GRAS – ‘Generally recognized as safe’ sets a less-than-rigorous standard for common ingredients in packaged foods.
What if cars, airplanes, and buildings were subject to a regulatory code referred to as “generally recognized as safe”?
It’s not a phrase that instills confidence. Still, that’s the term affixed to the countless food additives we eat every day. And as if the name alone weren’t enough, the people making that vague designation don’t work for the Food and Drug Administration but are hired by private companies, as Marion Nestle, professor of food studies and nutrition at New York University, points out in a new video from the website OZY.
There are more than 10,000 food additives currently in use, and while many of them are harmless, studies have shown that isn’t always the case. One recent paper, for example, showed that common emulsifiers are linked with obesity and chronic digestive disorders. Furthermore, many GRAS food additives are banned outright in other countries.
But the system strongly favors corporations over consumers. As Nestle notes, a survey of the scientists in charge of granting GRAS status for new additives found that “100 percent of the people on the panels worked for the industry.”
With that being the case, the narrator notes, a company can get approval for a new additive in just mere months rather than years.
Planning what you’ll eat before an important meeting may prove to be just as valuable. While grabbing a muffin or a sandwich on your way in may be an easy option, it may also leave you feeling fatigued and unfocused, keeping you from effectively conveying important information to your team on how to move your company to the next level.
Instead, try eating nutritious foods, which may go a long way towards helping you feel energized, focused and calm. Consider ordering in one of these options as a meal or keep them on hand for a quick, convenient snack to help make every meeting an opportunity for greater success.
Cashews: Cashews are a good source of L-tryptophan, the amino acid that is necessary for healthy serotonin production, making them a perfect go-to snack to help you feel calm and in control. A handful 30 minutes before your meeting should do the trick.
Salmon: Loaded in Omega-3 essential fats that help with focus and concentration, a piece of grilled salmon would be a perfect lunch option to prime you for an afternoon meeting.
Eggs (with yolks!): Egg yolks contain lecithin, which boost acetylcholine production, which in turn helps you focus better, gain greater concentration, and improve memory recall. Ideally, have them soft boiled or hard boiled rather than scrambled to prevent oxidation and degradation of vital nutrients contained in the yolk. Perfect nutrition before an important morning meeting.
Avocado: The monounsaturated fats in avocado will help nourish your brain and improve circulation. Particularly good if you’re feeling anxious or stressed about your meeting. Have some with eggs for breakfast or on a salad for lunch to help you feel calm and in control.
Blueberries: Blueberries are nutritional powerhouses containing antioxidants that can protect your brain from cognitive decline, helping you stay focused and mentally energized over the long haul. Have a cup of fresh blueberries as a snack before your meeting. For best results, pair them with your handful of cashews for a one-two punch.
Dark chocolate with almond butter: Chocolate is a great source of antioxidants and it also contains caffeine, which can give you a boost without the hyper-caffeinating effects of a cup of coffee. The almond butter provides quality fats that can calm a stressed brain. The combination can offer up a laser sharp but calm mind. Think: instant, healthy Reese’s!
Green drink: These are becoming as popular as custom-made coffee and are much healthier! Green drinks, made with a combination of vegetables and fruit are loaded in antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals that can help support optimal brain function. Additionally, green drinks are very alkylanizing, which can also offset feelings of stress before an important meeting.
America has been informally dubbed a “Fast Food Nation.” It is the land of shoe string fries and ancient, everlasting burgers. It’s a utopia where the ketchup flows like wine.
If you’re driving cross-country, you’ll be able to find a fast food establishment of some kind in every single state, but you might have an easier time in the locations that aren’t surrounded by sea. Yes, it is middle America that has the most fast food restaurants per capita, with Kentucky taking the lead (fried chicken, anyone?). It may come as no surprise, then, that Kentucky is among the most obese states in America.
Check out the map in the article to discover how your home state stacks up to the rest of the county…
The most and least obese US States
To be perfectly honest, even our best states (ranging from 20-25% of population defined obese) is not very good. That said, it’s easy to recognize the direct correlation of the volume of fast food with obesity rates – nearly doubling in states with the highest volume of fast food restaurants.
