This publication is provided to issue managers, industry leaders and spokespersons. It is not to be reprinted in commercial publications without first obtaining permission from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Contact Jennifer Stolp or Polly Ruhland at 303/694-0305. Issues Update January – February 2009 Issues Update is funded in part by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board $1 per-head beef Checkoff program. It is produced for the beef industry by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. These reports and updates provide information that may be helpful in communicating about current issues. Information about issues affecting the beef marketing and business climate is funded by The Beef Checkoff. Funding for NCBA policy actions is provided by NCBA membership dues. Contributors National Cattlemen’s Beef Association http://www.beef.org Denver 9110 East Nichols Ave. Suite 300 Centennial, Colorado 80112 Phone: 303/694-0305 Karli Freeman, Associate Director, Channel Marketing Jane Gibson, Executive Director, Foodservice Marketing Rick McCarty, Vice President, Issue Analysis and Strategy Shalene McNeill, Executive Director, Human Nutrition Research Stephen Myers, Manager, Reputation Communications Michele Peterson Murray, Executive Director, Public Relations Martin Roth, Executive Director, Consumer Marketing Bridget Wasser, Director, Product Enhancement Research Chicago 444 North Michigan Ave. Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois  60611 Phone: 312/467-5520 Randy Irion, Director, Channel Marketing Washington, D.C. 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202/347-0228 Kristina Butts, Manager, Legislative Affairs Gregg Doud, Chief Economist Tamara McCann Thies, Chief Environmental Counsel Elizabeth Parker, Chief Veterinarian Heather Vaughan, Associate Director, Public Affairs Animal Agriculture Alliance Philip Lobo, Comm. Director 703/562-5160 Cattle-Fax Mike Miller, Chief Operating Officer 303/694-0323 Center for Consumer Freedom David Martosko, Director of Research 202/463-7112. Dairy Management Inc. David Pelzer, Senior Vice President, Industry Image and Relations 800/853-2479 Policy Directions Inc. Steve Kopperud, Senior Vice President 202/776-0071 U.S. Meat Export Federation Erin Daley, Economist 303/623-6328

Issues in Brief

This summary offers a brief statement about the topics covered in this edition of Issues Update. The goal is to provide a useful, quick overview of current issues, as well as serve as a guide to determine which updates and reports you wish to read for more detailed information.

Insight to the Beef Industry - January/February 2009

November/December 2008 Media Analysis

Activist Activity

“Humane” principles not standardized

The beef industry, the U.S. government and activist organizations all have broad, differing definitions for humane animal care and handling. Several organizations have capitalized on this discrepancy, instituting marketing claims based upon the various “humane” production practices outlined by various organizations.

Masquerading animal rights group dupes media into publishing and broadcasting vegetarian propaganda

By masquerading as a mainstream health group, the Cancer Project has persuaded hundreds of TV and radio stations as well as newspaper opinion page editors to print or broadcast vegetarian propaganda free of charge by making it sound like information from a legitimate cancer charity.

Charitable donations to animal rights groups increase 11 percent in 2007

According to the 2008 Animal People Watchdog Report on 150 Animal Charities, charitable donations to animal rights groups increased 11 percent in 2007, providing activist groups with more funds to develop wide ranging activities such as California’s Proposition 2, undercover video operations, legislative initiatives and legal actions.

Animal Health/Wellbeing

Enhanced feed ban rule effective April 2009

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration published a final rule “Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed,” regarding additional feed ban requirements which FDA states are intended to further strengthen existing safeguards against bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The final rule, effective April 27, 2009, amends FDA’s existing regulations to prohibit the use of certain cattle origin materials in the food or feed of all animals.

Industry calls for government to take science-based approach to animal health regulations

Numerous federal regulatory procedures addressed animal health issues and marketing claims related to production practices in 2008. Animal health is important to safe, quality beef and the industry works to ensure government agencies' policies for animal health issues and marketing claims reflect sound science.

Diet/Health/Nutrition

Higher protein, beef-based diet reduces cardiovascular disease risk

Research demonstrating the health benefits of consuming a higher protein, beef-based diet continues to accumulate. Key findings of a beef checkoff-funded study recently published in the November 2008 issue of Nutrition and Metabolism conclude weight loss diets that include protein at levels double those recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s MyPyramid result in favorable outcomes associated with weight management, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease.

Beef Safety/Quality

Research projects conducted to determine affect of feeding ethanol co-products on beef quality

The U.S. fuel ethanol industry has experienced expansion, resulting in substantial supply of ethanol co-products that can be used as substitutes for traditional cereal grains in cattle diet. In response to industry needs identified in a 2006 summit on ethanol co-products, four new research studies now have findings available indicating the impact of feeding relatively high levels of ethanol co-products on beef and product quality.

Food safety legislation possible in 2009

Food safety issues received more exposure than ever before in 2008, and with a new presidential administration and a new Congress, the conditions may be right for food safety reform legislation to advance. However, the urgent need for Congress and the administration to address economic issues may leave little time or funding for food safety proposals in the coming year.

Environment

Offsets offer opportunity for new source of income

Agriculture can play an important role in a market-based climate change cap-and-trade program by creating “offsets” that would reduce costs for regulated industries. Selling offsets to regulated industries would provide the agriculture sector with an important new source of income.

Dairy industry launches sustainability initiative

The dairy industry is undertaking a comprehensive effort to identify and reduce its carbon footprint for fluid milk. An industry wide sustainability initiative was launched in 2008 to document the dairy industry’s environmental stewardship as well as identify ways to improve.

Trade/Marketing/Economics

Market Response Plan created to respond to economic recession

In response to factors contributing to the current U.S. economic recession, the fiscal year 2009 beef checkoff marketing and communications plans have been recalculated to help protect beef demand in the meat case and on restaurant menus. The Market Response Plan created by the marketing and communications team provides simple ways for consumers to economically justify their desire for beef, leverages existing program to deliver economic resources and includes quick-to-execute tactics.

Beef retail sales strong despite troubled economy

Retail sales for all fresh meat categories, including beef, have been a bright spot in the recent economic downturn. While the media has focused on other meat proteins as food prices have increased and consumers tighten their food budgets, supermarket shoppers continue to choose beef at the meat case.

Small plates are big business

Consumers’ “I want it all” attitude is driving the growing trend of “small plates” rather than typically large entrees. In the current economy, small plate offerings are especially popular with consumers looking to continue to enjoy beef when dining out.

Smaller beef production, net meat supplies support prices in 2009

After softening during 2008, beef demand is expected to further soften in 2009 as consumers tighten spending in an uncertain economy. Despite the decline in demand, wholesale prices are expected to increase in 2009 because of smaller beef production and net meat supplies.

North American beef trade must remain a two-way street

Although the year-end statistics for U.S. beef exports are not yet available, the story for 2008 will focus on the return of U.S. beef to South Korea and the tremendous volume of U.S. exports to our North American Free Trade Agreement trading partners. Total U.S. beef exports in 2008 should reach $3.5 billion, which would be just shy of the 2003 record level of $3.86 billion.

Feeder cattle imports from Mexico rebound but end 2008 down

Imports of Mexican feeder cattle ended 2008 well below the historic levels of 2007, while imports from Canada were up from last year. Violent swings in exchange rates, corn prices, economic conditions and uncertainty surrounding the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling all contributed to wildly fluctuating levels of trade late in 2008. Forecasting these imports in 2009 will be no easier.

2009 global forecast suggests challenges ahead

In 2008, the global meat industry experienced a roller coaster ride of challenges. The U.S. beef industry and counterparts around the globe face continuing challenges in 2009, including economic growth, currency fluctuations, domestic production, input costs, subsidy/export policies and tariff and nontariff barriers. Animal diseases, food safety and consumer perceptions of imported food products are other factors that will affect trade this coming year and into the future.

Research Briefs

Chefs rate Denver steak, Tuscan veal chop and mini hamburgers “hot trends” for 2009

The Denver steak, bone-in Tuscan veal chop and mini hamburgers were rated among the top food items in the third annual National Restaurant Association’s “Chef Survey: What’s Hot in 2009.” More than 1,600 professional chefs ranked 208 culinary items as a “hot trend,” “yesterday’s news” or “perennial favorite,” identifying nutrition and philosophy-driven food choices as the hottest culinary themes found on 2009 restaurant menus.

Issue Commentary

Is eating beef worse than driving a car?

In November 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released Livestock’s Long Shadow. The report looked at livestock production globally, analyzed its environmental effects and discussed policy challenges and options to mitigate those effects. The information from this report that has been most widely reported is that eating meat contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transportation sector.

Beef industry media analysis
November/December 2008

The following checkoff-funded report analyzes media coverage of beef and cattle industry issues through a special service called CARMA (Computer-Aided Research and Media Analysis). The beef checkoff-funded issues management program commissions this analysis for tracking and responding to beef media coverage in the following areas: diet/health, environment, food safety, beef marketing, animal rights and economics.

The CARMA system rates media coverage favorability on a scale of zero to 100 based on criteria including headline, length, placement, number and quality of favorable and unfavorable sources and general tone of an article. In this rating system, articles that fall in the 45-55 range are considered neutral or balanced. In the reports on ratings, favorable means favorable to the beef industry.

Because a single article can address more than one issue, it may be analyzed as part of more than one issue area. Therefore, article volume and percentages across the issue areas will not add up.

Overview

• Total volume of coverage: 639 articles
• Average favorability rating: 52 or neutral
• Estimated impressions: 246 million
• Leading (non-wire) media outlet: Chicago Tribune (24 articles)

Beef industry media coverage continued to decline this period, diminishing by 20 percent in November/December to 639 reports. The favorability increased by 1 point to a still-neutral 52 rating. Within November/December media coverage, favorable articles accounted for 37 percent of the overall volume, a decline of 2 percentage points; neutral coverage comprised 40 percent of overall volume, an increase of 10 percentage points; and 23 percent of reporting was unfavorable, a decline of 8 percentage points.

Economic issues dominated industry coverage this period, with reporting focused on packer issues, beef prices and foreign trade. Foreign trade coverage increased by nearly 25 percent due to disputes with Canada and Mexico over the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law and Mexico’s December ban on some U.S. meat shipments. Economics stories accounted for 38 percent of the beef industry’s coverage this period.

Beef marketing remained the second most prominent issue in November/December. However, coverage declined 18 percent this period to 184 articles. Recipes for holiday dishes and comfort food dominated coverage, and included several low-cost recipes for consumers looking to cut back on food expenses.

Nutrition/health coverage declined 28 percent over last period to 151 reports. Coverage consisted primarily of articles containing beef recipes with nutrition information and vegetarian recipes. Mentions of beef and cancer declined 27 percent this period, while reporting on beef and heart disease increased 11 percent.

Beef safety reporting declined by almost half this period, while its share of total beef coverage declined 9 percentage points to 16 percent. The topic’s favorability decreased 1 point to a neutral 46 rating. While bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was the leading sub-issue among beef safety reports, the subject only garnered 29 articles this period.

Environmental coverage was dominated by reporting on the interaction between cattle and wildlife populations. The decision to relist the grey wolf as an endangered species in the Great Lakes region caused frustration among ranchers who believe they can no longer legally protect their livestock from wolves.

Key Findings

• Prompted by consumer demand for cheaper meat, South Korean discount stores resumed selling U.S. beef in November. Although the country lifted its ban on importing U.S. beef in June, public opposition had kept retailers from resuming imports.
• Canada filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the new U.S. COOL law, arguing the law is hurting the Canadian livestock industry. Mexico joined the complaint soon after.
• Mexico suspended U.S. imports from 30 meat packers over sanitation concerns. The ban effected plants in 14 states and included shipments of beef, pork and poultry.
• The holiday season and the current economic climate prompted numerous cost-saving recipe ideas for entertaining during the holidays.

Economics

• Volume: 246 articles, 38 percent of total
• Favorability: 48 rating, or neutral
• Leading sub-issue: Packer issues – 85 articles
• Leading media: Associated Press – 58 articles

“Foreign trade” coverage increased by nearly one-quarter from the September-October period, while “beef prices” reporting fell 14 percent from last period.

“Packer issues” led economics reporting this period, dominated by reporting on a shortage of kosher meat and Mexico’s decision to bar U.S. imports from 30 meat processing plants. Agriprocessors, formerly the country’s largest kosher meat supplier, filed for bankruptcy in November following a May 12 immigration raid that severely damaged the business. The company’s collapse was cited by several articles as a cause for the nationwide kosher meat shortage, including a Washington Post article where several kosher grocers expressed their woes over the shortage.

