May 4, 2007
Humanely Raised Meat Going Mainstream
By Tom Ryan
First it was ‘natural’, then ‘organic’. Is ‘humanely raised’ next?
The American Humane Association believes a big trend at this year’s Food Marketing Institute (FMI) show will be how livestock are treated before they wind up on grocer’s shelves. The association said it’s been a slow build over the past few years, but has been catching on in the past few months.
Among the bigger developments:
Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, announced plans in January to phase-out the use of gestation stalls;
Burger King in early April announced plans to buy more from slaughterhouses using more humane treatment;
Celebrated chef Wolfgang Puck in March vowed to use only meat at his restaurants that come from animals that have been treated humanely. (This includes no longer serving foie gras, the fatty liver produced by overfeeding ducks and geese.)
At the retail level, Whole Foods recently rolled out a line of meat carrying the “animal compassionate” label and other retailers are making similar animal-welfare claims on meat and egg packaging, including “free farmed,” “certified humane, “cage free” and “free range.”
Marie Belew Wheatley, president and CEO at the American Humane Association, said greater media attention and a raised social awareness that has helped other food trends, such as organic, is stirring a movement toward humanely-raised meat.
“I think it goes hand and hand with people having an interest in environmental protection, how the world is in general, and how animals are treated in specific,” Ms. Wheatley told RetailWire.com. “While a lot of people’s response to those considerations are to be vegetarian, there are many, many more people who are not vegetarian but care about how animals raised for food are treated. More and more are paying attention and speaking with their pocketbooks.”
Indeed, the humanely treated meat trend shares many aspects of the health and wellness trend.
Similar to organic/natural labels, consumers will likely become confused over definitions surrounding humanely treated meat. Rivaling animal rights organizations such as Humane Farm Animal Care and the Animal Welfare Institute – as well as stores such as Whole Foods – all have different certification standards for what constitutes a humanely treated animal.
On the positive side – again similar to natural/organic – humanely raised meat can provide a point of differentiation and potentially a higher margin for producers and retailers.
“Consumers are willing to pay more for the assurance that the animals are treated humanely,” said Ms. Wheatley.
Nonetheless, it’s still not certain if only a small niche of animal lovers will pay up, especially since many retail programs are in their infancy. Prices can be twice as high as products not carrying labels.
But Ms. Wheatley believes that just as consumers have demonstrated a willingness to pay more for healthier options, they will also for more ethically-responsible ones as well.
“I think we’re witnessing a growing trend and there’s no letting up,” said Ms. Wheatley. “Consumers look for healthy, look for organic, and look for humanely raised more, more and more.”
Discussion Questions: What do you think of the potential for ‘humanely raised’ meat? Should food retailers aggressively be pursuing this trend? If not yet, what do you think it lacks in terms of being a worthwhile opportunity?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
With recent revelations about ingredient contamination in pet food, the hormones and pesticides that end up in fish flesh, the bacterial contaminants too regularly found in eggs and beef, and the wide use of cheap “scrap” (including melamine) to feed hogs and chickens etc.,…I suspect that the wave of the future may be heavily inspected “certified safe for consumption” meats from smaller producers. In many cases this will actually coincide with the “humanely raised” concept. But, many consumers will eventually consider paying considerably more for food they feel confident will be OK for their family to eat.
There are so many laws/rules about handling animals, but there are always the 1% that will give us the negative publicity that will taint the whole food chain. When a farmer/rancher sells his animals he is selling them by the pound, with deductions for bruises, etc., that can come from trucking and not from bad handling. We, as an industry do not abuse animals, we want the best, healthy, clean animals we can get, and the rancher/farmer will get paid well. The people abusing animals do not stay in business. There are withdrawal times for medications that must be followed, yes animals are medicated–so are people. Are they on “drugs”? NO. If you are a good parent or rancher and you have a child or animal that is ill, you will use medication. This is talked up by the “uninformed” as all animals are on drugs.
I have traveled to countries where rats and bugs were a source of protein. We have so much meat that you can pick and choose what you would like to eat, but do not make uninformed statements about the food industry.
