North American Strategy Session on Animal Agriculture - CFI · North American Strategy Session on...
71
North American Strategy Session on Animal Agriculture Hamburger University May 12-13, 2015
Transcript of North American Strategy Session on Animal Agriculture - CFI · North American Strategy Session on...
North American Strategy Session on Animal Agriculture
Hamburger University May 12-13, 2015
The National Food Transparency Project
• An effort to bring diverse stakeholders together to increase transparency across the food system
• Responsive to consumer needs and concerns
• Committed to encouraging and respecting different perspectives
• We need your input, feedback and participation
• We want you to help shape the recommended best practices for greater transparency within the food system
CFI Trust Model
What Drives Consumer Trust?
Accuracy
Relevance
Stakeholder Participation
Clarity
Credibility
Disclosure
Motivations
Elements of Trust Building Transparency
1. Motivation – Act in a manner that is ethical and
consistent with stakeholder interest. Show you
understand and appreciate issues and take action that
demonstrates you put public interest ahead of self-
interest.
Trust Building Transparency
Motivations
Disclosure
2. Disclosure – Share information important to stakeholders, both positive and negative, even if it might be damaging. Make it easy to find; helpful in making informed decisions; easy to understand and timely.
Stakeholder Participation
3. Stakeholder Participation – Ask those interested in your activities and impact, for input. Make it easy to provide; acknowledge it has been received and explain how and why you make decisions.
4. Relevance – Share information stakeholders deem relevant. Ask them. Show you understand.
Trust Building Transparency
5. Clarity – Share information that is easily understood.
Relevance
Clarity
7. Accuracy – Share information that is truthful, objective, reliable and complete.
Trust Building Transparency
6. Credibility – Admit mistakes; apologize; accept responsibility; engage critics; share plans for corrective action. Demonstrate you genuinely care and present more than one side of controversial issues.
Accuracy
Credibility
Accuracy
Relevance
Stakeholder Participation
Clarity
Credibility
Disclosure
Motivations
Elements of Trust Building Transparency
We Strive to Make Transparency Operational
• Embrace and promote consumer access to information. Support the “Right to Know” with transparent and pro-consumer product information.
• Make it meaningful and accessible. Give consumers access to information that will allow them to make informed decisions.
• Encourage broad adoption. It needs to happen quickly and consistently, across multiple platforms and should be applicable for all food products.
• Make it national in scope. A patch-work of state food laws will be confusing for consumers and difficult for the food industry to implement.
How do we know what is meaningful to consumers and
possible for industry?
We ask. We listen. We validate.
Project Advisory Team (Not public)
• Joan Menke-Schaenzer - ConAgra Foods
• Sarah Brown – American Farm Bureau Federation
• Craig Wilson – Costco
• Michael Hewett – Publix
• Deb Arcoleo – The Hershey Company
• Mitch Gilgour – Sysco Foodservice
• NGOs on a confidential basis
The National Food Transparency Project will further define what consumers expect and need regarding transparency and strive to drive widespread food-system adoption of best practices that deliver trust-building transparency.
Project Purpose
Project Operating Principles
• We support consumer access to information that enables knowledgeable/informed consumer choices.
• We believe in relevant, timely and responsive consumer information.
• We agree that food information should be consistent and managed nationally.
• We believe that food information should be truthful, verifiable, and not misleading and supported by evidence-based science.
Flow of Project Activities
Phase I: Launch a National Dialogue
Phase II: Engage Frontline Food
System Decision-Makers
Phase IV: Develop Transparency
Recommendations
Phase III: Validation of research with
quantitative study
Focus Group Logistics
• Locations: Minneapolis, Orange County and White Plains
• Consumers: Focus groups composed of both “foodies” and “food neutral.”
• Venues: Focus Group facilities allowed for live streaming/recording
Core Discussion Questions
1. What do you want to know about the foods you and your family eat?
2. What does “transparency” mean to you with regard to food?
3. Who is responsible for food transparency?
4. How would you rate the current state of transparency across the food supply and delivery chain?
5. What would you like each of these entities to be more transparent about?
6. Where do you want to get the information you want about your food?
7. When done right, what does transparency sound like, look like, and feel like?
Key Learnings from Focus Groups
Validation of Previous Research
• Shared values are the foundation for building trust.
• Those who are in the business of food come to the public conversation with a credibility discount due to the profit motivation.
• The bias against size and scale is real and impacts perception and belief.
