Will lifting the US beef ban put more foreign meat on menus?
How much beef do we get from the US each year?
Australia imports no beef from the US. The change announced today will allow beef back in. But don't hold your breath waiting for a surge of US imports. 'I don't believe there will be any major volumes flowing from the US to Australia', said Rabobank senior analyst Angus Gidley-Baird. 'US exports volumes this year in total are declining at the moment, because they have lower beef supplies available and higher beef prices, making them less competitive.'
In time, Gidley-Baird said: 'There is opportunity for more select food service operators who might want to put it on the menu as a one-item as something special.' An example would be a US-style steakhouse that wants to feature American beef.
Does this mean our stores and restaurants will start selling US beef?
Given the pricing, Gidley-Baird thinks it would be unlikely. US beef costs the same if not more than high-quality Australian beef. McDonald's Australia uses 100 per cent Australian beef which it plans to continue to do. Costco, Hungry Jacks, Grill'd, Betty's Burgers, Boss Burger have been contacted for comment. Littleproud warns that US beef prices will fall one day, creating a path for US imports.
Is Australian beef better than US beef?
Australian beef tends to be less grain-fed than American beef. About 95 per cent of the US cattle 'continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life' involving feedlots, or an animal feeding operation a US researcher has said.
In Australia, the share of cattle in feedlots is closer to 35-40 per cent, with the steer spending more time in pastures, 'which does lend itself to a leaner product and slightly different flavour,' said Gidley-Baird.
Loading
Does the Coalition support the changes?
Coalition partners the Nationals are seeking a scientific review of the decision behind the change. Cattle Australia, which supports grass-fed beef producers, also supports a review. 'There's a lot of community concern around this,' CEO of Cattle Australia Will Evans said. 'There is a lot of consumer concern and a lot of industry concern around this.'
Is US beef safe? Will there be transparency?
Evans said his group had not taken issue so much with the science that the government used, but the regime of detailed safety checks that the Australian industry will be able to hold the US to. Evans said if and when US cattle is exported to Australia, it's on a producer-by-producer basis rather than for the entire industry. Currently, Japan and Australia's beef industry have in place a series of standards, including detailed inspections of each other's farms, to ensure mutual trust among the exporters.
Evans said that there appears to be 'some kind of politicisation of this specific topic' but from the perspective of the Australian industry: 'This is an issue that we've known about for quite some time that predates President Trump. This is something that obviously got elevated by his commentary this year, but it was an existing issue.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
11 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Let us see the audits': Kmart faces legal battle over alleged links to Uyghur forced labour
Kmart has defended its ethical sourcing practices after being served with a court challenge to provide documents on how it has dealt with two clothing factories that have been linked to forced labour in Xinjiang, an autonomous territory in north-western China. The Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) filed a Federal Court application on Monday seeking documentation from Kmart about what it knew of two clothing suppliers linked to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where the Chinese government has systematically persecuted the Uyghur population and other Turkic minorities. Represented by law firms Maurice Blackburn and the Human Rights Law Centre, AUTWA is looking to determine whether Kmart followed its ethical sourcing procedures and monitored risks to mount a future legal case that would allege Kmart breached consumer law by making misleading and deceptive statements. In a statement, a Kmart spokesperson said the retailing giant had been corresponding with AUTWA's lawyers for more than 12 months and had provided 'extensive details' of its ethical sourcing program that had been in place for 15 years. Loading 'We invited the AUTWA to meet with us several times to help us understand their concerns,' said the Kmart spokesperson. 'Suppliers in the Kmart ethical sourcing program are regularly monitored through activities including our site visits, audit programs and investigations if we receive any reports or complaints of concern. 'Where we learn of an alleged non-compliance with our code through an audit, site visit or complaint, or by a worker in a supplier's factory, we take action to investigate and remediate the issue, working collaboratively with the supplier. 'When remediation isn't possible due to the supplier's refusal to do so, or repeated failures to make meaningful changes, we will exit the relationship.' However, Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the Australian retailer's response during the 12 months of correspondence was 'not satisfactory' because it had repeated public assertions about its ethical sourcing without providing any evidence.