The states with the LOWEST obesity rates:
1. Montana 2. Colorado 3. Nevada 4. Minnesota 5. Massachusetts – The obesity rate in Massachusetts in 2013 was 22.2 percent. 6. Connecticut – The obesity rate in Connecticut in 2013 was 23.2 percent. 7. New Mexico 8. California 9. Hawaii 10. New York – The obesity rate in New York in 2013 was 24 percent.
The states with the HIGHEST obesity rates:
1. Mississippi – 35.4 percent of residents obese in 2013. 2. West Virginia – The obesity rate in West Virginia in 2013 was 34.4 percent. 3. Delaware – The obesity rate in Delaware in 2013 was 34.3 percent. 4. Louisiana 5. Arkansas 6. South Carolina 7. Tennessee 8. Ohio 9. Kentucky 10. Oklahoma
101 stories of hope, innovation & success bettering our food system
– – – –
Food Tank is highlighting stories of hope, innovation, and success in creating a better food system. From women’s land access in Chad and urban green spaces in Australia to chefs in the United Kingdom and the United States implementing local, sustainable food sourcing—there are thousands of innovations giving us hope about the future of food.
Food Tank is featuring 101 bright spots in the food system that we hope will inspire eaters, businesses, researchers, scientists, funders, donors, and policy makers to create—and support—a more sustainable food system.
1. Founder and Director of Leaf for Life David Kennedy highlights how eaters and consumers can take responsibility for their health and incorporate more leafy greens into kitchen gardens in his book Eat Your Greens.
2. According to Solar Cookers International, solar ovens help reduce toxic emissions and reduce greenhouse gases, improving both human and environmental health. Solar Cooker at CantinaWest provides resources to find solar cooking classes in eighteen states in the U.S.
3. Chef Dan Barber, co-owner of Blue Hill and Blue Hill at Stone Barns, wrote The Third Plate to radically change America’s cuisine by moving past farm-to-table. In the book he proposes a new definition for ethical and delicious eating.
4. Chef José Andres’ Think Food Group is bringing together healthy food advocates from around the globe. The World Central Kitchen empowers people to focus on smart solutions to hunger and poverty.
5. Chef Barton Seaver and nutritional scientist P.K. Newby produced National Geographic Food for Health for everyday healthy eating for both people and the planet. It features 148 foods that have high nutritional value and little impact on the environment.
Nearly two-thirds of produce tested contained pesticide
Apples tops the list of produce with the most pesticides, according to a new report, followed by peaches and nectarines.
Overall, nearly two-thirds of produce tested contained pesticides, but the prevalence varied greatly between types, according to the report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
More than 95% of the apples, peaches and nectarines tested contained pesticides.
“We see consistent differences between foods,” said EWG senior analyst Sonya Lunder. “This is an important piece of information for people who want to eat zero pesticides, people who are concerned about eating pesticides who maybe live in an area where they don’t get organic food or can’t afford it.”
A number of factors determine which produce farmers spray with pesticides. Farmers tend to use pesticides for fruit with sensitive skin like peaches and nectarines, she said. On the other hand, the skin or peel on produce like avocados, pineapples and bananas largely prevents pesticides from affecting consumers who eat them.
Avocados, sweet corn and pineapples topped the list of produce with FEWEST pesticides.
The report looked at a number of factors in United States Department of Agriculture data to develop the rankings including the percentage of a type of produce that tested positive for pesticides, the weight of the pesticides and the average number of pesticides. Consuming produce with multiple pesticides may have “synergistic effects” on the human body, said Lunder.
The report is not meant to discourage consumers from eating fruits and vegetables, Lunder said. In fact, the EWG’s database of 80,000 food items finds that produce rates among the healthiest items in the supermarket.
“We know everyone needs to eat fruits and vegetables and we would never say this is a reason to choose something else instead,” she said. “This is important tool for understanding and making informed choices about the food you purchase.”
The annual music, film and technology conference in Austin, Texas, has pulled out all the stops for food-related events this year.
