This Canadian Rancher’s Take on Earls’ Beef Campaign 

/ viewfromtheranchporch

Earls Kitchen and Bar has set the Canadian farming world all a-twitter.  The restaurant chain has recently launched a new marketing campaign promoting their latest development in beef  – “Certified Humane” raised without the use of antibiotics or added hormones and steroids.

*Sigh*

I don’t (didn’t) mind Earls as a dining option. Up until now, they sourced their beef for their 56 Canadian restaurants here, in Canada. They have great summertime patios, and they make fantastic Caesars. Their head office is in Vancouver, and their first ever location was started in 1982 in Edmonton, Alberta. Sounds good, right? Then suddenly their marketing took a turn that just doesn’t sit right with me.

Their first words of their sourcing strategy label their beef as “Certified Humane”, which struck immediate warning bells for me. As a beef producer, I have had the opportunity to visit and tour MANY cattle farms. I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the vast majority of Canadian Beef farms and ranches are raising their cattle in a humane way. We are ranchers for a reason – we like working with animals every day. I have no issue with weeding out the “bad apples” that are bound to turn up in any industry, but these bad farmers are so uncommon, I cannot imagine the need to base your entire purchasing decision around them. I visited the http://certifiedhumane.org website and most specifically their producer page. On the page directed towards the farmers who would use their certification process, there was zero information on what they considered “humane”, zero mention of how becoming certified humane would benefit a farmer’s animals, zero mention of ways to make a farm more humane for it’s animals. So what was the producer page for? Sales. It was touted as a way to sell more product. End of story. Andrew Campbell wrote an article for Real Agriculture about what exactly certified humane means… not much. To top this one off – Canada already has steps to make sure our animals are raised humanely. The Canadian Beef Code of Practices is something each and every one of us take pride in, something we follow because it is the right thing to do, not because we get paid more money for it.


So there’s that. I moved on a few words to “without the use of antibiotics”. This is perhaps the most terrifying marketing catch phrase in my mind. Why? Because this directly impacts animal welfare. I fully believe that healthy animals begin with prevention. The old adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is completely true. The problem is that all sickness cannot be eradicated with prevention alone. Just like people, animals get sick sometimes, it’s a fact of life. Any program that rewards the decision to withhold medication has the potential to have a huge negative impact on animal welfare. Last year, Subway in the USA announced it was going to start sourcing only meat raised without the use of antibiotics. There was an uproar from the agricultural community, explaining the need for (and ethics in using) antibiotics. Subway soon saw the error in their strategy, and reversed their decision. Perhaps Earls could learn something from this. I will stand by the fact that just as I would with my children, if an animal on our ranch falls ill, I will give it the necessary medicine. It would be cruel if I didn’t.

And finally, “no added hormones or steroids”. This I have spoken about many times. With the use of proven  safe methods, including hormones, Canadian farmers are now able produce MORE beef (32% more), while using significantly LESS resources (24% less land and 29% less breeding stock), and creating a significantly SMALLER environmental footprint (15% less greenhouse gasses). I wrote about this HERE. Can we produce beef without hormone implants? Sure. But why choose to do less with more if it is a proven, safe, efficient method? To learn more about hormone use in beef read here or here.

To top all of this information off, Earls has switched from using Canadian Beef to sourcing 100% of their beef from one operation (Creekstone Farms) in Kansas. While there is nothing wrong with that in itself, it does make me wonder about how consistent Earls quality of choice cuts, like steak, could possibly be. Many restaurants that serve top quality beef will go with a large suppliers top label. Cargill, for example, has their Sterling Beef brand – which has quality specifications (marbeling, grade and aging) so high that under 12 percent of the beef through their plant is accepted. That is a HUGE amount of beef that is sorted through to chose only the best. If you are starting out with a much smaller number, your top percentage will reflect that. Even beef that was raised and fed the same will have large differences in quality – it is an issue within the beef industry. I cannot understand why a restaurant like Earls would choose to limit their options in this way. oh, and did I mention that said Creekstone Farms, while has some feel – good marketing surrounding it, is actually owned by Sun Capital Partners. From their twitter profile: Sun Capital Partners is a leading private investment firm focused on leveraged buyouts, private equity, debt and other investments in market-leading companies. Now don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe there is nothing wrong with outside investment in agriculture, just as much as I believe large farms can be as great as small farms, but that sentence (of truth) gives you a completely different feeling than their logo must intend.

