No more Alberta Beef at Earl's

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by blueski

You are the problem then!

But is there a problem?

I mean really?

As Polak noted and as I noted, Earls never announced they'd no longer serve that poisonous AB beef. They simply said they were going certified humane.

Do I care? Not really. Earls is a bit too fancy for my tastes. I only buy steaks from "restaurants" where i know there'll still be some shotgun pellets and "animal" hair mixed into my steak.

Do I think it sucks that AB Beef lost this contract to supply? Sure I guess so. I like to see local business do well. Have I ever chosen a place because of their beef supplier? Nope. Will I ever? Probably not.

Am I more likely to shop at a place that is certified humane? Nope.

Do I think a vast overwhelming majority of people would answer those questions the same as me? Yup. Do I think a whole bunch of people will temporarily act tough and go with the groupthink mentality to avoid being labelled some traitorous alberta hater? Yup.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by polak

Holy crap you're acting like they tweeted:

"Hey Alberta, You and your beef can go #### yourself #SorryNotSorry"

They decided they were going to try and get this certification. Alberta beef farmers couldn't meet this certification. That's it. Jesus. It's not some targeted attack on Alberta Beef. They had their chance to be compliant but they didn't have the paperwork or whatever it was. Clearly not a single Alberta Beef Farm cared about Earls business enough to change their practices (why would they, it's probably a drop in the bucket). Earls didn't even mention Alberta beef once. If they came out and said "Alberta beef is known to be pumped with dangerous steroids and mad cow disease" then that would be an attack. Simply changing your suppliers is not an attack in any way.

In what world is a company supposed to accept being handcuffed by suppliers?

Earls: "Hey we wanna serve certified humane beef but in order to advertise that, we need you guys to do this...."
Alberta Beef Farmers: "Nah"
Earls: "Okay, thanks anyways".

Earls are some how bad guys for doing this?

Also just because overall the US might have lower quality standards in the food industry doesn't mean that one specific supplier doesn't blow all Alberta Beef producers out of the water...

How the hell is not an attack on Canadian Beef when it's a certification that doesn't even exist in most jurisdictions? They are basically publicly telling the Canadian Beef industry that their standards are not good enough and they have to go elsewhere, when in actuality Canadian standards are higher.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

Thats what they pay the people who issue the certification to do.

Kinda the point....

And, predictably, you missed the point.

If humane treatment of animals was Earls real and primary goal, they could have worked with Canadian producers to ensure they worked only with companies that met their standards. They didn't even try. The lack of a random American lobby's registered trademark does not indicate a lack of humane treatment.

Personally, I think they wanted to condense down to a single supplier - which is their right - and wanted someone that could meet their needs on both sides of the border - which is also their right. And I think they hoped that buying into the "certified humane" trademark would generate positive press for them, especially with that 'modern hippy' demographic I already noted.

But they overestimated the value of that trademark - especially given it is a foreign one - and massively underestimated the blow back they would receive for abandoning Canadian producers.

[polak]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

How the hell is not an attack on Canadian Beef when it's a certification that doesn't even exist in most jurisdictions? They are basically publicly telling the Canadian Beef industry that their standards are not good enough and they have to go elsewhere, when in actuality Canadian standards are higher.

Again, it's Alberta Beef farmers that decided they don't care enough to get certified. They left Earls no choice besides abandoning their plans or changing suppliers.

Also your last line is such horse ####. Obviously they're not or they would have been able to get this certification.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And, predictably, you missed the point.

If humane treatment of animals was Earls real and primary goal, they could have worked with Canadian producers to ensure they worked only with companies that met their standards. They didn't even try. The lack of a random American lobby's registered trademark does not indicate a lack of humane treatment.

Personally, I think they wanted to condense down to a single supplier - which is their right - and wanted someone that could meet their needs on both sides of the border - which is also their right. And I think they hoped that buying into the "certified humane" trademark would generate positive press for them, especially with that 'modern hippy' demographic I already noted.

But they overestimated the value of that trademark - especially given it is a foreign one - and massively underestimated the blow back they would receive for abandoning Canadian producers.

I didn't miss the point. I agree with you that they don't really care about the treatment of animals. The whole reason any of these stupid certification things exist, whether it be this or the fair trade coffee or whatever else is out there is companies want the positive PR. Hence why they pay those institutions to do the leg work and certify these places.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Holy crap you're acting like they tweeted:

"Hey Alberta, You and your beef can go #### yourself #SorryNotSorry"

They decided they were going to try and get this certification. Alberta beef farmers couldn't meet this certification. That's it. Jesus. It's not some targeted attack on Alberta Beef. They had their chance to be compliant but they didn't have the paperwork or whatever it was. Clearly not a single Alberta Beef Farm cared about Earls business enough to change their practices (why would they, it's probably a drop in the bucket). Earls didn't even mention Alberta beef once. If they came out and said "Alberta beef is known to be pumped with dangerous steroids and mad cow disease" then that would be an attack. Simply changing your suppliers is not an attack in any way.