For badge holders, the programming for the 2015 edition of SouthBites is unprecedented. What started in 2013 as a makeshift outdoor food court featuring Top Chef winner Paul Qui’s selection of local food trucks transformed into a proper conference last year with panels from notable chefs, food journalists and podcasters. This year, the expanded program has grown to feature a whopping 30 panels featuring the likes of David Chang (Momofuku), Jonathan Gold (Los Angeles Times), and Food Republic’s very own Richard Martin (hi boss!). Topics will include advances in coffee technology, the logistics of food festivals, craft-beer subculture and how to build 3 Michelin star restaurants.
SouthBites will take place at the Driskill Hotel from Saturday, March 14 through Monday, March 16. A few of our picks:
Culinary Crossroads dinnerby Paul Qui (Qui), Sean Brock (Husk Restaurant) and Nathan Myhrvold (author of Modernist Cuisine). You must have a 2015 SXSW Interactive, Gold or Platinum badge to attend the panels. A dinner at Qui is also slated for March 15. Details here.
For non-badge holders, the trailer park is open to the general public and features some of Austin’s most progressive and delicious small bites, juice and coffee. A few non-local trucks will join the fun this year, such as The Modular from Houston, and Washington, D.C.’s beloved Toki Underground ramen shop will make a two-day-only pop-up appearance on the 17th and 18th, showcasing their Taiwanese-style ramen made with local Texas produce. The food park will be open from March 13-21 from 11 a.m. to midnight.
And for the Francophiles out there, the French pop-up restaurant from chef Rémi Fournier will return to the French Legation from March 15-20, but this year he’s bringing Michelin-starred chef Gérard Bossé with him to create an Austin version of his Angers restaurant Une Île. Natural wines and “forgotten” cocktails will accompany the lunch and dinner menus, which cost from $110 to $200.
Two new studies show why highly processed foods really may be our dietary downfall.
It’s no secret that more people are overweight or obese than not these days. But the question continues to be why the rates are increasing, despite so much public health knowledge about healthy eating and exercise. While overeating is not technically an addiction, it certainly mirrors the disorder in many ways. And as such, it’s the brain and behavior research that’s really providing some of the best clues into the obesity crisis. This may not be so surprising, since after all it’s the brain, rather than the belly, that controls our relationships with food. Now, a new study does a formal assessment of which foods are the most “addictive” to humans. And it’s exactly the ones you’d think.
In the new study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, the authors argue that, like drugs, when foods are very highly processed, they start to become more “potent,” and, therefore, addictive.
For instance, chewing a coca leaf doesn’t give a very strong high, but condensing it into cocaine and making it snort-able sure does. So too with foods whose elements are refined and combined in various clever ways – food labs spend lots of time on these calculations – until they become very “high-potency.”
“Addictive substances are rarely in their natural state,” the authors of the new study point out, “but have been altered or processed in a manner that increases their abuse potential. For example, grapes are processed into wine and poppies are refined into opium. A similar process may be occurring within our food supply.”
To this look at the processed food effect in humans, the team had participants gauge their tendencies toward food addiction by filling out the Yale Food Addiction Scale, which asks people to rate phrases like, “Over time, I have found that I need to eat more and more of certain foods to get the feeling I want, such as reduced negative emotions or increased pleasure” and “I spend a lot of time feeling sluggish or fatigued from overeating.” They also had people make a series of choices about which of two foods they felt they’d have the most trouble controlling themselves around – for instance a muffin vs. salmon. From these results, the team composed a list of foods from most to least addictive.
Interestingly, at the top of the list were foods that are high in bothfat and refined carbs: Pizza, chocolate, potato chips, cookies, and ice cream. In the middle of the list were generally foods that are high in either fat orcarbs. And brown rice, apples, beans, carrots, and cucumber fell at the bottom.
The ranking suggests that it’s really the combination of fat and carbs that makes food addictive. And this is probably because our brains are not used to coming across foods that are both high in fat and high in sugar – natural foods are usually high in just one or the other. So putting these two ingredients together into some wondrously unnatural and magical combination makes the brain go wild. “It is plausible that like drugs of abuse,” say the authors, “these highly processed foods may be more likely to trigger addictive-like biological and behavioral responses due to their unnaturally high levels of reward.”