creekstone

So all of this makes me wonder. It makes me question when restaurants and retailers will start marketing their food based on true quality, not catch phrases and gimmicks. When will real, honest, good food win out? Because there is one thing I know about great steak – it speaks for itself.

Adrienne Ivey – Canadian Rancher, Mom and Blogger 

64 thoughts on “This Canadian Rancher’s Take on Earls’ Beef Campaign ”

  3. Well said. Well researched. Thank you from a fellow producer. Our Alberta beef are grown with pride and this needs to be part of the equation. Keep speaking out on behalf of all hardworking ranchers who don’t have the time to be documenting the battle!!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. Creekstone Farms isn’t a farm. It’s a beef processing company.
    So how do they know there were no hormones or antibiotics used? Because someone else filled out a form stating that (a “rancher partner” is their term for that ‘someone else’).

    As of 6 years ago an article stated this: “Creekstone cattle are hand-picked by eight roving field buyers. Ryan Meyer, the company’s director of cattle procurement, said its most elite meat derives from about 100 ranches supplying just 15 feed yards”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/dining/24beef.html?_r=0) 8 buyers, 100 ranches, just 15 feedyards? Probably more than that now. That might even be more than the entire province of Saskatchewan has, and it is definitely too many to really know what they are doing, beyond their ability to correctly fill out paperwork.

    I wonder when consumers will realize that not only would it be better to pay for quality, but that the catch-phrases and gimmicks are just smoke and mirrors. Unless you personally know the person raising that beef, and have personally been to their operation often enough to know that they raise the animals as they say they do, and know that the quantity they produce aligns with the quantity they sell – you are likely paying for nothing other than warm fuzzy words.

    Its not just beef, and it’s not just chain restaurants… it’s everywhere. http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/food/farm-to-fable/restaurants/

    For all of the critical thinking the general public (our customer) likes to do about production practices, they don’t seem to extend that critical thinking beyond the farm gate to see that they are being played by big (and small) business marketing schemes. It’s Oceanfront property in Arizona.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Absolutely correct. “Certified Humane” is a marketing scheme (scam…….) and the beef in the USA food chain is less tracked than in Canada. Buyer beware

      Like

      Reply

  6. This would be a report rom the FDA- http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436.htm which approves the use of antibiotics and steroids. However, this does not negate the impression that has been left with the public that Canadian beef is substandard but US is not. Either the standards for Earl’s are met or a clear explanation about standards has to be made. Here is an article from the organic side of the argument https://www.organicconsumers.org/scientific/growth-hormones-fed-beef-cattle-damage-human-health
    Consumers who believe that the chemicals are damaging praise the organic only movement of Earls and A&W. Just boycotting is pointless people need to know that the food they are eating meets the healthiest of standards and they are not feeding their children potentially dangerous food.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • If an animal is sick and requires antibiotics to get better, those antibiotics are not withheld. That animal is, however, no longer eligible to be used in this type of meat supply.

      Like

      Reply

  9. It’s definitely a marketing campaign, pure and simple. I don’t eat animal products, but it seems crazy to me to pretend that people put so much stock in these certifications. Based on the research I did, the Canadian Beef Farmers have higher standards than the “Certified Humane” organization.