Reporting about packer issues also included heavy coverage of Mexico’s suspension of meat imports from 30 U.S. plants due to sanitary concerns. Eileen Connelley of the Associated Press reported on the ban, which affected 14 states and included shipments of beef, pork, and poultry (Dec. 27). The article included comments from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spokesperson Amanda Eamich, who explained that “occasional differences in shipments in trade relationships do occur and allow for the option of notifying specific plants of suspension of those shipments,” and that Mexico had expressed concern about sanitation issues and “possible pathogen findings.” In a Reuters report on Dec. 30, Mexican Agriculture Minister Alberto Cardenas attributed the ban to the country’s efforts to step up sanitary controls and keep contaminated meat out of Mexico. Some media outlets suggested the move could be connected to the country’s opposition to U.S. COOL labeling requirements, although USDA spokeswoman Amanda Eamich dismissed these suggestions in a Reuters report, stating, “countries would go through dispute settlement under either [the North American Free Trade Agreement] or [World Trade Organization] – not use the action of plant-by-plant delistment.” (Dec. 26).

“Beef prices” was the second most prominent sub-issue in economics coverage for the November-December period. Media attention continued to focus on the rising cost of beef, particularly in the context of consumers struggling with the recession. Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times (Nov. 27) published articles about how falling commodity prices did not indicate that food prices would soon do the same. According to Ephraim Leibtag of USDA’s Economic Research Service, “Food is not like gas – the retail prices don’t rise or fall as quickly in response to changes at the commodity level” (San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 27). Several articles gave consumers helpful tips on how to stretch their grocery budgets, including a Richmond Times-Dispatch report encouraging consumers to buy chuck steak, noting, “A small serving of good-quality red meat also may be more satisfying than a big hunk of a cheaper cut” (Nov. 5). Chef Mike Price of New York’s Market Table appeared on CBS’s “The Early Show” and was tasked with creating a three-course meal on a $40 budget.

While coverage of beef prices was neutral overall, there were several favorable stories on quarterly earnings. Reports on Tyson’s quarterly earnings indicated that although their chicken business was struggling, the beef segment fared well. Burger King also had favorable profit news and a Miami Herald article credited the fast-food chain’s value options and “promotions like the Steakhouse Burger” as contributing to its strong performance (Nov. 1).

“Foreign trade” also accounted for a large share of economics coverage this month. In late November, South Korea resumed selling U.S. beef in its major discount stores, generating significant media attention. An Associated Press report noted that although the country lifted its ban on U.S. beef imports in June, “supermarkets and many restaurants shied away from offering U.S. beef because of strong public opposition to the government’s decision” (Nov. 25). Consequent coverage on the issue generated mixed reviews, as some reports focused on the benefits to South Korean consumers while others mentioned BSE and opposition to the lifting of the ban. Foreign trade coverage also included reports that Canada and Mexico filed complaints with WTO over the new COOL law. Reuters reported that Mexico had joined Canada’s complaint to WTO due to “its substantial interest in the dispute owing to increasing trade between Mexico and the United States” (Dec. 18).

Beef Marketing

• Volume: 184 articles, 29 percent of total
• Favorability: 61 rating, or solidly favorable
• Leading sub-issue: Beef recipes – 128 articles
• Leading media: Chicago Tribune – 9 articles

Reporting about “beef recipes” dominated beef marketing coverage in the November/December period, accounting for 70 percent of the segment’s reporting. The holiday season was a prominent theme this period, featuring beef recipes for Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year’s celebrations. A Chicago Tribune article provided a beef tenderloin recipe for a quick holiday meal (Dec. 17). With numerous consumers cutting back on holiday spending, many recipes were geared toward controlling food expenses. The Commercial Appeal published an article with several options for planning a dinner party for 10 people with $100 (Dec. 10).

“Ground beef recipes” was the second leading sub-issue for beef marketing this period. Chili recipes were common, including “Hilton Camp Huer Huero Road Chili” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 12) and “Three Bean Chili with Meat” (Star Tribune, Nov. 27). Variations on meatloaf also continued to be popular. A South Florida Sun-Sentinel Kid’s Cook column published a mini-meatloaf recipe, complete with a reminder on how to safely handle raw meat (Nov. 27).

“Beef choices” continued to generate media attention, although volume decreased by four stories to 25 articles in the November/December period. Several media outlets reported on the “locavore” movement to eat foods produced locally and included comments by consumers who say they favor local, pasture-fed beef because of the taste and the absence of antibiotics or hormones that are used in “factory farming.” A News & Observer article described the increasing demand for local meat, as well as the distribution challenges local farmers face (Dec.10).

Nutrition/Health

• Volume: 151 articles, 24 percent of total
• Favorability: 52 rating, or neutral
• Leading sub-issue: Beef recipes with nutrition information – 63 articles
• Leading media: Chicago Tribune – 12 articles

“Beef recipes with nutrition information” returned this period as both the leading nutrition/health sub-issue by article volume and the most favorable, with overall solidly positive coverage that averaged a 65 rating. Articles containing such recipes nonetheless fell 13 percent from 72 reports in September/October to 63 stories this period. Ribs and roasts were the most commonly published beef recipes containing nutrition information throughout the November/December period, followed closely by a variety of steaks, meatloaves and stews. The media frequently provided recipes deemed as comforting, budget-wise or holiday appropriate. A “Flanken-Style Short Ribs with Mushrooms” recipe using “inexpensive” cross-cut strips of chuck with bone appeared in the Washington Post (Nov. 5) and the Miami Herald (Dec. 11), while the Herald a month earlier offered a “Spiced Short Ribs” recipe that it described as the “ultimate in comfort food, rich and unctuous” (Nov. 6). As for the many roast recipes, most of them were made available in December as Christmas and Hanukah approached, with the Baltimore Sun issuing a “bargain roast” recipe using inexpensive chuck that reportedly “keep[s] your holiday table festive on a budget” (Dec. 17). Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune offered a “go-to holiday roast” of beef tenderloin with porcini mushroom sauce for the time-challenged cook and the Washington Post published a recipe for “Butter-Poached Standing Rib Roast” (Dec. 17).

Among nutrition/health sub-issues, “nutritional vegetarianism” was the second most prominently addressed in terms of article volume. Discussion of the sub-issue appeared in 31 reports in November/December, half that of the previous two-month period. The favorability of its coverage declined by three points to a moderately negative 39 rating. Vegetarian and vegan recipes again accounted for roughly half of nutritional vegetarianism articles this period. The remaining nutritional vegetarianism coverage consisted largely of opinion pieces and letter to editors calling on readers to consider vegetarianism as the Thanksgiving holiday approached, briefly noting that beyond being animal friendly a plant-based diet is healthier in general. Additionally, ABC’s “Good Morning America” aired a segment focused on reducing blood pressure and cholesterol, with soy substitution for meat offered as among the five best things to do (Dec. 9).

“Beef and heart disease” was the most unfavorable leading nutrition/health sub-issue, discussed in 10 articles that averaged a moderately negative 37 rating. Syndicated medical columns dispensing health advice accounted for roughly half of beef and heart disease coverage in November/December. Newsday and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published a column by Anthony L. Komaroff, M.D., editor-in-chief of Harvard Health Publications, in which he discussed ways to combat high blood pressure without medication. Among his suggestions was to alter one’s diet, including minimizing red meat consumption (Nov. 25). Similarly, doctors Mehmet Oz and Mike Roizen discussed the health benefits of eating less meat in a column appearing in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Nov. 14) and Houston Chronicle (Dec. 22). Beyond arguing that eating less meat correlates to a smaller risk of being overweight, Oz and Roizen declared, “Dropping meat lowers your risk of diabetes and heart disease.”

Beef Safety

• Volume: 105 articles, 16 percent of total
• Favorability: 46 rating, or neutral
• Leading sub-issue: BSE/Mad cow disease – 29 articles
• Leading media: Associated Press – 36 articles

“BSE/mad cow disease” surfaced in November/December coverage as the leading beef safety sub-issue. BSE’s prominence stemmed from reporting on U.S. beef trade with Asian nations, the occurrence of the 15th case of BSE in Canada and a soon to be implemented U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule prohibiting the use of brains and spinal cords from older cattle as ingredients in all livestock feed, as opposed to just cattle feed as is the rule currently, and pet food. Attention on U.S. trade relations with several Asian countries, including South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, accounted for most of the media discussion involving BSE. Media reports on fluctuating trade barriers to U.S. beef, and the extent of U.S. beef exports, often noted that U.S. beef had been previously banned following the discovery of BSE in the United States in 2003. BSE reporting also included articles discussing foreign trade partners’ import restrictions on age of cattle at slaughter and types of meat products acceptable for importation. Beyond this trade coverage, the 15th occurrence of BSE in Canada generated media attention in the U.S. This coverage, however, was not widespread and did not focus on the U.S. cattle industry.

However, reporting in late November on an impending FDA rule aimed at preventing the spread of BSE was solidly unfavorable for the beef industry. This coverage suggested that the federal regulation prohibiting the use of brains and spinal cords from older cattle as ingredients in all livestock feed and pet food could inadvertently create additional health risks as carcass disposal options for ranchers become limited. The rule that is set to take effect in April 2009 was depicted as burdening cattlemen and dairy farmers, as rendering plants announced they would stop accepting cattle carcasses or would have to more than double their fees per animal. Consequently, the media reported that this will likely lead to many farmers and ranchers illegally disposing of cattle carcasses through improper burial, abandonment or composting in locales where it is not allowed, thereby contaminating soil, groundwater and streams and potentially fostering the spread of disease. Separately of note, a Nov. 18 Miami Herald front-page story encouraged readers to buy organic meat, in part as a way to minimize exposure to “mad cow disease.”

“Antibiotics” was the least favorable leading sub-issue in the beef safety category this period. Reports addressing antibiotics and the cattle industry expanded more than 50 percent in November/December to 14 stories from nine articles in September/October. The favorability of such coverage declined 14 points to a moderately negative 38 rating. A column by the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff addressing what direction then-President-elect Barack Obama should take in his Secretary of Agriculture selection contributed significantly to both the greater attention on antibiotics and the lower favorability of such coverage this period. Beyond declaring current food production to be a “bankrupt structure of factory farming that squanders energy, exacerbates climate change and makes Americans unhealthy,” the article criticized meat production in particular. While calling modern animal confinement operations “meat assembly lines,” Kristoff argued that current meat production uses a vast amount of antibiotics to reduce infections, “resulting in a public health threat from antibiotic-resistant infections.” Furthermore, he suggested that the meat industry disguises the true cost of its products, in that it appears to produce low-cost meat “because the true cost to public health and the economy from antibiotic resistance is passed along.” Kristoff’s article first appeared in the New York Times Dec.11 and thereafter was published by several other newspapers, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“Consumer safety information” was the most favorable leading beef safety sub-issue in November/December. There were 10 articles this period that provided consumer safety information on food preparation, cooking or storage. This attention was slightly positive, earning a 57 favorability rating. Notably, the Washington Post published an article devoted to reducing the risk of E. coli infection, reminding readers on cleaning and disinfecting hands and utensils, guarding against cross contamination of raw meat and other foods, and thoroughly cooking meat (Nov. 4).

Environment

• Volume: 98 articles, 15 percent of total
• Favorability: 49 rating, or neutral
• Leading sub-issue: Cattle and wildlife – 37 articles
• Leading media: Associated Press – 32 articles

Coverage about the interaction between cattle and wildlife populations continued to drive environmental coverage this period. Reports on wolves and their effect on livestock were prevalent, particularly concerning the decision to relist the grey wolf as an endangered species in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Ranchers expressed their frustration at not being able to legally protect their livestock from wolves. The Rocky Mountain region received similar media attention, as it planned to remove the grey wolf from its endangered species list by the end of the year.

Cattle and wildlife coverage also included reports on a bison management plan for Yellowstone National park that was approved by Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission in mid-December. The controversial plan would prevent bison from being slaughtered by paying for the right to allow them to pass through private land to grazing areas. This drew criticism from the livestock industry over the risk of spreading brucellosis from bison to cattle. However, reports often mentioned that no transmission of the disease from bison to cattle had yet been reported and Yellowstone Superintendent Suzanne Lewis called the plan “a huge step in legally recognizing the bison’s right to be outside the park” (Houston Chronicle, Dec. 21).