New Insights
• There is no premium for being transparent, but a lack of transparency implies the company or organization has something to hide, or doesn’t have a good story to tell.
• There is no single source that is viewed as the objective authority.
• Consumers are willing to consider technology to gather additional information.
• The differences between the food-aware (foodie) and the food-neutral groups were minor.
Two Categories of Issues
Direct Impact
Non-Direct Impact
Transparency
TransparencyTable.org
• An overview of the project and its purpose.
• Map of all focus group sessions
• A description of “who’s listening” and how public input to the site will support transparency.
• A live survey that aligns with the focus group session questions with additional questions that expand on the conversation.
• Access to focus group and live survey results.
Industry Interviews
• Interview frontline food system decision-makers who influence transparency policy to identify transparency opportunities and barriers.
• Through the interviews we ensure recommendations are reasonable, feasible and effective.
Spring 2015 Public Launch
An overview of the Project and its purpose
Share foundational activities as well as future activities
An opportunity for Project partners to share why they became involved and support the Project – media interviews, etc.
Project Timeline • Ongoing: Gather and compile transparency research from food
companies and organizations; identify key findings that will shape qualitative and quantitative research and, therefore, recommended best practices through The National Food Transparency Project.
• January 2015: Build and finalize website with member input; prepare for focus groups and website launch. Project began draft materials for an April/May 2015 launch.
• First Quarter, 2015: TransparencyTable.org soft launch. Completed qualitative research. Working to schedule industry interviews. Deliver report of key findings to the Project by the first half of April.
Project Timeline (continued) • June 2015: Public announcement of The National Food Transparency
Project that demonstrates initial work that has been done to begin the process and encourages an ongoing dialogue online prior to the consumer study in summer 2015.
• Third Quarter, 2015: Develop and field 2015 CFI survey to validate key findings and test recommendations.
• Fourth Quarter, 2015: Continue conversations with key policy influencers, regulators and media regarding the Project; release of final report based on focus groups, industry interviews and 2015 CFI research; development of final recommendations; communicate to industry and the general public.
2015 Center for Food Integrity Summit
This year’s summit will be held in November will focus on the Transparency. Be sure to join us as we release the results of the National Food Transparency Project.
Branded Product Perspective: Perdue Farms
Joe Forsthoffer Director of Corporate Communications
ANTIBIOTICS IN ANIMAL AGRICULTURE:
Perfect Storm or Perfect Opportunity?
(A Brand Perspective)
PERDUE FARMS
VERTICAL INTEGRATION
• We own the chickens, and
provide the feed, technical
advice and veterinary care
• Growers own the farms and
provide the care for the
chickens
• Growers are paid based on
live weight with adjustments
for above-average or below-
average performance
Elevated Attributes #1 In Vegetarian Fed, Minimal Antibiotics #1 In No Antibiotics Ever - # 1 in Organic
Clear Film
Enhanced/Injected
Conventional
Vegetarian Diet/PVPs/Minimal Antibiotics
Vegetarian Diet/PVPs/No Antibiotics Ever
USDA Certified Organic
Local Free-Range/Non-GMO Diet
Local USDA Certified Organic
Heritage Breeds, Pasture-Raised
Majority of Poultry Companies
The Brand Perspective
• Chicken is a
commodity
• PERDUE® is a brand
“To be the most-trusted name
in food and agricultural
products.”
That was Then … This is Now
Unique Selling Propositions Relevant Selling Propositions
We’ve gone from the product in the
package …
“Here at Perdue, every chicken we
sell is tender, meaty and clean. “
… to how it go in the package …
and what will it do for the consumer.
How was it produced? What will it do for me?
Engaged Consumers
• Have we become so efficient that we are
compromising animal welfare, the
wholesomeness of the food and the environment?
• They don’t want more food produced cheaper,
they want better food produced more sustainably
• They want more authenticity, less technology
• They demand transparency
• They want to gain back a sense of control
ANTIBIOTICS:
THE PERFECT STORM
MEDIA COVERAGE
REGULATORY PRESSURE
“The consumer can understand treating ill animals because she’ll
give her child antibiotics for an ear infection. But
she doesn’t pour them on her kid’s breakfast cereal
every morning.”
