Skip to content

Beef message should now be clear

Your columnist has written about it before, but now an influential major fast food marketer is making it very clear – resistance is futile.

AHEAD OF THE HEARD -- Your columnist has written about it before, but now an influential major fast food marketer is making it very clear to the beef industry resistance is futile as the saying goes. A spokesperson from the iconic Tim Horton’s chain put it in a more graphic phrase when an issue becomes a tidal wave, get out of the way. That was the perspective on the hormone/steroid/antibiotic issue by Sam Heath, Vice-President of Marketing for Tim Horton’s Canada. He spoke at a panel discussion on beef demand at the inaugural Canadian Beef Industry Conference. His perceptive marketing assessment may be the brutal honesty that the Canadian cattle and beef industry needs to heed the beef marketing reality that is gathering steam every day in the fast food marketplace. It seems that no amount of deferring to science or common sense is going to change where this marketing trend is going. Mr. Heath noted that his company was engaging in an extensive consumer survey on the issue in order to determine what they will do regarding what type of beef or meat in general that they will buy in the future for their food menu offerings. I would suggest that no matter how innocuous the survey question is asked, the answer will be the same. It seems that anything to do with the words “hormone”, “steroid”, or “antibiotic” has become toxic to meat marketing. The big dogs in fast food marketing know this better than anyone. If Tim Horton’s is thinking about what they will do about this issue, you can be assured that super big dogs like McDonald’s are already well along with their marketing planning.

Two questions were raised by the audience at the conference that somewhat reflected how the industry is falling behind the anti-additive bandwagon. One person asked if large beef buyers supported the science behind the safety of hormone and antibiotic use in beef production. Mr. Heath stated what is clear to most in beef marketing of course they support the science - but that doesn’t matter if the consumer doesn’t believe the science. A second question concerned how the hormone/antibiotic question was asked in surveys, implying that asking a loaded question could predetermine the response. No one denies such dubious survey tactics are commonplace, particularly with notorious lobby groups, but big sophisticated fast food marketing campaigns have to be based on more than just loaded questions and presumptions. There are millions of dollars involved and they have to be right. Besides, the twisted A&W anti-hormone/antibiotic ad campaign has proven to be remarkably successful by playing on the gullibility of naïve consumers. Competitors are conscious of such success stories and invariably look for ways to neutralize that advantage. Mention was made that McDonald’s and Tim Horton’s are using the all-Canadian meat marketing approach (A&W beef is mostly Australian). Be that as it may, it would seem that scare mongering about beef food safety trumps most appeals to locally sourced products. Marketing has always been a ruthless business, with science and fairness being the first casualties.

I would suggest the message is becoming increasingly clear as to what the fast food market will be demanding from beef producers but what can the industry do considering the impact on production practices, particularly at the feedlot level? Most would agree that to eliminate hormone/antibiotic supplementation could increase feedlot operators’ costs by up to 20 per cent and significantly increase the carbon footprint of beef production. Suffice to say that in a free market situation with diverse interests, the production/marketing issue becomes complicated. This may be simplistic, but perhaps fast food marketers should put their money where their mouths are instead of taking the easy route like importing cheap hamburger from Australia, why not make contractual arrangements with Canadian packers and feedlot operators that would see premiums paid to cover the extra costs involved in producing so-called hormone and antibiotic-free meat. Some of that is already being done for niche markets so there is a precedent. I expect feedlot operators are not holding their breath for that to happen in a large way. Many suspect that the stealth approach being used by certain retail players is more likely - that being to push the sustainable beef verification/certification concept to include a no added hormone or antibiotic use provision. That approach means only one thing - more costs will be inflicted on the entire beef production chain and particularly the feedlot sector - all just to satisfy the misguided perceptions of gullible consumers.