In what world is a company supposed to accept being handcuffed by suppliers?

Earls: "Hey we wanna serve certified humane beef but in order to advertise that, we need you guys to do this...."
Alberta Beef Farmers: "Nah"
Earls: "Okay, thanks anyways".

Earls are some how bad guys for doing this?

Also just because overall the US might have lower quality standards in the food industry doesn't mean that one specific supplier doesn't blow all Alberta Beef producers out of the water...

Maybe read this, it talks about the programs that most Alberta producers follower versus the Certified Humane in the States

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mane-1.3559229

This isn't about better beef or even more humane beef raising processes, its about a label, that's it. Its marketing that's it.

Earl's is pissing away its larger market over a label.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe read this, it talks about the programs that most Alberta producers follower versus the Certified Humane in the States

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mane-1.3559229

This isn't about better beef or even more humane beef raising processes, its about a label, that's it. Its marketing that's it.

Earl's is pissing away its larger market over a label.

I think Label is the wrong term.

Certified Humane is more a Brand, nothing more.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This isn't about better beef or even more humane beef raising processes, its about a label, that's it. Its marketing that's it.

Earl's is pissing away its larger market over a label.

Yep. They're attempting to do the same thing as A&W and Sobeys with all their blather in the same vein. The difference, although slight, is that Earl's has crappy marketing people who didn't play this the same way as A&W and Sobeys.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe read this, it talks about the programs that most Alberta producers follower versus the Certified Humane in the States

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mane-1.3559229

This isn't about better beef or even more humane beef raising processes, its about a label, that's it. Its marketing that's it.

Earl's is pissing away its larger market over a label.

Again, I don't disagree with you that it's all for a stupid label for marketing purposes.

Doesn't change the fact that Earls has every right to try and get that label, for marketing purposes. Is it smart? Probably not, but saying that it's an attack on Alberta beef is ridiculous.

It's a simple business case: Alberta Beef Producers don't think Earls' business is worth jumping through hoops for.

That's it. Nothing more.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

Again, it's Alberta Beef farmers that decided they don't care enough to get certified. They left Earls no choice besides abandoning their plans or changing suppliers.

Earls had a choice. They chose to place a higher value on an American lobby's trademark than on supporting Canadian producers. That is their right, but don't pretend they were left with "no choice".

Also your last line is such horse ####. Obviously they're not or they would have been able to get this certification.

You are making a great many assumptions here. First and foremost, that some American lobby group's "certification" is (a) meaningful and (b) actually demonstrates a higher level of 'humane' treatment exists. The lack of a "certification" simply indicates that most Canadian producers don't see value in sending good money south for this group's program.

Personally, I wouldn't blame them. "Green" certifications are all the rage these days, and too many of them are scams that really only exist to separate people from their money. One big example that comes to mind for me is CompTIA's "Green IT" certification scam that only lasted a couple years. So if Canadian producers are skeptical of this certification, their decision not to certify indicates only that they are skeptical.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

I didn't miss the point. I agree with you that they don't really care about the treatment of animals. The whole reason any of these stupid certification things exist, whether it be this or the fair trade coffee or whatever else is out there is companies want the positive PR. Hence why they pay those institutions to do the leg work and certify these places.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I've heard nothing but positive things from people that have tried it. I'll find out myself tonight

I'm sensing you've got a bit of an angle on this one with your buddy being a head chef and the pressure they're facing over this. I'd imagine you're coming back from a private tasting with a glowing review!

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Earls had a choice. They chose to place a higher value on an American lobby's trademark than on supporting Canadian producers. That is their right, but don't pretend they were left with "no choice".

.... I said that those were exactly the choices they had. Either abandon the label or change suppliers.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are making a great many assumptions here. First and foremost, that some American lobby group's "certification" is (a) meaningful and (b) actually demonstrates a higher level of 'humane' treatment exists. The lack of a "certification" simply indicates that most Canadian producers don't see value in sending good money south for this group's program.

Personally, I wouldn't blame them. "Green" certifications are all the rage these days, and too many of them are scams that really only exist to separate people from their money. One big example that comes to mind for me is CompTIA's "Green IT" certification scam that only lasted a couple years. So if Canadian producers are skeptical of this certification, their decision not to certify indicates only that they are skeptical.