Sydney Morning Herald
11 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Forget a social media ban. If tech companies won't stop targeting teens like me, block them
And my algorithm is relatively benign. In the US, parents who are suing social media companies for allegedly causing their children to take their own life have reported that their children's feeds were filled with material about 'suicide, self-harm, and eating disorders'. Loading For social media companies, profits clearly come before teens' mental health. So perhaps seriously jeopardising those profits would be the most effective way to force change. While the impending social media ban threatens fines of up to $50 million for social media companies that do not take 'reasonable steps' to prevent workarounds, that probably isn't going to be enough of a punishment to create change. The term 'reasonable steps' is too vague, and the profits made from having under-16s illegally using social media apps would likely outweigh the fines. It's instead worth looking to some of the more drastic steps that have been taken in the US against social media companies, for various reasons. The US government's banning of TikTok, though relating to data privacy concerns rather than mental health, did effectively lead to the app going offline in US for a day (the ban was then postponed, but is due to come back into effect in September, unless its parent company ByteDance sells its American operations to a US-owned company.) This kind of broad government action against social media companies, threatening to entirely suspend their operations unless they cease recommending distressing or disturbing content to teenagers, might be worth trying in Australia. But even if this doesn't happen – if there's no effective legislation from the government, and we can't change the fact that kids will be exposed to dangerous content – one of the easiest and most important ways to reduce the harm of social media is education. Parents and schools often warn us about online predators, but not about how we should deal with content that makes us feel bad about ourselves or other people. And that's probably because adults and authorities don't fully understand what we're being exposed to. If schools partnered with social media experts and psychologists to learn what kinds of content social media is promoted to young people, what warning signs parents should look for if their child is at risk of internet-induced mental health issues, and how young people can disengage from harmful content or learn how to better deal with it, then we might make some progress. It's akin to giving kids and teenagers a vaccine against the social media virus, rather than trying to keep it out of the country. Loading Because, after all, social media doesn't cease being a cesspit of negativity and danger once children turn 16. These highly powerful algorithms profit off worsening our mental health, and they're relentless. Educating young people on how to critically engage with or distance themselves from harmful online content is a long-term form of protection. Crisis support is available from Lifeline 13 11 14.
The Age
11 minutes ago
- The Age
Forget a social media ban. If tech companies won't stop targeting teens like me, block them
And my algorithm is relatively benign. In the US, parents who are suing social media companies for allegedly causing their children to take their own life have reported that their children's feeds were filled with material about 'suicide, self-harm, and eating disorders'. Loading For social media companies, profits clearly come before teens' mental health. So perhaps seriously jeopardising those profits would be the most effective way to force change. While the impending social media ban threatens fines of up to $50 million for social media companies that do not take 'reasonable steps' to prevent workarounds, that probably isn't going to be enough of a punishment to create change. The term 'reasonable steps' is too vague, and the profits made from having under-16s illegally using social media apps would likely outweigh the fines. It's instead worth looking to some of the more drastic steps that have been taken in the US against social media companies, for various reasons. The US government's banning of TikTok, though relating to data privacy concerns rather than mental health, did effectively lead to the app going offline in US for a day (the ban was then postponed, but is due to come back into effect in September, unless its parent company ByteDance sells its American operations to a US-owned company.) This kind of broad government action against social media companies, threatening to entirely suspend their operations unless they cease recommending distressing or disturbing content to teenagers, might be worth trying in Australia. But even if this doesn't happen – if there's no effective legislation from the government, and we can't change the fact that kids will be exposed to dangerous content – one of the easiest and most important ways to reduce the harm of social media is education. Parents and schools often warn us about online predators, but not about how we should deal with content that makes us feel bad about ourselves or other people. And that's probably because adults and authorities don't fully understand what we're being exposed to. If schools partnered with social media experts and psychologists to learn what kinds of content social media is promoted to young people, what warning signs parents should look for if their child is at risk of internet-induced mental health issues, and how young people can disengage from harmful content or learn how to better deal with it, then we might make some progress. It's akin to giving kids and teenagers a vaccine against the social media virus, rather than trying to keep it out of the country. Loading Because, after all, social media doesn't cease being a cesspit of negativity and danger once children turn 16. These highly powerful algorithms profit off worsening our mental health, and they're relentless. Educating young people on how to critically engage with or distance themselves from harmful online content is a long-term form of protection. Crisis support is available from Lifeline 13 11 14.