“Cattle and air quality” emerged as the second leading sub-issue for environmental reporting in the November/December period, following a rumored U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to tax livestock emissions that generated substantial criticism from the livestock industry. Although early media reports suggested that the proposal was to be included in an upcoming EPA report on greenhouse gas emissions, later reports called the tax a false rumor. The Kansas City Star published an article reporting EPA was not formulating a livestock emissions tax, and featured EPA Region spokesperson Chris Whitley, who stated, “The fact is, there is no proposal right now. We’re in the public comments phase (on greenhouse-gas emissions rules), and the public can say anything. The EPA is obligated to consider all comments, but this is not a likely change” (Dec. 17).

Animal Rights/Welfare/Health

• Volume: 73 articles, 11 percent of total
• Favorability: 46 rating, or neutral
• Leading sub-issue: Cattle diseases – 26 articles
• Leading media: Associated Press – 18 articles

“Cattle diseases” was the most prominently addressed animal rights/welfare/health sub-issue throughout November/December coverage, with media discussion focused on brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The development of a new bison management plan at Yellowstone National Park dominated media attention on brucellosis and cattle. The Associated Press was the most prolific source of coverage on the efforts of state and federal officials to develop an updated bison management plan, which was consistently depicted throughout November/December as loosening regulations on the movement of bison in and out of Yellowstone National Park and eliminating other restrictions. The cattle industry was repeatedly identified as being opposed to such moves out of fear of an increased risk of the spread of brucellosis to cattle.

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) was also frequently addressed in the media this period. Reporting was focused on the presence of the disease in cattle in various locales across the country, with the Associated Press reporting in early December that two Michigan counties had been dropped from a bovine TB risk zone and separately that three cows in Minnesota had tested positive for the disease. An additional Associated Press article reported that the disease had appeared in a cow in Indiana.

“Cruelty in production practices” was the most unfavorable leading animal rights sub-issue this period, spurred largely by attention on California’s Proposition 2. Media attention to the California proposition prohibiting confinement of farm animals, including veal calves, in ways that do not allow them to lie, stand and extend their limbs was concentrated largely in early November. Although reporting before the November 4 passage of the ballot and afterwards often noted that the veal industry in California is not particularly large and that veal calf producers have already been shying away from overly constricting cages, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) CEO Wayne Pacelle was featured criticizing the livestock industry in several articles. Reports citing Pacelle commonly referenced his organization’s undercover investigation earlier in the year that exposed animal cruelty at a California slaughterhouse and led to the nation’s largest-ever beef recall. Notably, in a Sacramento Bee article, Pacelle said, “We’re not telling people to become vegetarians – we’re urging them to exhibit greater decency” (Nov. 28).

Of note, the favorability of coverage addressing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (7 reports, 56 rating) improved substantially this period compared to September/October. The sub-issue’s favorability rating increased 19 points to a slightly favorable 56 rating in November/December, stemming from the publication of several letters-to-editors critical of the organization. Rick Kennedy of Parkville, Kan., wrote a letter in defense of today’s farmers and ranchers against criticism over their practices, declaring that farmers and ranchers “do a magnificent job of providing the world’s safest, most abundant and certainly most affordable food supply, using currently accepted production methods.” With regard to PETA, Kennedy dismissed the idea that the organization is an animal welfare advocate, instead noting that it, HSUS and Farm Sanctuary “are animal rights activists that actively promote a vegetarian lifestyle” (Kansas City Star, Nov. 14).

Vegetarianism

The volume of vegetarianism-related reporting declined this period to 52 reports from 79 reports last period and the favorability of this coverage improved by one point to average a slightly negative 42 rating. The New York Times generated the most unfavorable coverage among all media outlets that authored more than one vegetarianism story, publishing a collection of letters-to-the-editor under the banner of “Sustaining the Food Chain,” which characterized meat consumption and production as unsustainable and detrimental to the environment. This coverage urged readers to choose a vegetarian or vegan diet. Indeed, one letter writer noted, “Going vegan is the best way to combat this environmental nightmare, improve your health and stand up against the animal cruelty so prevalent in factory farms today.” Meanwhile, a letter from Paul Shapiro, senior director of HSUS’ Factory Farming Campaign, decried the “enormous cost to animal welfare, the environment and of course public health” that the growth in per-capita meat consumption since 1950 has perpetrated. Shapiro concluded, “A shift toward more vegetarian options would indeed benefit us all. This is an issue on which we don’t need to wait for government or industry to act first. We can start at our next meal” (Nov. 16).

Mentions of nutritional vegetarianism fell 48 percent to 31 stories in November/December compared to the previous period, while mentions of ethical vegetarianism declined 47 percent to 16 reports. Meanwhile, environmental vegetarianism was mentioned in 13 stories. Roughly half of nutritional vegetarian reports consisted of recipes, with many inspired by the occurrence of Thanksgiving.

Conclusions

• Beef prices continued to receive media attention within economics reporting in the November/December period as the country continued to struggle with a weak economy. Despite falling commodity prices, food prices were expected to remain elevated in 2009. Several media outlets published articles with tips on how consumers can keep their grocery costs down, which included several suggestions for eating cheaper cuts of beef. On a positive note, reporting on lower earnings for chicken and turkey producers noted that beef segments had not experienced the same losses.
• BSE emerged this period as the leading beef safety sub-issue. The event, however, does not signify a return of BSE as a leading driver of beef industry coverage. Rather, attention to BSE occurred largely in reporting focused on non-beef safety issues such as beef trade, and to a lesser extent in coverage of the 15th occurrence of BSE in Canada. Yet, even reporting on the case in Canada did not negatively implicate the current state of the beef industry or food safety system in the United States. From a consumer or public health standpoint, the prominence of BSE in beef safety coverage this period likely does not indicate the beginning of a trend worrisome to the beef industry.
• Environmental reporting increased by nearly 10 percent this period and earned a neutral rating. Coverage continued to be dominated by discussions of cattle and wildlife populations, accounting for 38 percent of environmental coverage. Cattle and air quality emerged as the second leading sub-issue due to a rumor that EPA was proposing a tax on livestock emissions that garnered significant media attention. Later reports dismissed the story, but the idea drew heavy criticism from livestock groups.

January-February 2009

“Humane” principles not standardized

by Steve Kopperud, Senior Vice President – Policy Directions Inc.

Key Points Capitalizing on the broadly differing definition of humane among industry groups, scientists, veterinarians and activists, several organizations have instituted marketing claims based upon the various humane production practices outlined by various organizations. Humane Farm Animal Care, a stand-alone organization, underwritten by HSUS, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and about 30 other state and national humane societies, defines its animal care standards as humane, since a producer/company must meet all of the standards and do so every year through scheduled and unannounced on-farm audits. HFAC requires processors to meet AMI’s handling and slaughter standards, and plants are audited for compliance. Broadly, HFAC standards stipulate “ample space, shelter and gentle handling to limit stress,” but also prohibit the use of growth promotants and antibiotics; require animals be free to move and not be confined; have access to food and water; protection from weather and the elements, and that “managers and caretakers be thoroughly trained, skilled and competent in animal husbandry and welfare.” HFAC is the only program with process verified program status from USDA. The American Humane Association program provides participants the right to use an “American Humane Certified” label descriptor. However, the American Humane Association program does not enjoy process verified program status, and is not audited by USDA. The American Humane Association Web site broadly defines its humane philosophy, reporting animals are “free to live and grow in a humane environment under conditions and care that limit stress; free to enjoy a healthy life, benefitting from injury and disease prevention and rapid diagnosis and treatment; free to readily access fresh water and a diet that maintains full health and vigor, and free to express normal behaviors and live in an appropriate and comfortable environment that includes sufficient space, proper facilities, shelter, a resting area and company of the animal’s own kind.” Animal Welfare Institute’s “Animal Welfare Certified” program is the most radical when compared to conventional beef production and the other programs. AWI touts its program as “uniting conscientious consumers with farmers who raise their animals with compassion.” Animal Welfare Institute reports it uses the United Kingdom Farm Animal Welfare Council’s “five freedoms” as the basis for its program. Those five freedoms are freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; freedom to behave normally, and freedom from fear and distress. Further, its beef cattle standards say the premise of the program is to allow animals to behave “naturally.”

Summary

The beef industry, the U.S. government and activist organizations all have broad, differing definitions for humane animal care and handling. Several organizations have capitalized on this discrepancy, instituting marketing claims based upon the various humane production practices outlined by various organizations.

Background

What does it mean to raise cattle humanely? The dictionary defines it as “having a disposition to treat other human beings or animals with kindness,” leading to enhanced welfare. The dictionary defines welfare as “something that aids or promotes wellbeing.” And wellbeing? “A contented state of being happy, healthy and prosperous.”

This etymological exercise demonstrates that one person’s “humane” can be another person’s minimum care or even neglect. These subjective terms are without hard and fast consensus definitions, at least in animal agriculture. For beef producers, humane is generally day-in, day-out fulfilling the animals’ need for feed, water, animal health/vet care and predator protection, along with professional/experienced castration, dehorning and other standard production practices – essentially, the absence of all but transient pain, and then responsible transport to the feedyard or to slaughter.

But what a farmer or rancher believes is humane may not match what an animal behaviorist believes, and definitely misses the mark when it comes to how animal activists define the term. This leaves much of the debate in the category of “I know it when I see it,” meaning personal experience – professional, philosophical, political – provides the context for how humane is defined.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the animal rights/welfare arena. This political and social issue has led to a growing cottage industry of public and private programs, each defining how cattle can and should be raised humanely. At the same time, each of these programs has identified niche markets for beef raised according to their standards. Participating producers, for the most part, pay to play.

Production practices different, not necessarily more “humane”

The world of humane/welfare production standards/guidelines falls into three broad categories. First, there is the beef checkoff-funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program, including its specific guidelines and recommendations for the care and treatment of beef cattle in production and transportation. It is this program to which the vast majority of U.S. producers subscribe, given it’s a program designed by and for cattle producers, with significant input from bovine veterinarians, behaviorists and animal scientists.

Second, there are various private companies offering animal welfare audits to various processors, retailers and large producers, conducting inspections based on existing third-party standards or custom applications of specific programs.

Then there are three non-profit programs, all with detailed cattle production standards, all sponsored by animal welfare or animal rights organizations. These programs are Humane Farm Animal Care; American Humane Certified, sponsored by the American Humane Association, and the Animal Welfare Institute’s (AWI) Animal Welfare Approved program.

All of these programs are philosophy and practice based, and the level of subjective rhetoric on each of the Web sites is remarkable. While political philosophies diverge dramatically – from “cooperative” with industry to trying to return cattle production to small ranches with animals on grass all their lives – all insist their programs, while not identical, enhance the welfare and humane treatment of farm animals. While all imply or state outright their programs include significant improvements in cattle wellbeing compared to current industry practices, at least two of the programs talk about the neglect and inhumane treatment of cattle not in their particular program.

None of the groups formally defines the word humane. The three programs are similar in some respects, i.e. no use of growth promotants or antibiotics to prevent disease, compliance with all applicable environmental, food safety and related local, state and federal laws and regulations, etc. Still, all vary and all rely on advisory committees made up of combinations of U.S. and foreign animal behaviorists, animal scientists, veterinarians and, in one case, a philosopher, to create and vet their production standards. All report they listen to feedback from participating producers as well.

The underlying assumption of these programs is that most producers have chosen not to embrace maximum cattle welfare for economic reasons so animal needs are not being met; ergo, there are significant problems in cattle production that must be remedied. Generally, these programs argue consumer awareness and demand for animal welfare is so strong that such standards and audits are necessary.

One flaw in these arguments is they ignore the dynamics of husbandry practices generally, the specific changes and improvements in BQA since its inception, as well as other welfare-related efforts in the cattle industry nationally, in the states and among breed groups.

In reviewing the specific standards, the promotion and the public messaging of the three programs, it can be argued many of the specific standards common to all three have little or nothing to do with the welfare or humane treatment of the animal (e.g. prohibiting use of disease preventing antibiotics) – though even the most radical program allows therapeutic use of antimicrobials. What all three programs reflect is current trends in food marketing and food philosophy, including claims like organic, natural and locally raised and slaughtered. All three prominently promote the “new and growing” market niche that will result from participating.

What these programs represent is a limited spectrum of different production practices. These standards are not necessarily better nor are the production practices more humane, rather, the standards are sufficiently distinct when it comes to hot button issues like hormone and antibiotic use and handling, to be marketed as “more humane.”

Marketing programs sell humane philosophy

The most prominent program is Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), headquartered in Herdon, Va. A 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit, HFAC was launched in 2003, a spin-off of sorts from the American Humane Association’s former “Certified Free Farmed” program. HFAC is a stand-alone organization, underwritten by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and about 30 other state and national humane societies. HFAC is modeled on England’s Royal Society for the Protection of Animals “Freedom Foods” program, under which food products from participating producers and processors qualify to carry a label descriptor, in HFAC’s case, “Certified Humane Raised & Handled.”