It’s a shame that this even needs discussion. I am saddened, but not surprised, by some of the other comments, just as I’m sure many will consider my response totally predictable but here goes anyway. Animals should be treated humanely. Full stop (period). End of subject. There is no excuse for anything else. What a pity that there is disagreement about how “humanely” should be defined and that it is considered a commercially beneficial point of differentiation although I can see that it is a wonderful excuse to raise prices–after all, good treatment does cost more than stuffing animals into tiny pens and pumping them full of artificial goodness knows what to fatten them for slaughter faster. And it’s a great way to fatten bottom lines although where I agree with colleagues is that any price increases should be specifically related to the cost of production rather than marketing. I am also appalled that a demand for meat from humanely reared animals can be considered a trend. So ends Friday’s rant.
Humanely raised meat will be of limited interest because there are far too many bigger priorities (price, safety, healthy, taste) for the consumer.
As long as the economic good times roll, humanely raised meat will maintain some small market share. But once the economy begins to hit the skids, it will become a non issue.
p.s. Regarding the cost of meat and food in general, the average Joe may want to pay $1.99 a pound, but is he really going to have struggle too hard at double the price? What I mean is, not too many folks in this country are starving. Quite the contrary. We are becoming an increasingly obese nation, which can be partly attributed to the artificially low costs we incur.
I think many are missing the core of the issue with the recent efforts to create more “humane” meat products. It’s not about being nicer to the pig, as you slice its throat. It’s about raising the pig in a more humane environment before you slaughter it, and creating long-term sustainable practices for producing meat products. Pursuing these efforts has both the benefit of creating a more civilized society and lessening the environmental impact on how we produce food. Creating a market for these products will be critical in the future.
For example, Mr. Livingston posted his objection to a fish caught on line versus nets or whatever other means corporate fisheries get their catch. But the issue isn’t its more humane to kill with a hook than a net, but the impact and costs associated with latter versus the former. With nets, there is invariably significant waste catch, which is usually killed and then simply dumped back in the sea. It’s also worth mentioning the very harmful technique of dredging, which also results in unintentional catch and destroys the sea floor environment.
Another posted his objection to the possibility of paying double for humane animal products. But how often do we consider the true costs of large corporate practices in generating meat for our supermarkets, be it the depleting fish stocks or waste created by cow and pig farms? Considering the true costs of the “cheap meat” we get now, it seems double the price is a fair price to pay.
The Wal-Mart model of the ends (cheap prices) justifying the means (exploiting natural and labor resources of the developing world) cannot be sustained for too much longer.
When will it end? I’m all for better ways to do things, but what’s next? Putting cattle in spas with their own personal concierge? Most normal folks like me cannot relate to the upper crust of society willing to pay any amount for some meat that was pampered more than real people.
I’m in the business at ground zero, where the rubber meets the road, and except for Whole Foods and other highbrow niche stores in rich areas, the average Joe is struggling to feed their family and pay the bills, especially with the high cost of fuel.
The beef produced in this country is already the best and safest in the world. I understand marketing and I wish the folks who push this stuff all the best, but most of us are looking for the $1.79/lb. ground chuck on sale, and the $1.99/lb. rump roasts.
People vote with their pocketbooks and I’m betting the pampered cows will sell, but only in the high-end stores, unless the price comes down to our level.
It’s a little early to say what kind of legs this will have in the mainstream marketplace but for retailers focusing on upscale (this will certainly have more appeal among the affluent) and those serving other communities with unique interests or sensitivities, this could become very important and well worth pursuing.
Only time will tell if it truly becomes mainstream.
I’m not sure how economically viable this concept will turn out to be. I doubt that very many people would say that they are not in favor of better treatment for animals, but how many are willing to put their money where their mouth is? I would be willing to pay more but double? I might even be OK with that if I was convinced that it truly costs that much more and not just providing a fatter profit for the providers.
It’s a shame that our food production system has gotten so efficient at the elimination of costs but at the expense of mistreatment of animals in many cases. It is possible to grow animals for food without inhumane conditions if we want to, but it seems that we have not made it a priority and we can’t expect business to do it on their own, apparently. The quest for ever more profit is much stronger than the compassion and concern for the animals. It is easier to put it out of our mind and think about more pleasant things. A visit to a local commercial farm that raises chickens, hogs or cattle would make it harder for most of us to sleep at night or at least reduce our hunger for these foods that we take for granted. A trip to the food processing plant would further put things in perspective.
