I recently attended a Canadian national conference in Montreal, Quebec where they were investigating the feasibility and the advisability of developing a national initiative focused on product quality. Every province was represented. In addition, every major packer was there as were the Boards and staff of the Canadian Pork Council and several of the provincial pork organizations. I represented the U.S. pork industry and spoke on what activities we had going in this regard in the United States.

There were many interesting speakers.  In fact, the first speaker made the case that Canada made a big mistake several years ago in trying to compete with the U.S. in the commodity business. He showed that the Canadian pork industry simply not large enough to compete on a volume basis. On the contrary, he stated, Canada has always had a reputation for quality so they should get back to protecting that quality and promoting it to local, national and world markets.

Many speakers talked about what quality parameters are important and what should be emphasized in a quality initiative. It was late in the day when I finally heard the dreaded remark: We don’t know what consumers want in terms of quality. That is one of my biggest pet peeves. Consumer research has been performed all over the world and this is what we know: Consumers don’t understand pork quality but they definitely know what they don’t like. Consumers do not like PSE pork. They may not know what color pork is ideal, but they know that when they see two different colors in the same meat case, in the same package or worse, in the same cut, they know that one is not right and avoid the pork purchase completely. We also know that consumers do not like tough pork even when they “cook the tar out of it.”
If I were a Canadian, I would take full advantage of the size of my industry and the interest from my pork organizations including the export organization to move full speed ahead on a differentiation scheme to promote my product. I was very quick in cautioning them not to make hollow promises. The first step in any quality initiative must be to measure quality and to develop a program for continual improvement in that quality.

This meeting got me thinking about the situation in the U.S. with regard to pork quality.  I am talking about that portion of the product sold as fresh, not cured or processed, which by my calculations represents about 45% of the pork products. Of this, about half is “enhanced” (liquid added) which, regardless of your opinion on the use of this technology, was admittedly an industry-saving approach when we took all the fat out of the product. Enhancement has provided us with a more tender, juicy, and flavorful product. There are those who are very concerned about the amount of salt in our diet, a concern that would put a big red flag on enhanced products. Therefore, I strongly believe we need to consider a quality initiative in this country. Foodservice would definitely pay a premium for products selected on the basis of marbling. If they knew the impact of pH on the sensory characteristics, I am sure they would pay a premium for this as well. Consumers will pay up to $1 per pound more for branded, higher quality products.

Why don’t we do more to fulfill consumers’ needs and wants?  At a time when consumers are being the most discriminating on what they eat and what they feed their families, we are putting very little effort or funding toward identifying and improving the quality of our product. Maybe we need to take a new approach and begin a pork quality initiative here at home.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Meisinger is the Executive Director of the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence. To contact Dr. Meisinger, e-mail him at: drdave@iastate.edu or call him by phone at: (515) 975-3557.

This commentary is for informational purposes only.  The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com.  This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone.  Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.