HFAC says its animal care standards define humane, since a producer/company must meet all of the standards and do so every year through scheduled and unannounced on-farm audits. HFAC requires processors to meet the American Meat Institute’s handling and slaughter standards, and plants are audited for compliance. Broadly, HFAC standards stipulate “ample space, shelter and gentle handling to limit stress,” but they also prohibit the use of growth promotants and antibiotics; require animals be free to move and not be confined; have access to food and water; protection from weather and the elements, and that “managers and caretakers be thoroughly trained, skilled and competent in animal husbandry and welfare.”

HFAC’s 12-member board and 21-member scientific committee reflect HSUS and ASPCA involvement, with the HSUS executive vice president and chief of staff sitting as directors, along with a World Society for the Protection of Animals executive who was once an HSUS executive. The president of ASPCA also sits as an HFAC director.

HFAC is the only program with process verified program status from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), meaning USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) audits HFAC using ISO Guide 65 in reviewing HFAC certification programs and standards. Under process verified program status, USDA ensures a program’s requirements are achievable by a producer who participates, and that HFAC operates its third party certification program “in a consistent and reliable manner.” USDA does not endorse the HFAC humane production standards; it only audits the HFAC system used to certify participating producers.

HFAC charges a $50 application fee for initial certification, as well as a $50 fee for renewal inspections. A farm inspection fee of $500 per day per inspector (day/inspector) covers the cost of one full inspection per year, with the fee paid each time a follow-up inspection is required. Processing plants, pool product operators and slaughter and handling facilities pay $600/day/facility/inspector, according to the HFAC Web site. HFAC certification fees are based on “the amount of animal products produced,” and are determined when a certification mark license agreement is signed. For beef cattle, fees range from $1/head for zero-25,000 animals to $0.10/head for 300,001-400,000 animals.

The American Humane Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit welfare organization headquartered in Denver, created the first third-party farm animal welfare program in the United States in 2000, calling it American Humane Certified Free Farmed. The program was expanded in 2002, languished for a bit and was reinvented in 2007. To those who participate successfully in the American Humane Association program, the right to use an “American Humane Certified” label descriptor is allowed by the group. However, the American Humane Association program does not enjoy process verified program status and is not audited by USDA. American Humane Association intends to pursue process verified program status, and is currently reviewing its audit and certification processes with a third-party organization, believing its formats and audit structure will be ISO compliant and will pursue ISO certification.

As to what humane means to American Humane Association, it’s not defined. The Web site lays out a broad philosophy, reporting animals are “free to live and grow in a humane environment under conditions and care that limit stress; free to enjoy a healthy life, benefitting from injury and disease prevention and rapid diagnosis and treatment; free to readily access fresh water and a diet that maintains full health and vigor, and free to express normal behaviors and live in an appropriate and comfortable environment that includes sufficient space, proper facilities, shelter, a resting area and company of the animal’s own kind.” The breadth of American Humane Association’s specific standards is similar to HFAC, but the program is less prescriptive.

The seven-person scientific advisory committee includes professors of animal science, animal behavior and wellbeing, poultry science and a Ph.D. philosopher, all from U.S. universities. In addition, there are nine associates and fellows working with the program. American Humane Association requires compliance with the American Meat Institute handling and slaughter guidelines, and American Meat Institute and the Food Marketing Institute, the national association representing supermarkets, are association members.

The American Humane Association program includes registration, inspection/approval, on-site audits by outside third-party auditors, on-line weekly/monthly monitoring of “core elements,” and 24/7 video monitoring of all live animal areas. American Humane Association charges a one-time administration fee of $600, and charges the pass-through costs of the independent auditors for the on-site audit, based on a 10-hour day rate of $1,800-$2,000 per day. Royalties are charged only on branded product sold; for meat, this amounts to a penny per pound.

The new kid on the block is the Animal Welfare Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and its program “Animal Welfare Certified.” Their program is the most radical when compared to conventional beef production and the other programs. The group touts its program as “uniting conscientious consumers with farmers who raise their animals with compassion.” The program is endorsed by the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Web site promotes the endorsement of “farmers, top chefs and notables such as Willie Nelson, Rosemary Harris and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,” who calls the program, “The gold standard for how farm animals should be taken care of (sic).”

The Animal Welfare Institute does not define humane, but reports it uses the United Kingdom Farm Animal Welfare Council’s “five freedoms” as the basis for its program. Those five freedoms are freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury and disease; freedom to behave normally, and freedom from fear and distress. Further, its beef cattle standards say the premise of the program is to allow animals to behave “naturally.”

The program claims to be the only “pasture and range-based program,” and recommends on-farm slaughter. If commercial slaughter is used, only a slaughter plant certified as part of the Animal Welfare Institute’s program is acceptable and the plant must meet American Meat Institute handling guidelines. “The routine use of stockyards and auction houses” is prohibited. Among other restrictions are the following: Feedlots are prohibited, and “outdoor access” (pasture) is required, even if grain is fed for finishing; a diet including a minimum 70 percent long fiber/roughage is required. There are also standards for genetic selection, breeding herds, dehorning/debudding, castration, health, euthanasia, weaning, handling and transport.

The Animal Welfare Institute’s seven-member scientific advisory board is completely international, with four Swedes, two Canadians and an Irish member. Science and farmer consultants are also listed, with nine being from the United States, two from Sweden, two from Canada, one each from New Zealand, Uruguay and the United Kingdom. Additional staff and consultants number 15; all are from the United States.

“In order to maintain independence,” Animal Welfare Institute does not charge fees for participating in its program, with all reviews, inspections, audits and advisors provided free. Participating farmers agree to a minimum of one inspection a year, with additional visits possible if deemed necessary to observe animals throughout the year and in various life phases. Registration is renewed annually.

Animal Welfare Institute’s Web site says its program is “USDA-approved,” but provides no details as to what that means. USDA-AMS reports the only program it audits is the Humane Farm Animal Care program.

Masquerading animal rights group dupes media into publishing and broadcasting vegetarian propaganda

by David Martosko, Director of Research – Center for Consumer Freedom

Key Points By masquerading as a mainstream health group, the Cancer Project activist group has persuaded hundreds of TV and radio stations to air vegetarian propaganda free of charge. Newspaper opinion page editors have also printed such propaganda, which sounds like information from a legitimate cancer charity. The Center for Consumer Freedom is planning an ambitious effort to talk with station managers and broadcast producers in all 50 states, sharing the message that this bogus “Cancer Project” is preaching PETA’s nutrition advice dressed up in the sheep’s clothing of the medical profession. The Center for Consumer Freedom truth squad will be telling broadcasters that there’s no hard evidence a vegetarian diet prevents cancer; that the Cancer Project is led by a non-practicing psychiatrist who used to run the PETA Foundation; that the Cancer Project’s parent group (PCRM) actually campaigns against more than 100 genuine cancer charities because they support research using lab animals; and that PCRM once signed threatening letters with a violent animal rights activist that was later convicted on federal terrorism charges.

Summary

By masquerading as a mainstream health group, the Cancer Project activist group has persuaded hundreds of TV and radio stations to air vegetarian propaganda free of charge. Newspaper opinion page editors have also printed such propaganda, which sounds like information from a legitimate cancer charity. However, the Cancer Project is a legal subsidiary of the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) offshoot that’s actually 96 percent physician-free.

Background

Listeners who happened to tune in to the Rush Limbaugh radio program on Jan. 6, may have heard a curious public-service announcement that aired during the show’s final hour. In this free commercial, “House” actress Lisa Edelstein claims that a vegetarian diet can “help protect our kids against obesity. It can even help keep them from developing heart disease or cancer.”

“This message,” Edelstein ended her speech, was “brought to you by the Cancer Project.”

Limbaugh is known for promoting Allen Brothers steaks on a daily basis. How did a vegetarian advocacy message end up in the ears of his 20 million listeners?

This “cancer project” promotion isn’t what it seems. The group isn’t the American Cancer Society or the Susan G. Komen breast-cancer research charity. It’s a bit of animal-rights sleight of hand, and a good indication of just how far America’s anti-meat special interests will go to push their deceptive agenda. Even the Excellence In Broadcasting network appears to have been fooled.

The Cancer Project is a legal subsidiary of the woefully misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a PETA offshoot that’s actually 96 percent physician-free. PCRM has received $1.3 million from PETA, and it now gets more than two-thirds of its $9 million budget from a wealthy vegan socialite named Nanci Alexander, the founding president of the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida. She was behind the 2002 ballot initiative that made pregnant pigs a protected class under Florida’s constitution.

Nanci and her ex-husband, Houston Rockets owner Leslie Alexander, are vigorous animal-rights supporters, and PETA has acknowledged them as their biggest contributors ever. Rockets team dancers sometimes wear “animals have rights” sweaters on the court, and Leslie personally donated $300,000 to California’s Proposition 2 campaign last year.

PCRM’s staff of PETA retreads started up the phony Cancer Project arm in late 2004 with the goal of branding meat and dairy foods with a big scarlet “C.” And like it or not, they’re making headway. By masquerading as a mainstream health group, these activists have already persuaded hundreds of TV and radio stations to air their vegetarian propaganda, free of charge. The same goes for newspaper opinion page editors. If it sounds like a legitimate cancer charity, after all, who could be against it?

U.S. vegetarians are still a tiny minority, even among young people who are more likely to have animal-rights sympathies. A new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study shows that in 2007, only 1 in 200 Americans under 18 years old followed a vegetarian diet.

In the face of stats like this, PCRM is relying on Americans’ growing orientation toward health and wellness priorities, rather than animal rights, to chip away at beef’s market share. Their goal: create a nationwide cancer panic in order to make it happen.

There’s nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, especially when your livelihood is on the line. This effort to re-brand beef as a cancer-causing poison just may represent the animal rights movement’s highest-ever return on investment, since the airtime is 100 percent free. And if even a small fraction of the audience internalizes the phony claim that vegetarianism is essentially a cancer vaccine, just imagine what that will eventually do to the marketplace.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is planning an ambitious effort to talk with station managers and broadcast producers in all 50 states, sharing the message that this bogus “Cancer Project” is preaching PETA’s nutrition advice dressed up in the sheep’s clothing of the medical profession.

The Center for Consumer Freedom truth squad will be telling broadcasters that there’s no hard evidence a vegetarian diet prevents cancer; that the Cancer Project is led by a non-practicing psychiatrist who used to run the PETA Foundation; that the Cancer Project’s parent group (PCRM) actually campaigns against more than 100 genuine cancer charities because they support research using lab animals; and that PCRM once signed threatening letters with a violent animal rights activist that was later convicted on federal terrorism charges. These facts turn heads, and they have the added virtue of being true.

Armed with good information, cattle producers and beef industry advocates can become “an army of one” in this fight too. For starters, download our “7 Things You Didn’t Know About PCRM” at http://www.tinyurl.com/PCRM7things.

When Mark Twain wrote, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on,” he had no way of foreseeing how the Internet, coupled with TV and radio broadcasts, would make his statement literally true. Research continues to show that activists’ tall tales about beef and cancer diagnoses are just that – tall tales. But rather than just play a futile “he said, she said” game with animal-rights zealots, the smart play is to take the fight to them.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is working overtime to marginalize the credibility of anti-beef activists everywhere they’re found. Keeping them off the air – or at least forcing them to pay for their airtime like everyone else – is one step in the right direction.

Activist Activity

Charitable donations to animal rights groups
increase 11 percent in 2007

by Philip Lobo, Communications Director – Animal Agriculture Alliance

Key Points As an industry, groups with anti-agriculture animal rights programs generated about $330 million dollars in 2007, up 11 percent from the previous year. Revenue spending was relatively moderate, causing assets of the industry to balloon from about $387 million to $508 million, a 31 percent increase. Notably, donations to extreme animal rights group PETA increased about 11 percent in 2007 Total assets for groups with animal rights and anti-animal agriculture programs increased 31 percent.

Summary

According to the 2008 Animal People Watchdog Report on 150 Animal Charities, charitable donations to animal rights groups increased 11 percent in 2007, which is the most recent available data. This money provides activist groups with more funds to develop wide-ranging activities such as California’s Proposition 2, undercover video operations, legislative initiatives and legal actions. One of the largest increases in donations was to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which increased donations 11 percent in 2007.