I’m glad that this subject has started receiving more attention as that is the first step.
Eating healthier meat is a benefit to the consumer and I can see them wanting to pay more for it. Eating humanely raised meat that is more gently killed, well, I’m not so sure. How does this benefit the consumer? In order for this to be successful the consumer needs to know what’s in it for them. Sure, retailers who cater to the kind of consumer that thinks about this should certainly try this marketing approach. In the end this is probably more to do with marketing rather than actually being more humane to animals. There is nothing humane about being slaughtered.
Recently I was at Whole Foods and a demonstrator was handing out samples of tuna that was caught with a fishing line rather than with nets. She said this was more humane. I asked her how she would like it if someone put a big hook in her mouth, etc. No response. The tuna tasted like Chicken of the Sea out of a can and cost four times as much. I didn’t fall for it.
Absolutely this will be big and many retailers will be the very people driving the change. Our children especially will be much more mindful of this than the current generation but we should be proud of the fact that the first tentative steps taken a decade ago are finally showing up on forward thinking retailers shelves and in proactive marketers offerings.
Plus, this will go well beyond animal lovers and straight to those interested in the health benefits. Hunters especially know the great taste of fresh unadulterated meats and will find this option to their liking as well.
Come on! Ms. Wheatley’s comments about humanely treated animals growing in market share is greatly exaggerated. I can only speak for my immediate area, Northwestern PA, but the percentage of people that would be willing to hand over a premium at the cash register for humanely treated meats is a fraction of one percent. My estimates are these: 50% of consumers don’t know anything about the business of raising and slaughtering of animals for public consumption, Yes, it is violent and maybe even gruesome at times. Another 25% know all about the current process and just don’t care as long as their steak is served medium rare and not too rare. Another 20% know about the current process and feel upset enough to mention at dinner how abhorent they feel it is for the animals and they might cut back on buying those Porterhouse for the weekend, except for special occasions. Another 4% know about it and don’t like it enough to stop eating meat all together as a form of protest. And that leaves us with 1% and half of them know about it and don’t like it and go to protests about it and join PETA and become Vegans. The other half of that one percent might know and care and might possibly shell out an extra 20% at the register. But you know what, I doubt that very much in my little 100 mile radius. There is no market for this stuff in 99% of the country and I don’t feel the movement will go anywhere. Thanks for your time, now I have to go sell some groceries.
Count me as one of the oddballs who actually looks for these types of certifications/claims and is willing to pay dearly. Meat is supposed to be a luxury, not a constantly-available, breakfast, lunch, dinner entitlement. Unfortunately, our belief to the contrary has led to environmental havoc, health problems, mad cow, and yes, plain old cruelty.
Make me pay more. You won’t lose my business and I’ll be more temperate.
Anything that can raise supermarket margins should be welcomed with a marching brass band. If humanely raised meet has higher prices, that’s great for profits. If only a fraction of the public wants it, that’s OK, because many grocery items are stocked for only a fraction of the public. What percentage of shoppers buy lard? Kosher? Chicken livers? Perrier? Yet most supermarkets sell all those things. Not everything is as popular as frozen pizza, milk, canned peaches, and apples.
For anyone doubting the impact of this, I challenge you watch Fast Food Nation and be sure to check out the outtakes on the DVD. It’s incredibly researched and quite eye opening.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
With recent revelations about ingredient contamination in pet food, the hormones and pesticides that end up in fish flesh, the bacterial contaminants too regularly found in eggs and beef, and the wide use of cheap “scrap” (including melamine) to feed hogs and chickens etc.,…I suspect that the wave of the future may be heavily inspected “certified safe for consumption” meats from smaller producers. In many cases this will actually coincide with the “humanely raised” concept. But, many consumers will eventually consider paying considerably more for food they feel confident will be OK for their family to eat.