Yes the certification might be BS but until someone provides actual evidence of this, I'm going to assume it's not some organized fraud racket and that Alberta farmers simply don't meet the standards.

You know that saying one farm in the states has better standards than precious alberta beef is not the same as saying all farms in the states have better standards... right?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes the certification might be BS but until someone provides actual evidence of this, I'm going to assume it's not some organized fraud racket and that Alberta farmers simply don't meet the standards.

You know that saying one farm in the states has better standards than precious alberta beef is not the same as saying all farms in the states have better standards... right?

Again, you are assuming that becuase Alberta farmer's haven't bothered that this creates prima facie evidence that they wouldn't meet it anyway.

Personally, I think it is more likely that you are just mooning this thread up and trolling at this point.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

But is there a problem?

I mean really?

As Polak noted and as I noted, Earls never announced they'd no longer serve that poisonous AB beef. They simply said they were going certified humane.

Do I care? Not really. Earls is a bit too fancy for my tastes. I only buy steaks from "restaurants" where i know there'll still be some shotgun pellets and "animal" hair mixed into my steak.

Do I think it sucks that AB Beef lost this contract to supply? Sure I guess so. I like to see local business do well. Have I ever chosen a place because of their beef supplier? Nope. Will I ever? Probably not.

Am I more likely to shop at a place that is certified humane? Nope.

Do I think a vast overwhelming majority of people would answer those questions the same as me? Yup. Do I think a whole bunch of people will temporarily act tough and go with the groupthink mentality to avoid being labelled some traitorous alberta hater? Yup.

Why vote, why watch the news, why think you can make a difference and so on.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'm sensing you've got a bit of an angle on this one with your buddy being a head chef and the pressure they're facing over this. I'd imagine you're coming back from a private tasting with a glowing review!

Maybe. Like I've said, all I care about is whether or not it's a better product. I don't like the humane angle, so if its a crappier product than before and they switched just because of this certification, then that's crap and I hate the move. But if it's better, then that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.

[para transit fellow]

it doesn't actually have to be raised or fattened in Alberta to be Alberta beef.

as I read this, cattle from the usa or Saskatchewan can be processed in Alberta and are included in the definition of "alberta beef"


http://www.albertabeef.org/page/what-is-alberta-beef

[Swift]

Doesn't this whole thing boil down to -

"Do you stock this product I want?"
"No"
"Ok thanks, I'll go shop somewhere else for it"

I'm pretty sure we have all done this all the time without having some kind of vendetta against the store that couldn't meet our needs.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

If it's a better quality beef, it's not because it came from the US instead of Alberta, it's because it's a better cut. I would have no problem with Earl's switching to a better cut if they could purchase for less, but that's not why they made the switch according to their posts and responses.

They also could have left people the option to purchase Canadian beef while still making the majority switch. They didn't do that either.

Seems like we agree

Originally Posted by btimbit

Now, all that said, with the switch from Alberta beef, I'm not for or against it (yet). I don't agree with the apparent reasoning, I think the only thing that matters is if it tasted better. If they came out and said "We feel this is the best quality of beef in North America and want to bring it to our restaurants" then I'd be behind the decision. But this humane crap doesn't cut it for me.

If it does end up being a better product then I like the move. But if they end up serving a lesser quality meat just because it's "humane" then screw them. I don't care where it comes from, as long as it's delicious

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Again, you are assuming that becuase Alberta farmer's haven't bothered that this creates prima facie evidence that they wouldn't meet it anyway.

Personally, I think it is more likely that you are just mooning this thread up and trolling at this point.

You must have some documents that show that this is simply a label and nothing more. You are saying that he is making assumptions, are you not doing the same? Seems most people that are upset are making the same assumptions.

Earls has every right to choose it's suppliers, shouldn't make a difference. Think the dish soap they use is made in Canada? Think the aprons, knives, pots and pans are made in Canada? Why aren't you rallying behind that too?

Just being little babies and looking for something to whine about, sitting their in a shirt made in China, shoes are probably made in India, drinking coffee from South America and eating fruit from the States. But you had better save the Alberta farmers by boycotting Earls.......

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Doesn't this whole thing boil down to -

"Do you stock this product I want?"
"No"
"Ok thanks, I'll go shop somewhere else for it"

I'm pretty sure we have all done this all the time without having some kind of vendetta against the store that couldn't meet our needs.

Except it's not just that, it's forming a public moral judgement on the product in an attempt to capitalize on a trend. It's not just simply choosing another product.