Background

The Animal People Watchdog Report on 150 Animal Charities reviews animal charity budgets based on the required Internal Revenue Service Form 990. The Watchdog Report reviews include mainstream animal protection groups like the African Wildlife Foundation, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy, as well as more radical animal rights groups like PETA, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Farm Sanctuary and Compassion Over Killing. Notably, some of the most radical groups like Animal Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Hugs for Puppies and Animal Defense League are not included because they did not file tax documents.

Donations grow 11 percent

As an industry, groups with anti-agriculture animal rights programs generated about $330 million dollars in 2007, up 11 percent from the previous year. Revenue spending was relatively moderate, causing assets of the industry to balloon from about $387 million to $508 million, a 31 percent increase.

Donations to Humane Society for the United States (HSUS), the largest animal-rights activist group in the United States, remained about the same as last year when including subsidiary organizations the Fund for Animals and Doris Day Animal League (DDAL). However, HSUS’ assets increased about 5 percent, leaving this giant anti-animal agriculture group with about $205 million in assets – a full two years and four months of reserves to cover its $86 million annual budget.

Notably, PETA posted a solid increase of about 11 percent. Animal People estimates that donations to PETA were approximately $29 million. This estimate includes PETA’s largest related organization, the Foundation to Support Animal Protection. Having the two organizations operate in tandem and attributing costs to a different organization has the effect of concealing the true nature of PETA’s spending and assets. These same experts estimate that PETA’s adjusted overhead expense during the year was about $10.6 million, about 35 percent of the budget.

The misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has adopted a similar model involving about four organizations. Animal People estimates that between PCRM and its related organizations, the PCRM Foundation, the Cancer Project and Washington Center for Clinical Research, funds raised appear to have been about $7.5 million. PCRM founder and long-time vegan activist, Neal Barnard, heads all four organizations. Fundraising costs for PCRM and affiliates were estimated at about $2.4 million, or 32 percent of revenues.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals boosted its total income by 80 percent to $33.4 million, making it the third-largest activist group targeting modern animal agriculture. The World Society for the Protection of Animals’ assets also increased dramatically – expanding 83 percent to $14.5 million. The group does not have a policy advocating veganism or vegetarianism, though it opposes some important husbandry practices and leads an international activist campaign targeting farm animal transportation.

Among other well-known animal rights groups, donations to Farm Sanctuary increased 14 percent to $5.1 million. The Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals saw revenue increase 2 percent and net assets increase 57 percent. Other groups with anti-animal agriculture campaigns showing double-digit gains include EarthJustice, Humane Farming Association and Farm Animal Reform Movement.

Activists’ assets expand

In addition to revenue increases for groups with animal rights and anti-animal agriculture programs, total assets for such groups increased 31 percent. Only two animal rights groups with assets over $1 million experienced asset declines. Six of the 10 largest animal rights groups experienced double-digit increases in assets. Four groups, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals and Animal Acres, registered triple-digit increases in assets.

HSUS allocates more to legislation campaigns

Analysis of the HSUS financial report shows the organization allocated an additional 56 percent ($9.85 million) to the “Campaigns, Litigation and Legislation” portion of its budget in 2007. Actual dollars allocated to this budget line increased from $11.4 million in 2005 to $27.4 million in 2007. The generalized nature of this portion of the budget, previously composed of “cruelty investigations and regional offices,” “legal assistance, litigation and government relations,” and “laboratory bioethics and farm animals,” makes it harder to interpret the HSUS agenda.

HSUS increased its “Animal Care Facilities” budget by 10.5 percent or $70,000, indicating an attempt to clean-up its image. Notably, funding for “International Animal Programs” declined 9.6 percent and “Wildlife Programs” declined 5 percent in 2007. However, the total funding still dedicated to those sectors were $8 million and $11.8 million, respectively – hardly insignificant amounts. Importantly, HSUS still does not dedicate any money to research to find solutions to the animal welfare issues it claims are problems on American farms.

The beef industry’s checkoff-funded issues management program supports the Animal Agriculture Alliance in its efforts to provide a united voice for those involved in the animal agriculture and food industries, communicating science-based information to a broad-based audience of consumers and media.

Activist Activity

Given/Earned	2007 ($millions)	2006 ($millions)	Change
Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International/Fund for Animals/DDAL*	130.0	130.2	0%
Massachusetts SPCA	47.9	46.9	2%
World Society for the Protection of Animals**	33.5	18.6	80%
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)/Foundation to Support Animal Protection (FSAP)***	28.9	26.0	11%
EarthJustice	23.1	19.5	18%
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)	18.4	18.4	0%
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)/PCRM Foundation/Cancer Project/WCCR†	7.5	7.0	7%
Farm Sanctuary	5.1	4.5	13%
Compassion in World Farming	4.9	3.0	63%
Center for Constitutional Rights††	4.7	5.6	-16%
Friends of Animals (FoA)	4.7	5.6	-16%
Animal Legal Defense Fund	3.5	3.8	-8%
Animal Welfare Institute	2.9	2.9	0%
In Defense of Animals	2.8	3.7	-25%
Humane Farming Association	2.4	2.1	14%
Animal Protection Institute	1.7	3.3	-47%
Animal Acres	1.5	0.3	400%
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI)†††	1.4	1.2	17%
Animal Place†††	1.0	0.6	67%
Animal People	0.7	0.5	40%
Humane Farm Animal Care	0.6	0.6	0%
Doris Day Animal Foundation (DDAF)	0.6	0.4	50%
Farm Animal Reform Movement	0.4	0.5	-16%
Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT)	0.4	0.6	-32%
Compassion Over Killing	0.4	0.4	0%
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights	0.3	0.4	-25%
United Poultry Concerns	0.1	0.1	0%
Mercy for Animals†††	0.1	N/A
International Society for Animal Rights	0.1	0.2	-50%

*-Includes Humane Society of the United States, Fund for Animals and Doris Day Animal League.

**-Includes WSPA Global and WSPA U.S.

***-Includes PETA and the Foundation to Support Animal Protection (FSAP)

†-Includes PCRM, the PCRM Foundation, the Cancer Project and Washington Center for Clinical Research (WCCR).

††-The Center for Constitutional Rights recently joined the campaign against the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), so it is not available from the Watchdog Report. Numbers appear as reported on Charity Navigator, a third-party charity evaluation site.

†††-Numbers for this group were not available from the Watchdog Report. Numbers appear as reported on Charity Navigator, a third-party charity evaluation site.

 

Assets	2007 ($millions)	2006 ($millions)	Change
Humane Society of the United States/Fund for Animals/DDAL	204.8	195.0	5%
Massachusetts SPCA	108.8	69.1	57%
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)/ Foundation to Support Animal Protection (FSAP)	34.5	31.9	8%
EarthJustice	33.2	22.4	48%
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)	31.4	21.6	45%
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)	16.3	7.9	106%
Animal Welfare Institute	14.6	13.9	5%
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)/ PCRM Foundation/Cancer Project/WCCR	12.1	12.3	-2%
Humane Farming Association	8.0	4.5	77%
Friends of Animals (FoA)	6.1	5.4	13%
Farm Sanctuary	5.9	2.0	195%
Center for Constitutional Rights	5.5	5.4	2%
Compassion in World Farming (UK)	4.2	N/A
Animal Protection Institute	3.9	3.7	5%
Animal Legal Defense Fund	3.8	3.3	15%
In Defense of Animals	3.6	1.8	100%
International Society for Animal Rights	3.0	2.8	7%
Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT)	1.8	1.9	-5%
Animal Acres	1.4	0.1	1300%
Animal Place	1.3	1.0	30%
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement	1.2	1.2	0%
Farm Animal Reform Movement	0.8	0.8	0%
Doris Day Animal Foundation	0.5	0.2	150%
Compassion Over Killing	0.4	0.3	33%
Association of Vets for Animal Rights	0.3	0.4	-19%
United Poultry Concerns	0.1	0.1	0%
Humane Farm Animal Care	0.1	0.1	0%
Mercy for Animals	0.1	N/A
Animal People	0.1	0.1	0%

Enhanced feed ban rule effective April 2009

by Elizabeth Parker, DVM, Chief Veterinarian – NCBA

Key Points FDA issued a final rule, “Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed,” which affects additional feed ban requirements that FDA states are intended to further strengthen existing safeguards against BSE NCBA has opposed this rule since the original proposal was published in 2005, due to its failure to pass a cost/benefit analysis and the lack of statistically valid improvements to animal health and food safety. Recently, the beef industry, FDA, The National Renderers Association and the National Milk Producers Federation took part in a Webinar session for state affiliates about compliance with the enhanced feed ban. The session gave participants the opportunity to learn more about what FDA will require in the new regulations and how renderers intend to implement it. NCBA continues to oppose the enhanced feed ban and is working to ensure that its implementation causes the least possible burden for producers.

Summary

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on April 25, 2008, published a final rule “Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed.” The rule addresses additional feed ban requirements which FDA states are intended to further strengthen existing safeguards against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The final rule amends FDA’s existing regulations to prohibit the use of certain cattle origin materials in the food or feed of all animals. The final rule is effective April 27, 2009.

Background

On April 25, 2008, FDA published in the Federal Register a final rule entitled “Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed.” This rule finalizes a proposed rule that the FDA issued for public comment in 2005 regarding additional feed ban requirements, which FDA states are intended to further strengthen existing safeguards against BSE. The final rule is slightly modified from the October 2005 proposed rule on which the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association submitted comments.

The final rule amends FDA’s existing regulations to prohibit the use of certain cattle origin materials in the food or feed of all animals. These prohibited materials include the following:

• The entire carcass of BSE-positive cattle;
• The brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older;
• The entire carcass of cattle not inspected and passed for human consumption that are 30 months of age or older from which brains and spinal cords were not removed;
• Tallow that is derived from BSE positive cattle;
• Tallow that is derived from other materials prohibited by this rule that contains more than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities; and
• Mechanically separated beef that is derived from the materials prohibited by this rule.

The rule does not include poultry litter, plate waste or fertilizer. These alternatives were discussed in FDA’s 2004 Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking, which the October 2005 proposed rule was partially based on; Canada currently does have prohibitions regarding these three areas.

The final rule is effective on April 27, 2009, approximately 12 months from date of publication in order to allow the livestock, meat, rendering and feed industries time to adapt their practices to comply with the new regulation.

FDA believes that the presence of certain cattle-derived risk materials in the non-ruminant feed supply presents a potential source of exposure in the United States. This rule minimizes the residual BSE risks not eliminated by the 1997 feed ban if cross-contamination of ruminant feed, or diversions of non-ruminant feeds to ruminants, were to occur.

However, the limited potential safety gains this rule would enable are far outweighed by the negative consequences of cost as well as exacerbating already existing disposal problems.

Over the past two decades, industry and government have worked together to put in place science-based measures which have proven successful in preventing and reducing the spread of BSE in the United States. We must continue to look to the science to avoid over-regulating the industry and creating policy that doesn’t meet our objective of a safer animal health system.

The U.S. government continues to maintain firewalls to ensure U.S. cattle are protected from BSE. In 1997, FDA banned feeding cattle the type of animal-derived protein that can spread BSE. International experts agree that a feed ban breaks the cycle of BSE and assures it will be eliminated. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s robust BSE surveillance program has demonstrated the U.S. cattle herd has an extremely low level of risk from BSE. In May of 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health designated the United States as a controlled risk country for BSE. Furthermore, the incidence of BSE worldwide has dramatically decreased due to the many measures put into place internationally, including a series of interlocking safeguards and mitigation practices.

The industry recently hosted a Webinar for state affiliates about compliance with the enhanced feed ban. FDA, the National Renderers Association and the National Milk Producers Federation all took part in the session, which gave participants the opportunity to learn more about what FDA will require in the new regulations and how renderers intend to implement it.

The Key Points in this article are funded by NCBA dues dollars and other non-checkoff funding sources.