There are so many laws/rules about handling animals, but there are always the 1% that will give us the negative publicity that will taint the whole food chain. When a farmer/rancher sells his animals he is selling them by the pound, with deductions for bruises, etc., that can come from trucking and not from bad handling. We, as an industry do not abuse animals, we want the best, healthy, clean animals we can get, and the rancher/farmer will get paid well. The people abusing animals do not stay in business. There are withdrawal times for medications that must be followed, yes animals are medicated–so are people. Are they on “drugs”? NO. If you are a good parent or rancher and you have a child or animal that is ill, you will use medication. This is talked up by the “uninformed” as all animals are on drugs.
I have traveled to countries where rats and bugs were a source of protein. We have so much meat that you can pick and choose what you would like to eat, but do not make uninformed statements about the food industry.
It’s a shame that this even needs discussion. I am saddened, but not surprised, by some of the other comments, just as I’m sure many will consider my response totally predictable but here goes anyway. Animals should be treated humanely. Full stop (period). End of subject. There is no excuse for anything else. What a pity that there is disagreement about how “humanely” should be defined and that it is considered a commercially beneficial point of differentiation although I can see that it is a wonderful excuse to raise prices–after all, good treatment does cost more than stuffing animals into tiny pens and pumping them full of artificial goodness knows what to fatten them for slaughter faster. And it’s a great way to fatten bottom lines although where I agree with colleagues is that any price increases should be specifically related to the cost of production rather than marketing. I am also appalled that a demand for meat from humanely reared animals can be considered a trend. So ends Friday’s rant.
Humanely raised meat will be of limited interest because there are far too many bigger priorities (price, safety, healthy, taste) for the consumer.
As long as the economic good times roll, humanely raised meat will maintain some small market share. But once the economy begins to hit the skids, it will become a non issue.
p.s. Regarding the cost of meat and food in general, the average Joe may want to pay $1.99 a pound, but is he really going to have struggle too hard at double the price? What I mean is, not too many folks in this country are starving. Quite the contrary. We are becoming an increasingly obese nation, which can be partly attributed to the artificially low costs we incur.
I think many are missing the core of the issue with the recent efforts to create more “humane” meat products. It’s not about being nicer to the pig, as you slice its throat. It’s about raising the pig in a more humane environment before you slaughter it, and creating long-term sustainable practices for producing meat products. Pursuing these efforts has both the benefit of creating a more civilized society and lessening the environmental impact on how we produce food. Creating a market for these products will be critical in the future.
For example, Mr. Livingston posted his objection to a fish caught on line versus nets or whatever other means corporate fisheries get their catch. But the issue isn’t its more humane to kill with a hook than a net, but the impact and costs associated with latter versus the former. With nets, there is invariably significant waste catch, which is usually killed and then simply dumped back in the sea. It’s also worth mentioning the very harmful technique of dredging, which also results in unintentional catch and destroys the sea floor environment.
Another posted his objection to the possibility of paying double for humane animal products. But how often do we consider the true costs of large corporate practices in generating meat for our supermarkets, be it the depleting fish stocks or waste created by cow and pig farms? Considering the true costs of the “cheap meat” we get now, it seems double the price is a fair price to pay.
The Wal-Mart model of the ends (cheap prices) justifying the means (exploiting natural and labor resources of the developing world) cannot be sustained for too much longer.
When will it end? I’m all for better ways to do things, but what’s next? Putting cattle in spas with their own personal concierge? Most normal folks like me cannot relate to the upper crust of society willing to pay any amount for some meat that was pampered more than real people.
I’m in the business at ground zero, where the rubber meets the road, and except for Whole Foods and other highbrow niche stores in rich areas, the average Joe is struggling to feed their family and pay the bills, especially with the high cost of fuel.
The beef produced in this country is already the best and safest in the world. I understand marketing and I wish the folks who push this stuff all the best, but most of us are looking for the $1.79/lb. ground chuck on sale, and the $1.99/lb. rump roasts.
People vote with their pocketbooks and I’m betting the pampered cows will sell, but only in the high-end stores, unless the price comes down to our level.
It’s a little early to say what kind of legs this will have in the mainstream marketplace but for retailers focusing on upscale (this will certainly have more appeal among the affluent) and those serving other communities with unique interests or sensitivities, this could become very important and well worth pursuing.
Only time will tell if it truly becomes mainstream.
