If your business is under attack, do you concede some of your current sales or fight to retain market share? This is the question that anyone being targeted by the so-called plant-based "meat" industry needs to answer honestly.

In a recent blog post, Mack Graves argued that the meat industry needs to avoid name-calling. In particular, he cites his grandmother's wise advice ("If you can't say something nice...”) and Michelle Obama's famous line ("When they go low, we go high"). All in all, he suggests we "cool our jets" despite the growing claims that synthetic meat is better for your health, for the environment and better on humane grounds.

With all humility, I'd like to impart some of my own wisdom and say Mack Graves' approach is naïve more than it is strategic. And it is unaffordable to those under attack from the so-called plant-based meat industry.

Graves, as a writer of opinions and advice, is in a position of very low risk. If the meat industry implements Mr. Graves' advice, the consequences will be very high risk for them. Consider that Pat Brown, founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, is driven by a personal vendetta to destroy the meat industry. Brown recently told the media: "The use of animals in food production is by far the most destructive technology on earth. We see our mission as the last chance to save the planet from environmental catastrophe.” Want to let that one go? He's not looking to take any prisoners.

Nor is Bruce Freidrich, head of the Good Food Institute, the fake meat trade association. Freidrich was a longtime PETA executive and has remarked, “I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow.” Is that worth exposing?

Just consider how fake meat companies aggressively market their products and disparage real meat. Beyond Meat has a page implying its products will cure cancer (“Beating Breast Cancer One Beyond Burger at a Time").

Graves questions whether an industry response with an "offense" strategy is working, since sales of plant-based meat are growing. But it's a flawed metric. What would you expect with a big promotion on news channels with no dissenting views? Conversely, there's no national information campaign saturating the airwaves about fake meat. If consumers only hear one side of any well-orchestrated story it's likely they'll be influenced accordingly.

But there is always an opportunity for balance if you don't wait too long to set the record straight. More importantly, we have research that shows aggressive messaging can stick.

In 2019, we test-marketed messages in suburban Denver informing consumers that plant-based meat alternatives are ultra-processed foods that aren't healthier than real meat (according to dietitians). In just a few weeks, the target audience who believed plant-based meat was a healthier choice dropped 11%. The number of people saying they had seen news that made them question the healthfulness of plant-based meat doubled (our organization was the sole source of the ads). Our re-polling conducted in January showed further consumer erosion.

There have been scores of news stories about our ad campaigns — along with constant advertising in national newspapers — that have changed the discussion around synthetic meat to focus on its ultra-processed nature. (You can visit www.CleanFoodFacts.com to see more.) This is just the beginning. And fake meat companies, including Beyond Meat, are feeling the need to respond to these fact-based assertions.

As my own wise grandmother would say, “the truth hurts."

I understand people say they don't like negative ads. But these ads stick. Negative ads accomplish an important purpose, which is needed here. Our only obligation is to be factual. The facts will do the rest.

You may remember the plaintive voice of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Realistically, the answer is no — not in this case!

Nice guys finish last

Join for free* to continue reading.