    These campaigns are meant to make consumers feel better about themselves, not to be kinder to animals. I noticed that the “Certified Humane” guidelines hardly mention anaesthetic (especially with regards to castration), whereas the Canadian Beef Code of Practices had very specific guidelines. Too bad Canadian farmers forgot to add a nebulous trademarked marketing term to their products.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  11. Click to access Std14.BeefCattle.1J.pdf

    These guidelines are pretty clear about what it takes to become certified humane..

    Note under substances prohibited in feed Section d. Antibiotics can be used in individual cattle only therapeutically (i.e. disease treatment) as directed by a veterinarian.

    This here is stating that animals can be given antibiotics and should be treated by a veterinarian, most feedlots or farms even do not have certified veterinarians on staff to treat animals that is obviously because of the high cost that it would ensue, at least none that I have been to or worked at. An animal that becomes ill is not left to die, they are treated and removed and just won’t be sold as ‘Antibiotic Free Meat’.

    As for growth hormones there are many studies that have proven their links to multiple diseases and growth issues, including cancer, Many countries have banned them period, currently US and Canada both have them banned for poultry but not beef.

    Earl’s like A&W is moving towards what people want healthier meat, quality is not unification of a product mass produced, in this case it is a healthy diet, proper care, not living in conditions that support disease but rather supports the natural health of the animal. This to me should include a diet free from genetical modified substances and chemicals, which under the guidelines certain chemicals are not permitted, but i notice the GMO part isn’t in there and that is largely to do with the mass GMO crops being grown that are used to feed our food livestock and would be very difficult to abide by because that would result in massive feed shortages. The environmental impacts here is a weak argument that I won’t even get into, but will say it is the mass production of our food sources doing far more damage than the omission of growth hormones. Not to mention the domino effect they caused by the impact on our health.

    I applaud Earl’s for trying to take steps to better safer meat for is customers and think that it takes large chains like this to start the movement to encourage the rest to do so too, Which brings us to a question do growth hormones and antibiotics etc. really result in a ‘Quality’ Meat or ‘Quantity’ Meat think about it.

    I have spent a significant amount of time researching as much information as I can on our food and I encourage everyone to educate themselves on these matters and any matter concerning your food, health and wellbeing. And not take any ones opinion, story or opinion as a blatant fact.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • What new technology? Growth hormones in many countries have been banned since the 80’s that hardly makes them ‘New’ and I am not sure what your ‘i phone’ has to do with food unless your going to eat it, in which case good luck…

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-canada-s-quiet-move-to-end-use-of-antibiotics-to-fatten-up-animals-1.2700972

        Antibiotics are not only used on sick animals but as disease prevention in mass quantities, resulting just like in humans resistance to the antibiotic which causes the need for more antibiotics and is breeding antibiotic resistant super bugs, All mammals have a micbobiome in their guts that scientists, veterinarians, and doctors are only beginning to understand after 20+ years of research. In short also the use of antibiotics with out proper post probiotic care balancing the digestive tract is also resulting in more disease.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lady have you lost your mind? I agree completely with Britney’s statement. The research is out there on antibiotics and hormones if you look for it. Neither is good for humans, period.