Our Ongoing Journey • 2002 – moved away from using antibiotics for
growth promotion
• 2005 – phased out specific medically important antibiotics, including floroquinolones
• 2007 – all human antibiotics removed from feed; launched HARVESTLAND® no-antibiotics-ever chicken
• 2009 – Started removing ABX from hatcheries
• 2011 – Acquired Coleman Natural Foods
• 2014 – 95% reduction in human antibiotic use
• 2015 – More than 50% No Antibiotics Ever
Our Antibiotics Position
• Antibiotics should not be used for growth
promotion, to boost production, or as a
substitute for responsible animal husbandry
• Our moral and ethical obligation prevents
withholding treatment
• Consumers deserve clarity and transparency in
labeling (“No” antibiotics means “NO” antibiotics
ever)
• An antibiotic is defined by its function, not its use
A few more thoughts
• We believe there is no one right way to produce food and support customer, consumer and farmer choice.
• We’re not trying to feed the world; we want to meet the expectations of our customers and consumers.
• If you take antibiotics out of a conventional management system, you will fail. You have manage for no antibiotics.
• Customers, consumers and communities are the new regulators.
• Food is an emotional decision!
NGO Perspective: Consumers Union
Dr. Michael Hansen Senior Scientist
Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture, NGO Perspective
Michael Hansen, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Consumers Union
CFI North American Strategy Conference on Animal Agriculture
Hamburger University
Oak Brook, IL
May 13, 2015
The Problem
• CDC annual statistics on food borne illness – 48 million sickened, 128,000 hospitalized, 3,000
deaths
• Sept. 2013 CDC report on antibiotic resistant bacteria, cause 2 million illnesses, 23,000 deaths each year
• Sept. 2014 PCAST: “the risk to human health posed by the agricultural use of antibiotics are, appropriately, a matter of very serious concern” https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_carb_report_sept2014.pdf
The Problem
• Antimicrobials (2011)—animals: 13.5 million kg; humans: 3.3 million kg. Animals use 80% of antimicrobials, with large bulk being used in CAFOs, usually for non-therapeutic purposes
• Use of antimicrobials in animals has increased 17% from 2009 through 2013; for medically important antimicrobials, figure is 20%
2013 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals
Page 43
TABLE 11a
ANTIMICROBIAL DRUGS APPROVED FOR USE IN FOOD-PRODUCING ANIMALS1
ACTIVELY MARKETED 2009-2013
DOMESTIC SALES AND DISTRIBUTION DATA
REPORTED BY MEDICAL IMPORTANCE AND ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION
Route
2009
Annual
Totals
(kg)2
2010
Annual
Totals
(kg)2
2011
Annual
Totals
(kg)2
2012
Annual
Totals
(kg)2
2013
Annual
Totals
(kg)2
%
Change
2009 -
2013
%
Change
2012 -
2013
Medically Important Feed1 5,687,084 5,957,748 5,933,440 6,246,451 6,828,506 20% 9%
Medically Important Injection1 388,518 421,272 416,775 393,422 352,693 -9% -10%
Medically Important3
Intramammary 23,409 24,692 21,023 25,979 9,875 -58% -62%
Medically Important Oral1,5
or Topical1,8
120,506 109,839 126,775 113,409 98,854 -18% -13%
Medically Important Water6 1,467,048 1,715,757 1,757,686 2,113,840 1,906,875 30% -10%
Medically Important Subtotal 7,686,564 8,229,309 8,255,697 8,893,101 9,196,803 20% 3%
Not Currently
Medically Important4
All Routes7 4,900,893 5,057,788 5,313,340 5,725,327 5,591,752 14% -2%
Grand Total 12,587,457 13,287,097 13,569,037 14,618,428 14,788,555 17% 1%
1 Includes antimicrobial drug applications which are approved and labeled for use in both food-producing animals (e.g., cattle and swine) and
nonfood-producing animals (e.g., dogs and cats). 2 kg = kilogram of active ingredient. Antimicrobials which were reported in International Units (IU) (e.g., Penicillins) were converted to kg.
Antimicrobial class includes drugs of different molecular weights, with some drugs reported in different salt forms. 3
Guidance for Industry #213 states that all antimicrobial drugs and their associated classes listed in Appendix A of FDA’s Guidance for
Industry #152 are considered “medically important” in human medical therapy. 4
Not Currently Medically Important refers to any antimicrobial class not currently listed in Appendix A of FDA’s Guidance for Industry #152. 5
Orally administered, excluding administration by means of feed and water. 6
Water includes when the drug is administered either through drinking water, as a drench, or through the immersion of fish. 7
This category includes the following: Feed, Water, and Intramammary. In order to protect confidential business information, the routes of
administration for the Not Currently Medically Important antimicrobial drugs are not separately presented. 8
No Topical sales and distribution in 2012 and 2013.
