I am old enough like many of you to realize I am old enough and therefore I remember a lot of things. For instance, I remember when there was a struggle to get the Beef Checkoff passed and now, we are in the 35th anniversary year of this remarkably successful program to generate interest and demand for beef.
Over the years there have been many court challenges to the checkoff and none of these challenges have successfully damaged or done away with the checkoff. Most recently, this summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the checkoff declaring it to be protected government speech. Also, the nation’s beef producers were polled about five years ago and almost 80% said they favored the checkoff.
Why then is there so much criticism of this program? I am not sure I understand why. I say this because when you look at the things that have been done with producer dollars over the last 35 years it is difficult for me to see the validity of the criticism even though I agree everyone has a right to their own opinion.
By the way, one of those criticisms is NCBA has a monopoly on the checkoff and your dollars are used to influence policy in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. Currently, NCBA is one of twelve contractors to the Checkoff as administered by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board which is comprised of cattle raisers from all over the country. To use this checkoff money to influence policy would be illegal and thus NCBA and the other contractors only use the money for legally authorized expenditures such as research and education. In fact, NCBA has a full-time employee whose only job is to audit time sheets and checkoff expenditures to make sure the money which comes to NCBA for checkoff projects is not spent to influence policy. Typically, each year, there is only a less than 1% error rate in the statistical audit sample in this area and these are attributed to clerical reporting and administrative errors.
So, let’s look at some of the efforts undertaken in these three decades by NCBA as a checkoff contractor.
Of course, everyone in the nation has heard the slogan “Beef it’s what’s for dinner”. But if this were the only successful thing done with checkoff money I might agree with the critics.
However, this summer in response to consumers increasing demand to know more about the sustainability of their food production NCBA launched a comprehensive op-ed, letter to the editor writing campaign in major metropolitan newspapers by producers to tell their individual stories of sustainability. The issues management team at NCBA has reached out to local journalists across the country in a campaign of what is known as content partnerships to provide real stories about real ranchers and farmers and what they are doing to produce sustainable beef. In the world of public relations, these and other efforts will have reached consumers across the country more than 800 million times because of the repetitive nature of the messages.
For more than 30 years the beef checkoff has funded the voluntary Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. Many of us have attended such programs through the years to learn better, safer, and more humane ways to treat our animals and employees. This has been a useful education experience for producers, but it is also a reassurance to consumers of our product that we care about the welfare of our animals too. More than 85% of the U.S. beef supply comes from a BQA certified ranch or farm.
NCBA publicized the conclusions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) which recognized that lean meat nourishes a healthy lifestyle and the nutrients found in beef are essential at every stage in life especially for infants and children. This campaign received more than 41 million impressions.
Every rancher should be concerned about the growth, however slight, of meat substitute products. One of the tactics used by the manufacturers of these products to convince consumers to switch to a plant-based diet is if you consume “fake meat” you are helping to save the planet from the impacts of cattle raising. In fact, the notion that cattle raising is contributing significantly to climate change has been disproven. The U.S. is the world leader in sustainable beef production with the lowest emission intensity in the world. If all livestock were eliminated in the U.S. and every American followed a vegan diet, greenhouse gas emissions would only be reduced by 2%, or 0.36% globally.
Another way to look at the success of American beef producers’ sustainability efforts is that we are producing 66% more beef today with fewer resources than we did a generation ago.
These facts were disseminated this summer in graphics and info graphics to State Beef Councils and in interviews with celebrity chefs. This information reached the equivalent of close to 100 million non- agricultural consumers. Critics of the checkoff frequently say the only ones who see beef ads and information are those who read agricultural industry publications. The point of this checkoff generated expenditure is to get the information to consumers in large metropolitan and suburban areas that most farmers and ranchers rarely visit.
None of this research and education effort would be worth the time, effort and, devotion of resources unless the people spending the money, you whose checkoff dollars are collected every time a beef animal is sold, were receiving a return on the investment.
Research done by NielsenIQ has revealed beef makes up 30% of the protein market share. In contrast, plant-based alternatives represent less than 1% of market share. Beef consumption is expected to increase this year. The USDA predicts U.S. consumers will eat 8.9% more beef this year than in 2015. Even so, Americans eat less than 2 ounces of beef each day, which is well within the 2015 Dietary Guidelines. No less an authority than Cattle Fax recently reported that beef demand is at its highest level in 33 years. This brings me back to recognizing the 35th anniversary of the United States Beef Checkoff Program. After reading about these successful programs and statistics, which certainly is not an exhaustive list, perhaps we should just fold our tent, rest on our laurels, and go home.
I would argue it makes no sense to get rid of something that is working. Anything can be improved. Let’s work on making this successful program better.
I’ll see you soon.
By Joseph Guild