To make matters worse, processed foods often have additives that can themselves cause weight gain from another angle: Gut microbes.
Another newstudy, in Nature, found that emulsifiers – “detergent-like” compounds used to keep foods like mayonnaise from separating into its separate parts, oil and water – even at low doses caused massive disruption to the gut bacteria of lab mice. The two common emulsifiers used in the study, polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulsos, also triggered obesity, metabolic syndrome, and inflammatory bowel disease. Since more research has suggested that our gut bacteria are critical to our health and body weight (earlier this month a woman with a fecal transplant reported a huge weight gain in the months following), the new study adds an interesting piece to the puzzle, suggesting that certain food additives may also play a role in their health.
For years, experts have been telling us to drop the highly-processed foods in favor of as many natural and plant-based foods as possible. The public seems to belistening, at least a little, as sales of “fake foods” are starting to fall off. So if you can, choose foods that are unprocessed as possible and have few or no additives. And if you’re going to indulge, try to pick foods that arejust fatty or just carby. If you go for foods that include high amounts of both delectable ingredients, your brain may treat it like a drug, and just keep wanting more.
Food Waste is a Serious Economic and Environmental Issue
– – – –
With millions of households across the country struggling to have enough to eat, and millions of tons of food being tossed in the garbage, food waste is increasingly being seen as a serious environmental and economic issue.
A report released Wednesday shows that about 60 million metric tons of food is wasted a year in the United States, with an estimated value of $162 billion. About 32 million metric tons of it end up in municipal landfills, at a cost of about $1.5 billion a year to local governments.
The problem is not limited to the United States.
The report estimates that a third of all the food produced in the world is never consumed, and the total cost of that food waste could be as high as $400 billion a year. Reducing food waste from 20 to 50 percent globally could save $120 billion to $300 billion a year by 2030, the report found.
“Food waste is a global issue, and tackling it is a priority,” said Richard Swannell, director of sustainable food systems at the Waste and Resources Action Program, or Wrap, an antiwaste organization in Britain that compiled the new report. “The difficulty is often in knowing where to start and how to make the biggest economic and environmental savings.”
The food discarded by retailers and consumers in the most developed countries would be more than enough to feed all of the world’s 870 million hungry people, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
But it is not just those countries that have problems with food waste. The report showed that it is also an issue in African countries like South Africa.
The problem is expected to grow worse as the world’s population increases, the report found. By 2030, when the global middle class expands, consumer food waste will cost $600 billion a year, unless actions are taken to reduce the waste, according to the report.
Food waste is not only a social cost, but it contributes to growing environmental problems like climate change, experts say, with the production of food consuming vast quantities of water, fertilizer and land. The fuel that is burned to process, refrigerate and transport it also adds to the environmental cost.
Most food waste is thrown away in landfills, where it decomposes and emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Globally, it creates 3.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, about 7 percent of the total emissions, according to the report.
The United Nations agency points out that methane gas from the world’s landfills are surpassed in emissions by only China and the United States.
“Seven percent is not the largest contributor of greenhouse gasses, but it’s not an insignificant amount,” said Helen Mountford, the director of economics at the World Resources Institute. “But this is one area — reducing food waste — where we can make a difference.”
Over the last several years, some cities and counties in the United States, including New York City, have started programs to tackle the issue. Hennepin County, Minn., the state’s most populous county, provides grants from $10,000 to $50,000 to local business and nonprofits to help recycle food products or turn them into compost.
“There is still a lot in the waste stream,” said Paul Kroening, supervising environmentalist at Hennepin County Environmental Services. “We are just scratching the surface.”
A coalition of food industry trade groups, the Food Waste Reduction Alliance, has also increased effort to combat food waste. Meghan Stasz, the director of sustainability for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a member of the alliance, said the group was working with supermarket chains to reduce waste by clarifying expiration dates and selling smaller portions of food.
Ms. Stasz said the group was also getting its members to donate more food and make changes in manufacturing processes to reduce the amount of wasted food. One member, the giant food company ConAgra, changed the way it placed dough in shell for its pot pies and saved 235 tons of dough in a year.