I’m not sure how economically viable this concept will turn out to be. I doubt that very many people would say that they are not in favor of better treatment for animals, but how many are willing to put their money where their mouth is? I would be willing to pay more but double? I might even be OK with that if I was convinced that it truly costs that much more and not just providing a fatter profit for the providers.
It’s a shame that our food production system has gotten so efficient at the elimination of costs but at the expense of mistreatment of animals in many cases. It is possible to grow animals for food without inhumane conditions if we want to, but it seems that we have not made it a priority and we can’t expect business to do it on their own, apparently. The quest for ever more profit is much stronger than the compassion and concern for the animals. It is easier to put it out of our mind and think about more pleasant things. A visit to a local commercial farm that raises chickens, hogs or cattle would make it harder for most of us to sleep at night or at least reduce our hunger for these foods that we take for granted. A trip to the food processing plant would further put things in perspective.
I’m glad that this subject has started receiving more attention as that is the first step.
Eating healthier meat is a benefit to the consumer and I can see them wanting to pay more for it. Eating humanely raised meat that is more gently killed, well, I’m not so sure. How does this benefit the consumer? In order for this to be successful the consumer needs to know what’s in it for them. Sure, retailers who cater to the kind of consumer that thinks about this should certainly try this marketing approach. In the end this is probably more to do with marketing rather than actually being more humane to animals. There is nothing humane about being slaughtered.
Recently I was at Whole Foods and a demonstrator was handing out samples of tuna that was caught with a fishing line rather than with nets. She said this was more humane. I asked her how she would like it if someone put a big hook in her mouth, etc. No response. The tuna tasted like Chicken of the Sea out of a can and cost four times as much. I didn’t fall for it.
Absolutely this will be big and many retailers will be the very people driving the change. Our children especially will be much more mindful of this than the current generation but we should be proud of the fact that the first tentative steps taken a decade ago are finally showing up on forward thinking retailers shelves and in proactive marketers offerings.
Plus, this will go well beyond animal lovers and straight to those interested in the health benefits. Hunters especially know the great taste of fresh unadulterated meats and will find this option to their liking as well.
Come on! Ms. Wheatley’s comments about humanely treated animals growing in market share is greatly exaggerated. I can only speak for my immediate area, Northwestern PA, but the percentage of people that would be willing to hand over a premium at the cash register for humanely treated meats is a fraction of one percent. My estimates are these: 50% of consumers don’t know anything about the business of raising and slaughtering of animals for public consumption, Yes, it is violent and maybe even gruesome at times. Another 25% know all about the current process and just don’t care as long as their steak is served medium rare and not too rare. Another 20% know about the current process and feel upset enough to mention at dinner how abhorent they feel it is for the animals and they might cut back on buying those Porterhouse for the weekend, except for special occasions. Another 4% know about it and don’t like it enough to stop eating meat all together as a form of protest. And that leaves us with 1% and half of them know about it and don’t like it and go to protests about it and join PETA and become Vegans. The other half of that one percent might know and care and might possibly shell out an extra 20% at the register. But you know what, I doubt that very much in my little 100 mile radius. There is no market for this stuff in 99% of the country and I don’t feel the movement will go anywhere. Thanks for your time, now I have to go sell some groceries.
Count me as one of the oddballs who actually looks for these types of certifications/claims and is willing to pay dearly. Meat is supposed to be a luxury, not a constantly-available, breakfast, lunch, dinner entitlement. Unfortunately, our belief to the contrary has led to environmental havoc, health problems, mad cow, and yes, plain old cruelty.
Make me pay more. You won’t lose my business and I’ll be more temperate.
Anything that can raise supermarket margins should be welcomed with a marching brass band. If humanely raised meet has higher prices, that’s great for profits. If only a fraction of the public wants it, that’s OK, because many grocery items are stocked for only a fraction of the public. What percentage of shoppers buy lard? Kosher? Chicken livers? Perrier? Yet most supermarkets sell all those things. Not everything is as popular as frozen pizza, milk, canned peaches, and apples.
For anyone doubting the impact of this, I challenge you watch Fast Food Nation and be sure to check out the outtakes on the DVD. It’s incredibly researched and quite eye opening.