        Like

    • I’m glad someone took the time to point things out. I find most of the comments about this being “well researched” probably didn’t take the time to actually look at the links and check the facts. The problem is people don’t want to take the time to “educate” themselves and there are a lot of bored housewives and stubborn Albertans who would rather pick and choose the facts that suit their pre-disposed bias. Completely agree with you and I applaud you for speaking up! Based on the childish response, there isn’t much fact-based rebuttal, but most people reading this article will likely miss that and continue to applaud the “well researched article”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Wow!! So basically what you’re saying is anyone who doesn’t agree with you is “childish” and just plain ignorant. I have lived in cattle country, although I am not a rancher myself, and have been to many farms and ranches in my life. I have looked at both sides of these arguments and can easily find research that supports BOTH sides depending on the source of the information. When it comes to healthy eating, you have choices, you can get the best possible products and prepare them in the best possible way you can, or you can eat the junk that most people think is food. I am a home cook and cookbook author, maybe not the best authority, but I have done my research thoroughly from a non-biased position. The one thing I stand by is that locally grown and sourced is better than shipping either produce or meat from afar. We are lucky in Canada, we have high standards in this country, higher standards, and more regulation than the US. Some see our high regulations as an unnecessary burden, others see it as protection for the citizens of this country, I am of the latter opinion.
        Bottom line to me is that we can trace and check up on Canadian beef far better than we can, as Canadian’s the American cattle industry. Also, Earl’s has supposedly been looking into sourcing to this specification for over two years! In those two years, they couldn’t find enough Canadian ranchers who would make the necessary changes in their practices to meet the standards? I find this hard to believe. If Earls really was committed to bringing a higher QUALITY of beef to their tables then why on earth would they not work with local producers instead of going outside the country? Earls is a Canadian company with Canadian customers and as an informed Canadian I am insulted by this cheap attempt to codify people who chase after fuzzy advertising to make ill-informed decisions about what is really going on in our food industry. I will take locally produced, Canadian beef over foreign foods with a PC label any day of the week. This is about beef so I won’t even get into GMO here, but there are many layers of research that has not even begun to be discussed. Earls is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and to my mind, the real question is HOW MUCH are they saving by outsourcing their supply to a factory farm. How good was the deal they have struck to turn their backs on Canadian producers? A&W is different, they are an American company, but Earls……Take the wool off and follow the money, as they say.

        Like

      • Umm actually the comment that I was responding to has nothing to address the issue on hand and was completely to do with “lack of ability or desire to use technology” but you appear to not be able to grasp why I would find that childish so I don’t see any need to refute it.

        You have have every right to say that what you think that Earls values is right or wrong so go ahead and do so. But earls also has every right to place values on things that obviously don’t matter to you. Right in your comment you say they are doing “the wrong thing” and you actually, in that sense, have no right to say that, or at least to think that should influence a decision. Just because their values (of humane treatment to whatever standards they deem evidentiary) don’t align with your values doesn’t mean they are wrong. Their targeted marketing doesn’t meet your demands so go ahead and source your local beef, don’t pretend your decision is anything besides an Albertaist outrage based on an emotional reaction rather than anything else :-p

        Like

    • In your ‘significant amount of time researching’ have you taken the time to go to some cattle farms and seen the way they raise their animals? As someone who has been raised on a farm with cattle I take offense that people have this image that we all pack our animals into pens, shove them full of drugs (which by the way makes no sense, why would we, it’s expensive and unnecessary) and don’t worry about their well-being. The farms in both Alberta and Saskatchewan produce quality meat because of pride in their business and their animals and should be supported by Canadians not shunned and yelled at because we don’t buy into the hype.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  12. I think Earls is wrong in the way they’re using this as a marketing ploy, but I also think your views on the use of antibiotics in livestock is misguided.

    The people who buy into the whole no hormones/steroids (both are hormones) thing are people whom have read into some of the proposed affects of consuming heightened levels of growth hormones. While there is some evidence to suggest that consuming high concentrations of growth hormones can lead to things like early puberty, due to regulations on slaughter times and dosage times (In the US) the concentrations of these hormones in livestock at slaughter time is quite low and doesn’t pose a significant risk (though, more research really should be done in this area). Some people may also argue that causing significant increased in the rate of growth for some livestock may be inhumane, but that’s an argument for someone else to make.

    In regards to the use of no antibiotics with animals: both you and Earls have it wrong. Earls is wrong because they are failing to recognize the importance of isolated antibiotic treatment for ill livestock. It should also be noted that there are regulations about slaughter times in relation to treatment times for antibiotics so by the time the food reaches your plate, there can only be very low concentrations of antibiotics in the meat.