OTC domestic sales of medically important antimicrobials remain steady from 2009 through 2013 at 98%
How safe is that chicken Consumer Reports, January, 2010
382 broilers tested Campylobacter 62%, Salmonella 14%; 9% both; 34% neither
The high cost of cheap chicken Consumer Reports, February, 2014
97% of the 316 (252 conventional, 64 no abx) chicken breasts tested contained potentially harmful bacteria Enterococcus 79.8%; E. coli 65.2% Campylobacter 43%; Salmonella 10.8%
The high cost of cheap chicken Consumer Reports, February, 2014
The high cost of cheap chicken Consumer Reports, February, 2014
The high cost of cheap chicken Consumer Reports, February, 2014
What’s in that pork? Consumer Reports, January, 2013
Talking turkey Consumer Reports, June, 2013
257 ground turkey samples; 90% have 1 or more of 5 bacteria tested 3 of 39 staph aureus are MRSA
Consumer Reports National Research Center 2014 Food Labels Survey
http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/consumerreportsfoodlabelingsurveyjune2014.pdf
Consumer Reports National Research Center 2014 Food Labels Survey
http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/consumerreportsfoodlabelingsurveyjune2014.pdf
Consumer Reports National Research Center 2014 Food Labels Survey
http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/consumerreportsfoodlabelingsurveyjune2014.pdf
Consumer Reports® National Research Center
10
Consumers Have High Expectations for Humanely Raised Claims on Eggs, Dairy and Meat The majority of consumers think a humanely raised claim on eggs, dairy and meat currently means the farm was inspected to verify this claim (79%), the animals had adequate living space (77%), the animals were slaughtered humanely (75%), and the animals went outdoors (65%). Accordingly, the vast majority of consumers believe this claim should mean that the farm was inspected to verify this claim (92%), the animals had adequate living space (90%), the animals were slaughtered humanely (88%), and the animals went outdoors (79%). While only half of consumers think this claim currently means the animals were raised without cages, a clear majority of consumers (75%) think this claim should mean this.
Consumer Perception of HUMANELY RAISED Claim on
Eggs, Dairy and Meat
79% 77% 75%
65%
51%
92% 90% 88%
79%75%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Farm inspected
to veri fy cla ims
Minimum l iving
space
requirements
Animals were
s laughtered
humanely
Animals went
outdoors
Animals ra ised
without cages
Perc
ent
of C
ons
um
ers
Consumer thinks claim CURRENTLY means Consumer thinks claim SHOULD mean
Positive steps
• Whole Foods Market, Chipotle: all meat from animals raised without antibiotics + animal welfare standards
• 2014 Perdue Farms: no abx use in hatcheries; no medically important abx in feed
• 2014 Chick-fil-A: phase out use of abx in chicken by 2019
• 2015 McDonald’s: no use of medically important abx in chicken sold in US by 2017
• Tyson Foods: stop use of all abx used in human medicine by 2017
What we want
• Gov’t: FDA should prohibit all non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics, including disease prevention; Congress should pass PAMTA—Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act
• Require more abx usage data from companies and make data public
• NOP: close loophole allowing antibiotic use in chicken eggs in organic production
• USDA: Classify strains of Salmonella that are multi-antibiotic resistant, and known to have caused human illnesses, as “adulterants”
• Congress: give USDA recall authority for products tied by DNA fingerprinting to disease outbreaks
What we want
• Companies should offer meat from animals raised without antibiotics. Other companies should follow in footsteps of Perdue, McDonald’s and Tyson in saying they won’t use antibiotics important to human medicine in their chicken
• The same should happen for beef, pork and turkey
Consumer Panel Discussion:
Shopping for Antibiotic-Free Meat
• Primary grocery shoppers from Chicago area
• Ages 24-44
• Compensated
• Ethnic and gender mix
• Look for one or more of the following labels:
Antibiotic-free
Hormone-free
Cage-free
Consumer Panel Profile
Seriously. You didn’t
just say that.
Civility and You!
Civility and You!
Where do you go for
information?
What’s most important to
you?
Consumer Panel Discussion
Welcome!
Adjourn
Safe Travels!