Mr. Swannell, of the antiwaste group Wrap, applauded those efforts, but said more still needed to be done.
“Awareness of food waste has risen, but we need to do more to tie that awareness to actions on the ground,” he said. “We need to find better ways to deal with food waste, but we need to prevent it in the first place.”
Food industry efforts to quash labeling initiatives further hurt genetically modified foods’ image…
Despite two decades of assurances from biotechnology firms, food processors, federal regulators and even a substantial share of scientists that GMO foods are safe, ballot initiatives and citizen petitions seeking labels on GMO foods are springing up as quickly as the industry can pay — or sue — to defeat them. Meanwhile, sales of foods labeled GMO-free have been steadily gaining ground on consumer shopping lists, and polls suggest that more Americans than ever favor labels that identify GMO foods.
This has even some supporters of genetic engineering wondering if it’s time to rethink the labeling question. “If you give people a choice and value, that wins,” said David Ropeik, a risk-communication consultant. He has begun calling on the industry to let go of its “fear of fear” and embrace GMO labeling, which is required in at least 64 other nations, including Japan, Australia, Russia, Brazil and more than a dozen European countries.
But Grant, like many industry stakeholders, remains skeptical. “To allow popular perception of harm — or benefit — to be the basis for mandatory labeling would not result in food being safer,” he argued. “It would result in the scientific community being pushed to the sidelines in favor of food-fad-of-the-day mob regulation.”
Whether or not that’s true, food makers are spending lavishly to avoid mandatory GMO labels. In 2012, for example, opponents of a California labeling proposition — including Monsanto, ConAgra and other genetically modified seed makers alongside food companies like Sara Lee, Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s — spent a staggering $46 million, primarily on lobbying and advertising, to defeat the measure. Similar efforts in Washington the following year prompted the state’s attorney general to sue the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), alleging that the leading food industry lobby was hiding the identity of the contributors to its anti-labeling campaign in violation of state election laws. The GMA eventually came clean, revealing that dozens of contributors — including Nestle, Del Monte, Coca-Cola and Hershey — had chipped in $7 million to kill the measure.
In almost all such battles, the companies easily outspend label supporters.
Monsanto and Dupont Pioneer, for example, were among a long list of food industry interests that contributed over $15 million to defeat a labeling measure in Colorado during November’s elections, according to state records. Supporters of the bill managed to raise a tiny fraction of that amount. The initiative failed. Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and other food industry players pumped more than $30 million into efforts to quash a similar ballot initiative in Oregon — twice the amount supporters were able to muster.
The industry is now locked in a fierce legal battle with Vermont, which passed a GMO labeling law last year, and companies have lobbied hard for federal legislation that would bar other states from following suit. A bill that would do that was introduced last spring by Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas who, as it happens, received the largest single contribution — $10,000 — from the GMA for the 2014 election cycle, according to federal data. The bill did not make it out of committee, but Heather Denker, a spokeswoman for Pompeo’s office, said he plans to reintroduce the bill in coming weeks.
The industry justifies all these expenditures on a variety of grounds. For starters, companies say, a hodgepodge of differing state labeling laws would be unworkable, and even a federal labeling rule would make food more expensive. They also argue that genetic modification, which involves the insertion of foreign genes into an organism — so far mostly crops like corn and soy — so that it expresses a new and ostensibly desirable trait, is really just one among a variety of plant breeding techniques that have been used for decades without complaint.
More substantively, GMO supporters argue that there is no evidence to suggest genetically modified foods present any more risk than conventionally bred fare, a view generally held by a long list of scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization.
Taking a similar position, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food from GMO crops in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, has seen fit to leave GMO labeling a strictly voluntary affair.
“As a public health agency, we base our policy decisions on the best science available,” said Theresa Eisenman, an FDA spokeswoman, in an emailed statement. “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way or that, as a class, such foods present different or greater safety concerns than their non-GE [genetically engineered] counterparts.”