    I’m assuming that you defend the use of antibiotics because you run a good farm and offer individualized healthcare to your livestock which sometimes involves the use of antibiotics (This kind of treatment is great). The problem is that not every farm is like yours but since you believe that most farmers are interested in using antibiotics the same way you do, you support antibiotic use in general. The fact is that most of the cattle raised in the states are provided with consistent doses of antibiotics in order to slightly increase their growth rate and if regulations changed here, the same would be true of Canadian cattle. Those regulation changes are very likely to be implemented in our lifetime as many lobby groups and politicians are actively pushing to legalize this kind of treatment in order to increase production.

    The mass use of antibiotics in this application is wrong for the same reason that your doctor would be wrong to prescribe you penicillin every time you go into the doctors office: antibiotic resistance. Many of the antibiotics used in livestock production are the same antibiotics we use to treat human bacterial infections. This means that if Salmonella in a cow becomes antibiotic resistant and a human becomes ill through its consumption they could very likely die (This has happened many times). Worse, if a more highly infectious bacteria becomes resistant many many people could die. I’m quite well researched in antibiotic resistance and I could go on for pages about the mechanics of all of this but to keep it short: Low daily dosages like the ones given to cattle in order to increase growth rates don’t kill all the the bacteria at each dosage time allowing some to survive and become resistant, those bacteria can have the genetic material that makes them antibiotic resistant consumed by other bacteria. The consuming bacteria is now also resistant to one or more (or all) antibiotics. This means that currently treatable diseases like Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, and the Black Plague could again become un-treatable and could result in pandemics. I encourage you to do more research but be wary of sites that are run by lobby groups, and ideally get your information from original research papers.

    So in summary: If you’re put in a position where you need address antibiotic use in livestock production with an uninformed population do not simplify the issue and say that the way farmers use antibiotics is inherently good or bad (as you have here). Explain what good and bad antibiotic practices look like. Finally, If you’re asked to vote or provide input of any kind on legislation that allows or disallows the use of antibiotics in farming please read it in its entirety and don’t just approve or disprove of that legislation because you think antibiotics are inherently good or inherently bad.

    If you want to contact me about any of this, you can reach me at joseph.lc.horton@gmail.com.

    All the best,
    Joseph Horton

    Like

    Reply

    • Thanks for your comment Joseph. I cannot comment on common practices in the U.S., but here in Canada, it is not common practice to have beef cattle on consistent low doses of antibiotics. Perhaps one dose before entering stressful situations where the likelihood of sickness is high (entering a feedlot), but not long-term. Again, I can only speak to what we do here. 😀

      Like

      Reply

      • I’m also a Canadian (BC) and in Canada its not just uncommon to provide consistent low antibiotic doses to cattle, it’s soon to be illegal due to the risk it presents (I think the laws are supposed to be set by the end of this year).

        I brought up the American system to illustrate where the Canadian system will likely go if we cancel the implementation of these laws.

        My point (in a Canadian Context): Is that Its wrong to draw black and white lines like this as a public figure and just tell people that antibiotics should be used without addressing how they can be misused. It results in people thinking antibiotic use is always good, and when people think that antibiotic use is always good we end up with a system like the one in the US.

        I mean no disrespect, But i just think this topic needs to be addressed at length because so many people on both sides of the political coin have been misinformed. This is also an issue that could end up being tossed around in many international trade deals to come for Canada and I think people should understand the issues.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. I would like someone to explain to me how Halal slaughtering which is what Creekstone Farms does almost exclusively can be called “humane”. Slitting a neck while still alive and letting the animal bleed out doesn’t seem “humane” to me.

    Like

    Reply

    • The animals are stunned before slaughter, just like most other slaughter houses in the US and Canada. Halal slaughter mostly has to do with who is doing the cutting, and how the cutting is done.

