exports from Australia, numbering about three quarter of a million, end up in Indonesia for slaughtering and processing into meat for local consumption. However beyond exporting the animals, Australia does not seem to be too much concerned about how these animals are slaughtered and whether the meat processed in such crude facilities are fit for human consumption. The export earnings in millions of dollars are derived from the poor people of a poor country and it is scandalous that the primitive practices of slaughtering and processing still continue in spite of the fact that Australia, technologically a super nation could have contributed to modernization of these abattoirs with little re-investment of their export earnings.

With the documentary exposure of unscientific and cruel slaughtering practices in vogue at more than 700 abattoirs in Indonesia, Government of Australia was forced to suspend active trade with Indonesia in live stock animals which immediately pinched the interests of cattle farms in export business. The philosophy seems to be that as long as the undesirable processing practices are not exposed, every thing is alright for the cattle farmers as well as the government but once the expose became public government had to take action by suspending trade with Indonesia which is indeed a hypocritical move. If there were genuine concerns, the Meat Board of Australia could have transformed the meat industry in Indonesia into a modern one long ago, capable of turning out high quality meat of international standard.

An indirect beneficiary of this episode is the Australian consumer community as the meat price in the domestic market started falling consequent to fall in prices of the live stock after the export ban. Whether it is good for them to increase more beef in their diet is another matter. In the light of implications of increased animal food consumption in many health complications, if the trade ban continues indefinitely it is likely that Australia may compete with the US for achieving the unenviable position as the most sickly nation!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CATTLE AND THE CONVENTIONS

Cattle are known to be responsible for 18% of emission of green house gasses because of their consumption of large quantities of forage which anaerobically generates methane and other by products. Just as fossil fuels have become integral part of modern civilization without which life is difficult to be sustained, cattle also form an important player in human survival because of their contribution to the food basket in the form of dairy products and meat foods. Hence world has no option but to continue to depend on these animals for decades to come till viable alternatives are developed, possibly through the intervention of Biotechnology.

What is common between cattle and a convention unless it is convention of the Ranchers to discuss about issues concerning cattle? Not much except for producing of lot of 'gas' in the form of intangible outputs. Convention is a conference of professionals, politicians or others with a common interest. The most recent conventions which caught the attention of the world were the two mega events in USA, sponsored by the two political parties Democrats and Republicans to nominate their presidential candidates. Though the events passed off on familiar lines of speeches and resolutions, the single most visible out put was projecting their leader for the White House and to that extent it was a highly focused effort. Of course every body will forget every thing after the convention except the candidates behind whom the parties would coalesce for 'capturing' power. But most other conventions are just collection of people with same interest and invariably the 'hope' is that the organization will get some attention from the media and the public for a brief period before hibernating for rest of the time.

A convention of professionals is supposed to throw up a 'route map' for achieving the goals for which the conference is held. While a political convention can be seen as a propaganda venture for the political class, a professional convention must propagate the subject of its specialization and strive to bring in tangible results within a time frame. Unfortunately over the years most of the technical conventions are politicized with real professionals being sidelined and politicians and the politician-scientist hybrids taking the center stage with the result the out put from such meetings have very little technical value. It is a sad commentary on the scientific community that their agenda of propagating science is hijacked for self glorification and temporary attention, spanning a few days with no long term benefits. Other wise one cannot understand what is the logic for hoisting a dozen people on the Dias with innocuous assignments like invocation, welcome, comments, remarks, theme speech, special lecture, key note address, inaugural address, book release, presidential address, award presentation, vote of thanks etc? Why cannot these be business meetings, focussing on the technical agenda and bringing out actionable reports for concrete action, leaving aside all the frills and a concrete mechanism to pursue the goals with dedication and commitment? In the past 61 years of independence of this country, there must have been thousands of conventions organized by different bodies and can any one remember any one of them contributing to any tangible achievement in any areas of concern to the nation?

The usual practice in these conventions is to read 'papers' which any how are not peer reviewed, 'lecturing' by some favored experts', passing toothless resolutions, recording the proceedings in some cases and promptly forgetting everything within a matter of few days! It is a pity that many technical conventions are not planned properly, right people are not involved who could enrich the technical content and not organized to make them free from hassles. On top of it many peers brought to participate do not stay long enough to interact with the delegates, treating such occasions more like a tourism jaunt! Cannot we change these wasteful practices and be truthful in our thoughts and action? Why cannot we have truly technical events with least diversions for secondary and irrelevant activities on such occasions? Whether it is a food convention or wood convention, we must have it in a place which is accessible easily to one and all, instead of in a corner of the country and must involve scientists as well as entrepreneurs on whose shoulders technology must ride to bring in visible returns and perceptible impact. It must clearly bring out what the country needs in the chosen area and go all out to influence both policy makers and the industry in achieving the goals set forth by the convention. It should not be like a convention of politicians or trade unions or social organizations such as Rotarians, Lions, Round Table etc which are organized mostly for social net working.

Coming to the similarity between the cattle and the conventions, the ' gober gas' generated by cattle can at least be used as a fuel but in the case of most of the modern conventions, the output is worse than this as every thing is dissipated as soon as the convention is over, wasting the enormous human and financial inputs that go in organizing such 'show piece' events, which the country can ill afford.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/