Animal Health/Well-being

Industry calls for government to take science-based approach to animal health regulations

by Elizabeth Parker, DVM, Chief Veterinarian & Heather Vaughan, Associate Director, Public Affairs – NCBA

Key Points NCBA supports the rights of producers and processors to use marketing claims to promote their products to meet specific consumer demands. Both consumers and producers need to have clear, uniform standards for the production and marketing of such products. NCBA supports marketing or labeling claims that distinguish the uniqueness of a product aimed toward a particular consumer desire – including product characteristics that are based on production methods. NCBA does not support claims that are either false or misleading to the consumer or claims that disparage one type of beef product for the perceived gain of another. In comments submitted to APHIS regarding the declaration of Texas as Brucellosis Class Free, NCBA applauded the achievement and outlined critical areas for continued efforts to protect the U.S. cattle herd, including surveillance and eliminating the disease in the free-ranging elk and bison populations in the Greater Yellowstone Area. NCBA strongly supports the exclusion from the commercial food supply of any disabled cattle that may be diseased or that could represent a threat to the safety or quality of the food supply. Additionally, NCBA fully supports strict compliance with and enforcement of the existing Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. In comments submitted to FSIS regarding disposition of cattle that become non-ambulatory following ante-mortem inspection, NCBA advocated for a custom slaughter exemption for personal use of an otherwise healthy animal that has suffered an acute injury to prevent financial losses to small producers. NCBA supports the use of new technologies that are scientifically proven and supports a strong science-based regulatory framework for GE animals. NCBA appreciated the collaboration between FDA and APHIS in developing guidance documents for GE animals and welcomed these documents as starting points for discussions of how GE animals should be appropriately regulated

Summary

Numerous federal regulatory procedures addressed animal health issues and marketing claims related to production practices in 2008. Animal health is important to safe, quality beef, and the industry works to ensure government agencies’ policies for animal health issues and marketing claims reflect sound science.

Background

Importation of cattle from Mexico

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) added an additional port in San Luis, Ariz, through which certain cattle from Mexico may be imported into the United States. APHIS also removed provisions that limited the admission of cattle to Texas that have been infested with fever ticks. These changes will make an additional port of entry available – significantly decreasing the amount of miles many imported cattle are currently being hauled, lowering stress on the cattle and decreasing energy and transportation costs.

Comments submitted to APHIS in support of the rule stressed that certain provisions must be met in order to adequately protect U.S. herds from disease. These conditions include the continued prohibition of movement of these cattle into tick quarantine zones in Texas and full implementation and funding of the National Strategic Plan for the Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program for 2006-2011. 

Standards for livestock and meat marketing claims

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a proposed rule regarding naturally raised claims for livestock and the meat and meat products derived from such livestock. The rule intended to recognize that “there are a growing number of entities that wish to capture value-added opportunities via alternative production methods to meet the demands of consumers seeking meat and meat products from naturally raised livestock.”

Recognizing the growing need for both consumers and producers to have a clear, uniform standard for the marketing of niche products, including those based on production methods, comments submitted called for government standards to be truthful and non-disparaging; sending clear messages that have meaning to consumers and clear signals for the production marketplace. All U.S. beef is safe, wholesome and of the highest quality, and all products should be defended equally. Different labeling standards will likely confuse consumers, thus, consistency across all government labeling programs is also desired. The final rule is pending.

Brucellosis in cattle

On Feb. 1, 2008, APHIS declared Texas Brucellosis Class Free. This status is the culmination of decades of hard work, dedication and investment of time, resources and finances of the U.S. cattle industry, and state and federal governments. Comments submitted to APHIS regarding this issue, while applauding the achievement, outlined critical areas for continued efforts to protect the U.S. cattle herd, including surveillance and eliminating the disease in the free-ranging elk and bison populations in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Implementing the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program

USDA’s Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service solicited input regarding implementing regulations for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program. Congress designed this program to help ease the shortage of veterinarians in rural areas, encourage more veterinarians to go into food animal practice, retain food animal veterinarians in rural practices and help better protect our nation’s livestock herds. Submitted comments requested USDA carry out the intent of the program when implementing the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program and focus resources on food animal veterinarians in rural areas. The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service continues to work on development of implementing regulations.

Minimum age requirements for the transport of animals

USDA proposed “no animal (other than birds), unless being transported in the same enclosure as its mother or documented surrogate mother, shall be delivered by any person to any carrier or intermediate handler for transportation in commerce, or be transported in commerce by any person unless such animal has been weaned and is at least eight weeks of age.” While this proposed rule only affected animals currently under the Animal Welfare Act (which currently only includes livestock utilized for research purposes), the rule set a poor public policy precedent by placing arbitrary restrictions on the movement of animals less than eight weeks of age without any scientific basis. No facts were presented for the problem to be addressed, nor did the proposal articulate how this regulatory action would ensure a successful outcome and the improved welfare of the Animal Welfare Act’s currently covered species.

Comments submitted to APHIS regarding the proposal argued for a scientifically based, more appropriate public policy approach. This more focused proposal would provide a substantive analysis of the level of failures in the existing transportation of regulated species below the age of eight weeks in each species to which APHIS intends to apply such requirements. Such a proposal would also take into account all of the parameters needed to properly address safe transport, including, but not limited to, species-specific biological requirements. A final rule has not been published.

Requirements for the Disposition of Cattle That Become Non-Ambulatory Disabled Following Ante-Mortem Inspection

This reactionary and unscientific USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) proposed rule would provide a blanket ban on processing all non-ambulatory cattle by removing the ability for re-inspection if an animal became non-ambulatory after passing initial ante-mortem inspection. Submitted comments indicated support for exclusion of any disabled cattle from the commercial food supply that may be diseased or that could represent a threat to the safety or quality of the food supply and support for strict compliance and accurate, complete and consistent enforcement of the existing Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. However, to prevent financial losses to small producers, comments also advocated for a custom slaughter exemption for personal use of an otherwise healthy animal that has suffered an acute injury. A final rule is pending.

New Animal Drugs; Cephalosporin Drugs; Extralabel Animal Drug Use; Order of Prohibition

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed a ban on extra-label drug use of all classes of cephalosporins. Comments opposed the proposal, instead supporting the responsible use of antimicrobials in cattle production including, when necessary, the use of approved antimicrobials in an extra-label manner in accordance with the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act. The proposed rule made arbitrary assumptions by ordering a blanket prohibition of all extra-label drug use of all classes of cephalosporins in all food-producing animals. This proposed action contradicts government standards by applying the precautionary principle to a regulatory action instead of basing actions on sound science, risk assessment, hazard characterization, exposure assessment and risk characterization. FDA subsequently rescinded the rule and is currently further evaluating the issue.

Animal raising claims in labeling of meat and poultry products

In comments submitted to FSIS on evaluating and approving animal raising claims on labels, support was extended for marketing or labeling claims that distinguish the uniqueness of a product aimed toward a particular consumer desire – including product characteristics that are based on production methods. Claims that are either false or misleading to the consumer or claims that disparage one type of beef product for the perceived gain of another are not supported as all U.S. beef is safe, wholesome and of the highest quality.

U.S. government agencies are encouraged to harmonize this effort across all agencies and Departments that have jurisdiction over meat product marketing labels. Additionally government labels should not create inequities between species or within species. This can be achieved by clearly defined parameters for animal raising claims. FSIS continues to work with AMS on this issue.

Information on and regulation of genetically engineered animals

FDA and APHIS have complimentary roles in overseeing genetically engineered (GE) animals; FDA published draft guidance for industry regulation of GE animals and APHIS published a request for information on GE animals, both for public input. Comments to both FDA and APHIS contained the same essential underlying principles on GE animals, supporting innovative science and technology that improves the cattle herd, improves the genetics of cattle, and uses all available responsibly-approved tools to continually enhance beef producers’ ability to provide safe, healthy, nutritious and affordable cattle and beef. Additionally, the use of new, scientifically-proven technologies and a strong science-based regulatory framework for GE animals also is supported. The welcome collaboration that generated these documents is a starting point for discussions about how GE animals should be appropriately regulated.

FDA is responsible for ensuring that the products of GE animals are safe and do what they are intended. APHIS has a strong history of providing a science-based regulatory framework for plant biotechnology and is tasked with protecting the health of U.S. livestock. This invaluable experience should be utilized by both agencies as they work together to complete the U.S. government coordinated regulatory framework for biotechnology.

It is vital that the U.S. government provide a clear and transparent, science-based and risk-based, well coordinated regulatory framework in order to ensure both animal and human health. It is also necessary to assure producers, consumers and trading partners that any animals or products approved utilizing this promising technology have been thoroughly evaluated. Furthermore, we need to ensure that systems are in place to monitor and evaluate all aspects as this technology progresses. It is also vital to make clearly articulated government requirements available to technology providers, thereby avoiding confusion and avoiding unjustifiable inhibition for continued research and technology advances.

This article is funded by NCBA dues dollars and other non-checkoff funding sources.

Animal Health/Well-being

Higher protein, beef-based diet reduces cardiovascular disease risk

by Shalene McNeill, Ph.D., R.D., Executive Director, Human Nutrition Research – NCBA

Key Points Obesity is a leading nutrition and health issue, and effective dietary interventions are needed to address this growing problem in nutrition. Higher protein, calorie controlled diets that substitute protein for refined carbohydrate have been shown to improve weight management, blood lipids, insulin sensitivity and blood sugar control. A study, partially funded by The Beef Checkoff, concluded weight loss diets with protein levels double the levels recommended in USDA’s MyPyramid result in favorable outcomes associated with weight management, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease.

Summary

Research demonstrating the health benefits of consuming a higher protein, beef-based diet continues to accumulate. Key findings of a beef checkoff-funded study recently published in the November 2008 issue of the scientific journal, Nutrition and Metabolism, conclude weight loss diets with protein levels double the levels recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) MyPyramid result in favorable outcomes associated with weight management, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Background

With 61 million Americans considered obese, obesity is a leading nutrition and health issue. Among other health risks, obesity is a significant risk factor for CVD. This is due, at least in part, to the abnormal blood lipid levels such as triglycerides and cholesterol associated with overweight and obese individuals. Obesity also increases the risk of metabolic syndrome, a combination of medical disorders that together increase a person’s risk for developing CVD and diabetes.

Research linking higher carbohydrate, lower protein diets to certain types of abnormal blood lipid profiles related to CVD are beginning to accumulate. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of two weight loss diets differing in carbohydrate to protein ratio on blood lipids and insulin sensitivity that would relate to the risk of developing CVD and metabolic syndrome in obese individuals.

Checkoff-funded study compares conventional diet to diet higher in protein

The manuscript, entitled “Moderate carbohydrate, moderate protein weight loss diet reduces cardiovascular disease risk compared to high carbohydrate, low protein diet in obese adults: A randomized clinical trial” was published in the November issue of the journal Nutrition & Metabolism. The study was co-conducted by checkoff-funded researcher, Donald K. Layman, PhD.

This study compared a moderate carbohydrate, moderate protein weight loss diet (PRO) to a high carbohydrate, low protein diet (CHO) in overweight/obese adults to evaluate the metabolic effects of each, specifically related to insulin and cholesterol response. The CHO diet was chosen as a comparison because it is the conventionally accepted USDA MyPyramid Food Guide diet. That diet emphasizes restricting dietary fat and cholesterol with use of whole grain breads, rice, cereals and pasta (55% carbohydrate, 15% protein and 30% fat), while the PRO diet emphasizes the use of high-quality proteins, including lean beef, dairy and eggs (40% carbohydrate, 30% protein and 30% fat).

The PRO diet contained double the amount of the current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for grams of protein, or 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. The CHO diet was set at the RDA, which is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. The essential difference between the two diets is the PRO diet replaces refined grain/starch with protein food. Both diets include 5 servings of vegetables and 2-3 servings of fruit per day and have similar amounts of calories, total fat intake and fiber. Macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein and fat) for both diets fell within well established nutrition guidelines such as the Institute of Medicine’s Dietary Reference Intakes Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range. These diets were tested in 50 obese males and females.

Higher protein diet reduces disease risk

The study found when overweight/obese adults followed the PRO diet, as compared to the CHO diet, they lost more weight; specifically, they had a greater reduction in percent fat mass. In addition, those following the PRO diet also had reduced risk for metabolic disease, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease by significantly lowering triglycerides, increasing HDL-cholesterol (good cholesterol) and improving insulin sensitivity.

This study adds to a growing body of evidence that supports the role of diets with higher protein and lower carbohydrate on weight management and reduced disease risk. Other recently published studies have included “Exploring the Impact of High-Quality Protein on Optimal Health” a supplement published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) and “The effect of dietary protein intake on coronary heart disease risk,” a study published in the Nutrition Bulletin.

Diet/Health/Nutrition

Research projects conducted to determine affect of feeding ethanol co-products on beef quality

by Bridget Wasser, M.S., Director, Product Enhancement Research – NCBA

Key Points The U.S. fuel ethanol industry has experienced expansion, resulting in a substantial supply of ethanol co-products (i.e., distiller’s grains) that can be used as substitutes for traditional cereal grains in cattle diets. The beef checkoff funded four research projects to determine the impact of feeding relatively high levels of ethanol co-products on beef and product quality. Distiller’s grains inclusion generally did not have a negative impact on marbling score. This body of work revealed a potential issue with reduced color and flavor stability resulting in reduced shelf-life. This issue is a direct result of changes in fatty acid composition and will be explored further in future research.