Although the FDA’s review process is voluntary, virtually all producers of new GE products submit them to the agency for approval. Since the mid-1990s, the FDA has signed off on over 150 varieties of genetically engineered crops, though not all proved commercially viable. Most GMO-derived ingredients found on shelves today are from crops that were tweaked to improve resistance to pests and certain herbicides, but newer products with consumer-facing traits are in the pipeline. This includes the Arctic apple, which has been engineered to resist browning.
On Feb. 13 the USDA determined the apple was safe to grow, and the FDA is currently reviewing it.
Eisenman also said that the agency is reviewing two citizen petitions urging the FDA to create a mandatory GMO label but that no decisions has been made — much to the chagrin of many consumers who remain unconvinced that GMOs are safe.
GRAZE: Demand alters landscape for Domestic Grassfed Beef
– – – –
Recent developments in the U.S. grassfed beef sector will have a major and lasting impact on the industry and alter the way business is conducted.
Over the past several weeks, two of the “Big 4” beef packers in the U.S. launched efforts to initiate domestic grassfed beef programs. Also, a major fast food company has launched a line of “All Natural Grass Fed Beef” hamburgers at selected locations.
Carl’s Jr., a chain with 1,150 restaurants, announced that it will offer an “All Natural Burger” featuring an “all-natural, grass-fed, free-range beef patty” with no added hormones or antibiotics. The burger was scheduled to be available at participating Carl’s Jr. locations starting December 17, 2014.
A “single” burger will cost $4.69, with a “double” selling at $6.99. Customers can substitute the grassfed patty for any burger on the menu for an additional charge. Carl’s Jr. claims it will be the first “major fast food chain” or quick service restaurant (QSR) to offer an all-natural, grassfed beef hamburger. Some in the media are calling this the first “clean” burger in fast food.
The grassfed beef is imported from Australia. Carl’s Jr. has stated in the media that this is because of a lack of available domestic supply. Price point is a major factor for a QSR like Carl’s Jr., so most likely there is not enough domestic supply available within an appropriate price range to satisfy the restaurant chain.
Meanwhile, National Beef and JBS, two of the Big 4 packers, have established grassfed beef divisions in their respective companies and hope to launch grassfed offerings in 2015. Both programs will seek grass-finished cattle that meet or exceed both USDA Grass Fed Standards and the American Grassfed Association (AGA) production protocol.
They desire grass-finished cattle that grade USDA High Select and USDA Choice, and will likely develop a formula-based payment program that rewards grassfed beef finishers for the better-grading cattle and those that achieve higher dressed-weight yields. The cattle would be harvested at select plants within each company’s system, so animals finished within a reasonable proximity to these plants would be favored. Both companies hope to begin with several loads (each 40 head) of cattle harvested weekly, and ramp up to more than 1,000 head per week.
Cargill, another member of the Big 4, has been active in the grassfed beef sector for several years. The company owns one of the largest beef packers in Australia, and from there has been harvesting grassfed beef and exporting it to the U.S. and other countries. With National and JBS establishing domestic grassfed beef programs, Cargill may elect to follow suit. That leaves Tyson, the final member of the Big 4, watching and waiting.
What does all of this mean for the grassfed beef sector in the U.S., and how will it affect existing grassfed beef producers and marketers?
First, the introduction of programs by members of the Big 4 and a major fast food chain immediately legitimizes grassfed beef as a true “player” in the protein sector. Those in the conventional industry who poked fun at grassfed beef or deemed it a fad can no longer do so.
As happened years ago with All Natural Grain Fed beef, entry by the major packers immediately makes grassfed a viable alternative for the consumer. Awareness of grassfed beef among the broader consumer population will skyrocket. Demand for domestically produced grassfed cattle will ramp up significantly.
If consumers respond favorably to the grassfed beef burgers offered at Carl’s Jr., we can expect to see expansion into Hardee’s, which is owned by the same company. Other chains will also feel compelled to follow with their own offerings. For several years, McDonald’s, Arby’s, Burger King, Subway and Quiznos have looked at grassfed beef options, but have yet to pull the trigger. The launch by Carl’s Jr. will surely stir the pot within those companies, and talks will be renewed.
