BANFF, Alta. — Modern consumers like their beef with adjectives.
Beef labels such as free range, grass-fed, Angus, rare breed, omega 3 enriched, dry aged, Wagyu and free from antibiotics or hormones present a marketing advantage, said David Hughes, emeritus professor of food marketing at the Imperial College in London.
“Beef is the noun, and I just don’t think there is enough margin in nouns. I think the margin is in the adjectives,” he said at the Global Conference on Sustainable Beef in Banff Oct. 4-7.
Read Also
Hogs’ transport stress called costly
Poor trailer design and transportation stress are killing pigs and costing the pork industry millions of dollars in penalties, meat quality downgrades and failed welfare audits, according to research by a federal scientist.
Chicken and fish are more popular because they are cheaper, relegating beef to a minority meat position.
“Beef and lamb are in the minority meats, but the good news is they are premium meats,” Hughes said.
Annual world meat consumption is around 430 million tonnes, of which 312 million tonnes are eaten in China.
“Whatever happens in China in terms of demand has proportional affects on what happens to the overall meat market,” he said.
Surveys in the western world show per capita meat consumption is static or declining.
A British study on social attitudes found that 58 percent of those surveyed cite health concerns as the main reason they reduced consumption. About 20 percent indicated they were trying to save money or had animal welfare concerns or food safety questions. About 11 percent had concerns about meat production’s effect on the environment.
In addition, an aging population is having an effect because those older than 65 are looking for smaller portions and are eating less overall.
There is also a trend toward eating alone.
In the United Kingdom, 42 percent of all meals are consumed alone. About a third of meals are shared by two people, while 11 percent are shared by three or four people.
As well, more alternatives are available, such as plant-based proteins and Quorn, which contains mycoprotein, derived from the fungus fusarium venenatum and grown by fermentation in a process its manufacturer describes as similar to beer or yogurt production.
“From a consumer point of view it is the same thing,” Hughes said.
“They are new competitors, and we need to keep our eyes on it.”
Consumers are also hearing conflicting messages about raising livestock and the impact on climate change. Scientists, non-governmental organizations and media are placing considerable pressure on meat production.
The recently released Chatham House report, Changing Climate, Changing Diets, from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called on governments to intervene and encourage people to eat less meat. The livestock sector accounts for 15 percent of global emissions, so a shift to less meat consumption could reduce emissions by one-quarter.
“Our appetite for meat is a major driver of climate change,” the report said. “Reducing global meat consumption will be critical to keeping global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees.”
There is increasing interest in the farmers who produce food and an expectation that they are expected to be more environmentally conscious, said Hughes.
Major food companies have to go far beyond corporate responsibility to show they are behaving responsibly.
Consumers are split on whether they would pay more for food and beverage products, but most expect it to be sustainable.
Some surveys have found that 10 percent of people in the United States are willing to pay more for sustainably sourced food.
Another 30 percent said they would regularly buy organic, and 40 percent said they would buy natural.
The green bar is moving up, but consumers will not pay a premium for this kind of food because they expect it to already be sustainable.
“You do not get a premium for being green, but if you are not green then it is a serious misstep,” Hughes said.