      Like

      Reply

  14. Your argument about using antibiotics to treat sick cattle is a total red herring. I was curious about the Certified Humane requirements around antibiotics. It took me all of five minutes to find them on line and discover the this certification allows the use of antibiotics for the treatment of individual animals who are sick. In fact they are required to be treated quickly and appropriately including if appropriate antibiotics. What the certification does forbid is the use of antibiotics as a growth supplement added to feed or water. This practice has been shown over and over again to contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance bacteria. Every year more and more humans are dying of disease that used to be treated by antibiotics that are no longer effective.
    Adding antibiotics to feed is not about prevention it is about boosting profits by increasing growth while putting human health at risk. Earls is not suggesting you treat your animals better it is asking you to put human health before profit.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • It is actually Earls themselves who are limiting their beef to that which has never received hormones – sick animal or healthy.
      Again, feed or watered antibiotic use is not common practice in Canadian Beef production – I don’t know anyone who does it, we certainly do not. Just one way of many that Canadian Beef producers put animal welfare and human safety first.

      Like

      Reply

  15. Pingback: PEI Federation of Agriculture | PEIFA Today – Friday, April 29, 2016

  16. Bravo! Damn straight! I will no longer be taking my family to Earls any further. There is no better beef than Alberta beef! Earls, it may be time to pack up and move on! Hopefully people will follow suit.
    Personally I think they are looking for a cheaper alternative!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  17. As ranchers our family is very concerned about how we take care of our animals. We have a close friend who is a vet and can call her at anytime for an answer to a problem. We also have very good advise on nutrition needs from people involved in the feed business. No hormones are used and we only use antibodies when an animal is sick. They also can’t go to market until the medication has cleared their system. Our breeding animals are not confined to corrals all the time, but roam the fields all year long. In winter it is close to home where there are windbreaks and shelter provided – also lots of bedding. We are concerned with having the right kind of feed for them when they need it – hay, grain, proper mineral supplements, etc. Most of the people I know use similar practices to us – some are even into raising their cattle organically – but they don’t let them suffer if they are sick. It is marked down when it is treated and not sold as organic.
    I wonder how much of Earls move is because of their President who is Mohammed Jessa. I believe from what I have read that Creekside has Muslin connection when they are slaughtering their beef.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  18. Its funny the different view on this. Creekstone north produces “Certified Humane” beef, and on the south side they produce “Halal” Beef… marketing gimmick. So I ask myself, if I go out to dinner for a steak, am I more inclined to pay $30 for Alberta Beef, $40 for “Certified Humane” or $10 for Walmart steak. Alberta for me, but that Certified Humane logo suuuure is pretty.

    Like

    Reply

  19. I have been to many farms and ranches in my lifetime and have seen almost every farm treat their animals incredibly well. I have only ever seen one that didn’t out of hundreds if not thousands that value their livestock above almost everything else, including profits. I’ve had friends raised on farms who have gone without a new coat because the cattle needed something. Don’t get me wrong, they wanted a new coat they didn’t need one. I have also witnessed a rancher who was in tears and had to go and get his brother to put a cow out of her misery when she got caught in some barbwire, he just couldn’t do it himself.
    I am a cookbook writer and have been cooking since I could reach the stove. I have looked into the issues and can find “research” that supports both sides of this issue, but here’s the thing: In Canada we are highly regulated and our cattle doesn’t need the “Humane” label because the animals are treated well and any substances used on the animals are for the good of the animal. There are hormones and that is another argument altogether but they are not abused and are used for valid reasons.
    I maintain that locally grown is better than shipping products from afar, no matter what they are. It’s not a protectionist perspective it just makes sense when it comes to freshness and supporting the local economy. It also is about making sure that corners aren’t being cut. When something is bought from a different country you have no say over how it is treated, only your willingness to buy or not dictates anything and only if they cannot replace you as a buyer. You simply cannot police it the same as you can when it comes from your own area.
    Earls had two years, according to them, to look into sourcing their meat. If they have certain standards that they want followed, why didn’t they go to local producers and work WITH them to get to those standards? I am sure that producers would be more than happy to meet whatever standards were set forth and this arbitrary certification wouldn’t even need to come into it. I could get behind Earls if they had have made this effort, but they didn’t. Not to mention, it wouldn’t have been ‘trend worthy” and made the noise that it has.
    The bottom line is what deal did Earls get to turn their back on the people who pays their bills? They don’t have restaurants in the US but they prefer to support US producers over Canadian producers. In the US they need this certification because of their practices, it’s not necessary here in Canada. I guess we will all see how Earls fares now that local isn’t good enough. When the money they are saving is out done by the money they are losing because of the lack of quality they serve and the customers they will lose, that is when they may have a change of heart. Until that time, I’ll cook my steaks at home, thanks!