All of this will ratchet up demand for grass-finished cattle, and therefore the need for significantly greater grass-finishing capacity. Since National and JBS have indicated they will be seeking cattle that grade USDA High Select and Choice, we will see expanded demand for cattle that are a genetic fit for grass-based production. These will need to be cattle that finish well at well below 30 months of age on a forage-based diet that fits the USDA and AGA grassfed standards.
To accomplish this will require highly skilled forage finishers who can finish cattle to a high degree on a year-round basis and within a 20- to 24-month age range at harvest. To avoid cattle “aging out” at the processing plants, JBS and National will seek cattle that are source and age-verified.
These developments are sure to cause gnashing of teeth for some in the grassfed beef business. Others will see potential opportunity. As news of these developments spreads further among the grassfed community, it will be interesting to see and read the many varied reactions.
They will range from “the sky is falling” to “this will grow the entire grassfed beef sector.“ While it should not be the case, some will be completely surprised by the Big 4 entering the grassfed beef market. With annual growth rates between 25-30% over the past 15 years, and with grassfed now accounting for 3-6% of the total beef market share in major metro markets, entry by bigger players was inevitable. Long-established branded meat programs (Strauss Brands, Meyer Natural, Maverick Ranch, Nolan Ryan All Natural, Allen Brothers) had entered the grassfed market, so it was obvious that the Big 4 were eventually coming. What may surprise many is that it happened so quickly.
It is quite evident that the development of the grassfed beef sector has closely mirrored that of the All Natural Grain Fed Beef sector. In the early days of that movement, we saw pioneers and entrepreneurs take the initial risks, challenges and slings and arrows. They were derided and accused of being enemies of the beef industry. They were told that what they were doing was simply a fad that would quickly die.
Instead, these pioneers slowly but surely built a strong and loyal customer base, gradually altering the landscape of the industry. As they gained market share, larger programs began to buy and consolidate the early efforts. Then the big packers joined the fray and started their own All Natural programs. Today, almost every major beef program has their own All Natural beef label. However, several of the original programs found ways to survive and thrive through all the challenges presented over the past three decades. The pioneers in the grassfed beef sector will have to do the same.
These changes will not be a major challenge to direct marketers. If you have established a solid business, you will not see any major changes in demand. Your customers will remain loyal and will continue to buy from you. They are looking to buy direct from the farmer or rancher, and are not likely to switch to a more anonymous Big 4 supplier.
The challenges for existing grassfed branded programs are much more real. The Big 4 have far more resources and capital to throw at the sector, and distributors and retailers are commonly more loyal to price points than to particular branded programs.
Make no mistake, the entry of JBS and National into the grassfed beef sector will create heartburn for many of the existing branded programs, and they will have to examine how best to compete in the marketplace. JBS and National will increase the competition for an already record-low pool of feeder cattle.
On the other end, they will create competition in wholesale pricing with their greater economies of scale and cheaper processing. Existing grassfed branded programs need to examine the older, well-established branded beef programs, and learn from them how to be successful in an ever-competitive market.
What will all of this do for grassfed cattle pricing? We could see some initial bidding wars due to a sharp increase in demand at a time of short feeder cattle supplies. But the packers push a sharp pencil and will not overpay for long, especially in light of the current historic price highs. The packers’ formula-based systems will offer higher prices for quality, while discounting poorly finished cattle.
This is a great opportunity for producers to establish themselves as providers of grassfed beef. There will be many more programs searching for providers, and getting yourself known in that circle will be important. There will also be opportunity for people to come on line as professional forage finishers, although they will need to be capable of finishing at least several hundred head annually, and do so most of the year.
While there may be some attempt to establish forage feedlots, these will be a minority. The grassfed beef sector has done a great job of educating the consumer to expect pasture finishing. The AGA will be watching closely, and will speak out rather loudly if the big packers attempt to make this a feedlot production system.
So sit back, take a deep breath, and don’t get overly excited one way or the other. As a smart businessperson, pay close attention to what your competitors are doing, and learn from them. Determine how you can best differentiate your program to the consumer and/or how you can work with other programs to grow market share as a whole. Always remember — where there are challenges, there are opportunities.