Summary

The U.S. fuel ethanol industry has experienced expansion, resulting in a substantial supply of ethanol co-products (i.e., distiller’s grains) that can be used as substitutes for traditional cereal grains in cattle diets. A checkoff-funded summit, “Ethanol Co-Products – Beef Product Implications,” was held in November of 2006 with researchers to develop a summary of existing research and establish future research needs. In response to these identified needs, the beef checkoff funded four research projects to determine the impact of feeding relatively high levels of ethanol co-products on beef and product quality.

Background

It is critical to consider when reviewing these four projects that significant factors such as diet, breed and region varied between each study. In addition, these projects represent a snapshot of the cattle population and a snapshot in time.

University of Nebraska

The first project was conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and evaluated the impact of feeding wet distiller’s grains with solubles (WDGS) on fatty acid content, intramuscular fat and marbling score, oxidation, color and off-flavor. In the study, the overall amounts of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids do not change when WDGS are fed to cattle. However, fatty acid composition can change and this study demonstrated a 40 percent-50 percent increase in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Researchers also found that feeding up to 50 percent of WDGS on a dry matter basis did not harm marbling score.

The higher level PUFAs in lean beef from cattle fed wet distiller’s grains can result in more rapid oxidation during retail display. As a result, color stability can be compromised and shelf-life reduced by 10 percent-50 percent depending on the muscle studied and the length of storage. Feeding vitamin E at 500 international (IU)/head/day for the duration of the finishing period has been shown to reduce the negative effects of feeding wet distiller’s grains. Ongoing studies will determine the amount of vitamin E necessary to obtain a beneficial effect.

Kansas State University

The second study was conducted by researchers at Kansas State University and compared the quality, composition and flavor attributes of beef from cattle fed traditional diets to beef from cattle fed diets containing dried distiller’s grains with solubles (DDGS) as a substitute for corn.

Carcass weight and quality grade were similar for cattle fed diets with and without DDGS. Yield grades increased when DDGS were substituted for steam-flaked corn, but this effect was reversed by adding dry-rolled corn to the diet.

Feeding DDGS resulted in small but statistically significant decreases in the proportion of palmitic acid and statistically greater concentrations of the trans-10, cis-12 form of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Both of these specific fatty acids are often linked with nutrition and health.

Vitamin E concentrations were lower in beef from cattle fed diets containing DDGS, but these decreases were insufficient to cause changes in detectable oxidative flavors or in the color stability of beef during a seven-day retail display period in this study.

Purdue University

Researchers at Purdue University were responsible for conducting the third study to evaluate steers fed different levels of DDGS and different levels of added fat and protein. No differences were detected in the percentage of cattle obtaining a quality grade of USDA Choice or Prime. However, steers fed a corn-based diet with DDGS included at 25 percent of dry matter had both greater marbling scores and quality grade compared with steers fed similar diets with elevated crude protein and fat.

Steers fed 25 percent DDGS graded well, averaging modest levels of marbling and 90.5 percent of the carcasses grading either Choice or Prime. However, contrasts show elevating crude protein and fat levels in the diet reduced marbling scores by 8.5 percent and quality grade scores by more than 0.5 units, but did not reduce the percentage of carcasses grading Choice or Prime when compared with cattle fed 25 percent DDGS.

Texas AgriLife Research

The fourth study was completed by researchers at Texas AgriLife Research in Amarillo, Texas, to investigate the effects of feeding 35 percent WDGS to steers consuming diets made up of steam-flaked and dry-rolled corn. Steers consuming steam-flaked corn-based diets had increased activity of the enzyme malate dehydrogenase, a key enzyme in fat deposition. Also, the addition of WDGS may have decreased the activity of the delta-9 desaturase enzyme, which is responsible for desaturating fatty acids. As a result, beef from cattle fed WDGS was higher in saturated and lower in monounsaturated fatty acids relative to cattle fed diets without WDGS.

Researchers found no clear evidence to suggest that WDGS negatively impacts marbling. Steaks from steers fed dry-rolled corn were juicier and more tender compared to steaks from steers fed steam-flaked corn when there were no WDGS in the diet. However, when WDGS were added to the diet, the differences in tenderness and juiciness tended to go away. Therefore, it is unlikely that consumers could detect differences in palatability attributes due to WDGS inclusions in the cattle finishing diet.

Steaks from steers fed WDGS were darker in color and susceptible to lipid oxidation after five days of refrigerated, aerobic storage. This can affect retailers as it may limit the amount of time beef from cattle fed high levels of distiller’s grains can be displayed in a retail case.

When considering this body of work, distiller’s grains inclusion generally did not have a negative impact on marbling score. However, this work revealed a potential issue with reduced color and flavor stability resulting in reduced beef shelf-life. This issue is a direct result of changes in fatty acid composition and will be explored further in future research.

A full executive summary highlighting the results from these four studies is available for download by visiting http://www.beefresarch.org.

Beef Safety/Quality

Food safety legislation possible in 2009

by Kristina Butts, Manager, Legislative Affairs & Stephen Myers, Manager, Reputation Communications – NCBA

Key Points The Obama administration is believed to be receptive to food safety overhaul legislation. Congressional proponents of food safety reform legislation are well-placed to advance their priorities. Urgent issues like the economic crisis, however, will take precedence in Congress over food safety reform.

Summary

Food safety issues received more exposure than ever before in 2008, and with a new presidential administration and a new Congress, the conditions may be right for food safety reform legislation to advance. However, the urgent need for Congress and the administration to address economic issues may leave little time or funding for food safety proposals in the coming year.

Background

With the largest beef recall in U.S. history, reports of mercury contamination in fish and new doubts about the safety of imported food products, 2008 saw increasing consumer concern directed toward food safety issues. As attention to food safety issues has increased, it has added to the existing calls for reform of the U.S. food safety regulatory system.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has borne the brunt of criticism from food safety overhaul proponents, most recently in the wake of reports related to melamine-contaminated food products from China and Salmonella-contaminated jalapeno peppers from Mexico. In response to these incidents, FDA has opened three field offices in China, and late last year announced a plan to switch from random food safety inspections to risk-based, targeted inspections of food-producing facilities.

However, these changes have done little to silence critics of the U.S. food safety system. While most of the critics suggested reforms are not new, like creation of a single food safety agency, increased federal funding for food safety programs and mandatory recall authority, the new presidential administration and the shift in balance of power in Congress may mean the conditions are right for food safety overhaul proposals to be placed on the national legislative agenda.

The Obama administration is generally viewed as receptive to food safety overhaul legislation. During his time in the Senate, President Obama introduced his own food safety reform bill, S. 3358, the Improving Food-borne Illness Surveillance and Response Act of 2008. President Obama also indicated in a statement from the campaign trail last year that: “When I am President, it will not be business as usual when it comes to food safety. I will provide additional resources to hire more federal food inspectors. I will also call on the Department of Agriculture to examine whether federal food safety laws need to be strengthened, in particular to provide greater protections against tainted food being used in the National School Lunch Program.”

On Capitol Hill, key proponents of food safety overhaul legislation are well-positioned to advance their priorities in the 111th Congress. Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, an active and vocal supporter of food safety reform, was recently re-elected to his post as assistant majority leader in the Senate. Durbin is also believed to be a close ally of President Obama. In the House of Representatives, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a long-time critic of FDA and the food safety system, continues to chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture.

However, the outlook for food safety overhaul legislation remains murky despite otherwise favorable circumstances. Congressional attention is likely to be focused on issues surrounding the ongoing economic crisis, including economic stimulus, job creation, and health care. With so many high-profile issues on the agenda, there may be little time or money left to be spent on food safety reform. As reported in the Baltimore Sun, Sen. Durbin said that food safety legislation “…is an issue that will have to wait its turn.”

But with a Salmonella outbreak in peanut butter already making the first food safety incident of 2009, it is important to remember that another high-profile year in food safety may keep this issue at the top of legislators’ minds.

Offsets offer opportunity for new source of income

by Tamara McCann Thies, Chief Environmental Counsel – NCBA

Key Points Agriculture is in a unique position to offer major benefits to regulated industries that would lower their costs of GHG compliance with any cap-and-trade program passed by Congress. Agriculture can create readily available carbon offsets to sell to the regulated industry by sequestering carbon in soil and reducing emissions from animal digestive processes and manure. Offsets benefit agricultural operations when they are sold to regulated industry at market prices. Offsets under a mandatory cap-and-trade program will be required to be “real, surplus (additional), verifiable, permanent and enforceable.” Market prices for offsets under a mandatory program will be higher than market prices under the current voluntary program.

Summary

Agriculture can play an important role in a market-based climate change cap-and-trade program by creating “offsets” that would reduce costs for regulated industries. Selling offsets to regulated industries would provide the agriculture sector with an important new source of income.

Background

Scientific studies show that greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere every year. Many scientists from around the world believe this buildup is caused largely by human activity, is leading to climate change, and that countries must take action now to reverse the buildup. Other scientists believe that climate change is caused by natural phenomena and cannot be reversed by regulatory action. Regardless of which scientists are correct, the Obama administration and Congress have made legislation to reduce GHG emissions a priority. Legislative action to create an economy-wide, emissions cap-and-trade system to cut GHG emissions is likely to affect all sectors of the U.S economy, including agriculture.

The entire agricultural sector of the economy is a relatively minor source of GHG emissions. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2006, agriculture represented only 6.4 percent of total GHG emissions in the United States. Methane and nitrous oxide are the primary GHGs emitted by the agricultural sector. In agriculture, methane is emitted largely from the digestive systems of livestock and from anaerobic lagoons. Nitrous oxide is produced by biological processes that occur in soil and water, and by fertilization, livestock manure, retention of crop residues, irrigation and tillage practices, among other agricultural sources.

Agriculture is in a unique position to offer major benefits to regulated industries that would lower their costs of compliance with any cap set by Congress and, at the same time, provide significant financial benefits to agriculture operations. Agriculture can benefit regulated industry by creating voluntary “carbon offsets,” which are reductions in GHG emissions that are achieved to compensate for, or offset GHG emissions occurring at regulated sources. In a cap-and-trade system, carbon offsets allow emissions from regulated sources to increase above levels set by the cap, on the premise that those increases are compensated by reductions achieved at unregulated sources. Offsets benefit agriculture operations when they are sold to regulated industry at market prices.

Carbon offsets can be created by the agriculture sector in several ways, including sequestering carbon in agricultural lands and reducing emissions from animal’s digestive systems and their manure. Carbon sequestration is the process of taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it in natural “sinks” in the Earth. EPA estimates that agriculture and forestry lands can sequester 20 percent of all annual GHG emissions in the United States. While research is being conducted to finds new ways to increase carbon storage in soils, it is currently known that carbon soil sequestration can be accomplished by a number of means including:

• no-till or reduced till systems
• increased crop rotation intensity by eliminating summer fallow
• buffer strips
• conservation measures to reduce soil erosion
• using higher residue crops such as corn sorghum and wheat
• using cover crops
• improving forage quality on grazing lands
• regular use of prescribed burning to increase forage productivity
• and reduced overgrazing.

Methane emissions can be reduced from livestock digestive systems by dietary modifications and from anaerobic digesters by investing in covers and generating renewable sources of energy. Nitrous oxide can be reduced by manure gasification projects and using manure as a fertilizer. It is anticipated that producers who implement one or more of these practices would be able to sell carbon credits to regulated industry at market prices.

Apart from any legislative activity, there currently exists a voluntary global market for carbon offsets to meet voluntary demand for GHG emission reductions. The voluntary offset market is driven by companies and persons seeking to help mitigate climate change outside of any regulatory obligation to do so. Although the market is growing, it has struggled with a lack of consistent standards on what constitutes a credible offset.

In order to receive credits for offset projects under a mandatory cap-and-trade program, project owners will have to demonstrate that they have reduced emissions according to specific predefined rules and procedures. Specifically, offsets will be required to be “real, surplus (or additional), verifiable, permanent and enforceable.” While interpretations of these criteria vary, advocates believe they are essential to maintain the integrity of an emissions trading system. Debate on the meaning of these terms is currently ongoing. Market prices for offsets in a mandatory market are anticipated to be much higher than under the voluntary market.

It is uncertain how Congress and the new administration will treat the agriculture sector under a cap-and-trade program. They could decide to regulate it, enable it to be a provider of offsets, or a combination of both.

Environment

Dairy industry launches sustainability initiative

by David Pelzer, Senior Vice President, Industry Image and Relations – Dairy Management Inc.