    Like

    Reply

  20. I too love Alberta beef. I know recently it has really bothered me about the ” kill floors” these like car gill, etc owned by u.s, my husband has had to go through these and they are not humane..I want to know that the end of the road is the same as the respect they get from our farmers here, and Saskatchewan…and I really don’t think that will happen… I respect any company allowing an animal to die or be put down without fear and dignity…..

    Like

    Reply

  21. I will take “canadian/alberta beef” anytime over U.S. beef. The taste texture difference is incredible even for the highest quality cuts from the very expensive restaurants. U.S. cuts might as well be grilled card board and the ground products saw dust. I also know a number of ranchers here in western canada and am insult by Earl’s accusations. I didn’t go to Earl’s very often before so never again isn’t a big deal

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I agree.
      The facts are that Earl’s has made a decision that will more than likely effect them significantly in Western Canada where the average citizen is a little more informed on beef than our Eastern Countrymen. Toronto will more than likely eat up Earls B.S. ad campaign as Metropolis Eastern Canada love this kind of stuff.
      Really sad when you think about it. Earls is going to trust a stamp on a label from a foreign Country over jumpping in their car and seeing the live stock before it becomes a Saran wrapped hunk of meat.

      Like

      Reply

  22. All of these certification programs are about the paperwork. Today’s society is all about catch phrases and sound bites. Evidence is irrelevant to feeling ‘good’.
    My generation is going to be the longest living generation in history. We were raised in a time of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives and all forms of other bad things, yet we are expected to outlive the current generstion of vegans and health nuts.
    Farmers are like other professions, the vast majority work hard at doing a good job and being ethical in their business practises. A few don’t, but not all should be judged on those few.
    Too many today are negative Nellies, constantly calling out every aspect of our society and not trusting evidence presented.
    This move by Earl’s is nothing more than a marketing ploy. It may work for some, but not for me.

    Like

    Reply

  23. I will not be dining at Earl’s unless Canadian Beef is on the menu. This decision not to use Canadian Beef is bases on anecdotal and unsupported conclusions. Something we see a lot of in this end of the country. I am not a beef farmer and live in Vancouver. I am the regular consumer. The idea a chain of the size would turn its back on Canadian farms and workers disgusts me. They will not get a dime of my business.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  24. The fact that the meat from the new supplier is Halal certified, for those that don’t know what it means .Halal is an Arabic word that means “permissible.” Halal meat comes from an animal slaughtered according to Islamic law. That means Allah’s (God’s) name must be pronounced during slaughter, the instrument used must be very sharp (the animal must be slit at the throat), the animal must not be unconscious, and it must be hung upside down and allowed to bleed dry.

    In other words, it’s a Muslim blood ritual to appease Allah, never mind being painful and inhumane way to kill an animal. I will not be surprised if pork is removed from their menu in the future as well.

    Like

    Reply

  25. Pingback: Earls Restaurants Has Opened the Door to Canadian Beef… Now What? | View from the Ranch Porch

  26. Pingback: Earls Certified Humane Beef Highlights Concern About Marketing Labels – Agriculture Proud

  27. Pingback: Dear Earls, I’m breaking up with you | High Heels and Canola Fields

Leave a comment