Key Points In 2008, Dairy Management Inc. – together with National Milk Producers Federation and International Dairy Foods Association – launched an industrywide sustainability initiative to document the long-standing environmental stewardship of the industry and identify new best management practices in order to reduce the dairy industry’s carbon footprint and add business value. The Sustainability Initiative helps ensure the continued viability of the U.S. dairy industry by showing its economic, social, and environmental value to society. The initiative builds public trust by highlighting the industry’s commitment to responsible practices. Consumers, retailers, other key dairy buyers and policymakers are asking what the dairy industry is doing to cut energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. Answering this will help enhance dairy’s reputation with customers and will favorably position products with consumers in light of changing expectation. It will also provide an opportunity to increase business value through efficiencies. The dairy industry already is environmentally responsible. The industry is determining the current extent of its carbon footprint. Because existing estimates do not adequately account for the specifics of the U.S. dairy production system, the U.S. dairy industry is undertaking its own science-based study to review greenhouse gas emission sources across the fluid milk value chain in order to quantify the life cycle assessment of a gallon of milk.

Summary

The entire dairy industry – including farmers, processors, manufacturers, suppliers and retailers – is undertaking a comprehensive effort to identify and reduce its carbon footprint for fluid milk. An industrywide sustainability initiative was launched in 2008 to document the dairy industry’s environmental stewardship as well as identify ways to improve. The industry is committed to meeting consumer demand while remaining good stewards of the land and other natural resources.

Background

Dairy Management Inc., along with National Milk Producers Federation and International Dairy Foods Association, launched an industrywide sustainability initiative to document the long-standing environmental stewardship of the industry and identify best management practices that can help further reduce the industry’s carbon footprint.

The dairy industry defines sustainability as providing consumers with the nutritious dairy products they want in a way that is economically viable, environmentally sound and socially responsible – now and for future generations.

Recent technological advances reduce emissions

In the United States, dairy production has become much more efficient in recent decades, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This is a significant fact because the often-cited emission data from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization combines U.S. agriculture with global agriculture; misrepresenting the share of greenhouse gas emitted by the United States in producing dairy products. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all of U.S. agriculture (excluding fossil fuel use for food processing and transport), accounts for only 6.4 percent of total annual greenhouse gas emissions, while fossil fuel combustion contributes 80 percent.

Over the past 80 years, technological advances have helped U.S. dairy farms dramatically reduce their carbon footprint. In 1924, the United States had 21.4 million dairy cows that yielded an average of 4,162 pounds of milk per cow per year. In 2007, there were only 9.15 million cows; they produced a per-cow average of 20,231 pounds of milk per year. This dramatic increase in yield – and subsequent decrease in resources used – is due to improvements that are commonplace today, including improvements in milking parlors, nutrition, breeding, manure management and herd management.

According to, “The Environmental Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) Use in Dairy Production,” published in the June 2008 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, accounting for the improvements in efficiency over the past 60 years, the carbon footprint per gallon of milk has been reduced by 67 percent between 1944 and 2007. This is equivalent to removing 16.4 million cars from the road and adding 12.3 billion trees.

Initiative identifies additional “green” opportunities

The dairy industry’s sustainability initiative is an opportunity to identify practices that are economically sensible and environmentally sustainable. For example, some dairy producers can profit from selling carbon offsets, provided that federal policy establishes a market to sell reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through methane capture and cropping practices that keep carbon locked in the soil. For others, the major opportunity lies in reduced costs.

Dairy farmers and processors have invested in a carbon lifecycle assessment (LCA) project through the University of Arkansas Applied Sustainability Center. The LCA is the first comprehensive peer-reviewed study of greenhouse gas emission sources in the production and distribution of fluid milk. When completed, it will provide a credible baseline the industry can use to measure progress.

The LCA will determine the current extent of the industry’s carbon footprint – from the feed that goes into dairy cows through the milk production and processing system to the consumer’s table. Because existing estimates do not adequately account for the specifics of the U.S. dairy production system, the U.S. dairy industry is undertaking its own science-based study to review greenhouse gas emission sources across the fluid milk value chain in order to quantify the LCA of a gallon of milk. This comprehensive, peer-reviewed view of the greenhouse gas emissions for fluid milk will provide a credible baseline for the U.S. dairy industry to measure progress in further reducing those emissions. Studies already have been commissioned to measure emissions from processor and retailer activity; dairy producers are participating in a study of the effect of feed and milk production.

The initiative also will identify more ways to help the industry further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase business value for dairy-related businesses. More than 500 industry professionals – including dairy farmers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, scientists, regulators and representatives of environmental non-government organizations – are involved. The short-term opportunities capitalize on existing practices; other opportunities require much longer time frames for research and development.

Some examples of additional opportunities include:

• Energy audit programs that can give farmers and processors information and resources to make changes to reduce energy consumption;
• Research into the reduction of enteric (bovine intestinal) methane through nutrition, immunology, and genetics;
• A pilot project to tackle barriers to widespread adoption of methane digesters, spurring innovations in funding, technology, etc.; 
• Other projects exploring opportunities in crop production, processing, packaging, refrigeration and transportation;
• Ways to boost on-farm income opportunities in emerging “green” energy markets, both in terms of credits for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and through direct energy sales via methane capture; promising prototypes exist among dairy producers and processors; and
• New packaging and the offer of new dairy products and ingredients made with “greener” technologies that will stimulate innovative and nourishing alternatives to consumers.

Consumers, retailers, other key dairy buyers and policymakers are asking what the dairy industry is doing to cut energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. Answering this will help enhance dairy’s reputation with customers and will favorably position products with consumers in light of changing expectation. It will also provide an opportunity to increase business value through efficiencies.

Dairy Management Inc.™ (DMI) is the nonprofit domestic and international planning and management organization responsible for increasing demand for U.S.-produced dairy products and ingredients on behalf of America’s dairy producers. DMI manages the American Dairy Association®, National Dairy Council® and U.S. Dairy Export Council®.

Market Response Plan created to respond to economic recession

by Michele Peterson Murray, Executive Director, Public Relations & Martin Roth, Executive Director, Consumer Marketing – NCBA

Key Points Economic forces have altered standard drivers of consumer purchasing decisions, such as convenience and health and wellness. Affordability, value and product versatility are becoming increasingly important to consumers. A majority of U.S. consumers (61%) are actively changing the way in which they shop for food. Consumers appear to be shifting toward retail for their protein purchases. Chicken, pork and beef are all showing stronger dollar sales at retail. Lower cost beef items – such as ground beef and cuts from the round – appear to be driving the sales increase for beef at retail. Consumer media articles detailing the effects of higher food prices on families have increased and the volume of recipes in editorial outlets has doubled throughout the past six months. The marketing and communications team worked with producer leadership to create a Market Response Plan, an aggressive checkoff-funded marketing effort providing simple ways for consumers to economically justify their desire for beef. Producer leadership and national and state staff are working together to help keep beef center of the plate during these tough economic conditions.

Summary

In response to factors contributing to the current U.S. economic recession, the fiscal year 2009 beef checkoff marketing and communications plans have been recalculated to help protect beef demand in the meat case and on restaurant menus. The Market Response Plan created by the marketing and communications team provides simple ways for consumers to economically justify their desire for beef, leverages existing program to deliver economic resources and includes quick-to-execute tactics. Upon review and approval of the plans by producer leadership, they were immediately activated. The planned approach will help keep beef center-of-the-plate during these tough economic conditions.

Background

Positioning beef as the protein of choice has always been a primary goal of beef checkoff marketing efforts. Several economic factors have led the team to shift its plans and create an aggressive marketing effort specifically geared toward supporting beef overall and middle meat sales as much as possible.

Economic forces have altered standard drivers of consumer purchasing decisions, such as convenience, health and wellness. Affordability, value and product versatility are becoming increasingly important to consumers. Within the context of a worsening economy and given consumers’ perception that food prices overall are on the rise, a majority of consumers (61%) are actively changing the way in which they shop for food.

Price is now driving beef purchasing habits more than in the recent past, causing some consumers to rethink their purchase of some whole muscle cuts while, at the same time, finding ground beef to be an acceptable substitution.

The effect of this change in consumer purchasing patterns is being felt through both retail and foodservice. Retail dollar sales for beef were up dramatically (14.3%) in November. In fact, while pound sales for all meat declined by 9 percent, pound sales for beef increased 11.7 percent in November. In foodservice, overall sales of beef have declined from $27.5 billion in 2007 to $26.3 billion in 2008. Casual dining restaurants, steakhouses and lodging are the foodservice outlets being hit the hardest.

Given the sales decline in foodservice, consumers appear to be shifting toward retail for their protein purchases. Chicken, pork and beef are all showing stronger dollar sales at retail. Lower cost beef items – such as ground beef and cuts from the round – appear to be driving the sales increase for beef at retail.

Consumer media articles detailing the effects of higher food prices on families have increased and the volume of recipes has doubled throughout the past six months. The heightened media interest in today’s economic landscape coupled with an increase in at-home dining provides an opportunity for the beef checkoff to serve as the go-to resource for recipes and cooking information.

These factors led the marketing and communications team to create a Market Response Plan that helps provide simple ways for consumers to economically justify their desire for beef, leverages existing programs to deliver economic resources and includes quick-to-execute tactics.

In advertising, more than one $1 million worth of bonus media space “advertorials” has been negotiated to help deliver the beef value messaging. The foodservice team will be launching a “Beef Profit Power” communications campaign. Retail efforts will focus on couponing efforts as more consumers look to this resource as way to save money. The vast majority of consumers are now expected to use coupons for retail purchases. The retail team will also be marketing middle meat fabrication techniques and rolling out a program built around the popular concept of buying in bulk. Consumer public relations efforts will leverage the trend toward more cooking at home by establishing a persuasive media relations and online effort featuring beef recipes, cooking tips and “how-to videos” centered on middle meats.

The Market Response Plan was shared with producer leadership and state beef councils in December 2008. Producer leadership and national and state staff are working together to help keep beef center of the plate during these tough economic conditions.

Trade/Marketing/Economics

Beef retail sales strong despite troubled economy

by Randy Irion, Director, Channel Marketing – NCBA

Key Points During the current economic recession, both total meat and beef sales have increased at retail. Beef continues to lead fresh meat category sales. Beef has lost some share to other proteins, but it saw its strongest October sales increase in the last three years. Ground beef’s share in total beef sales continues to increase. This trend has been accelerated in the current economy. Retailers have been increasing featuring of beef, with more prominent ads dedicated to beef.

Summary

Retail sales for all fresh meat categories, including beef, have been a bright spot in the recent economic downturn. While the media focused on other meat proteins as food prices increased and consumers tighten their food budgets, supermarket shoppers continue to choose beef at the meat case. Beef continued to lead in both dollar (53%) and pound (41%) sales share of fresh meat category sales in October 2008. Research has shown that shoppers who consume the largest amounts of beef also are consumers of all meat proteins, including chicken and pork.

Background

The channel marketing team worked with two data providers, FreshLook Marketing for retail sales data and Promodata for featuring data, to identify consumer purchasing trends in the current economic climate for beef and other fresh meat products at retail. Retail dollar sales, pound sales, share data and price-per-pound were collected for beef, chicken and pork over the last three years. Retail featuring information across all proteins also was collected to measure any changes.

Beef sales increase at the meat case

Despite the economic downturn, retail dollar and pound sales for total meat have increased. This can be attributed to more consumers preparing meat at home instead of dining out. October meat dollar sales were up 8 percent, and pound sales were up 7 percent on a price increase of just 0.8 percent, highlighting meat’s continued strong position in consumers’ meals.

Although there was slight erosion in beef’s share of total meat sales in October 2008, beef continues to lead the category and saw the strongest sales increase over the past three years in both dollars (6.8%) and pounds (3.5%). This share adjustment could be due in part to the downward pricing trend of chicken, which saw smaller price increases than beef in August and September 2008, and a large price-per-pound decrease of 3.6 percent in October, while beef prices increased 3.2 percent.

Consumers choose ground beef for price, convenience

Over the last several years, ground beef’s share of total beef sales has grown. The downturn of the economy has accelerated this trend. Ground beef is an attractive option for consumers, as it is a lower-priced beef product that is convenient and easy to prepare for busy shoppers.

In October 2008, ground beef pound sales were up 8.5 percent, while dollar sales were up 15.8 percent. Ground beef’s performance helped drive total beef category sales. Even though ground beef experienced a price increase in October (up 7.2%), it was still competitive relative to pricing of other proteins.

Within ground beef, the 78 percent-84 percent/Chuck category gained share of ground beef dol