Choices. If you have talked to as many consumers as we have about meat, you know that the one thing consumers prize more than anything is choice. They want choices – whether it be between a ribeye and a strip, the leanness point on ground beef, or grain-finished vs. grass-fed. And some want the opportunity to buy meat from animals raised without the use of antibiotics.

Ah, antibiotics. This is where things get tricky. The proportion of rhetoric on this topic in the social channels seems to be much greater than the other choices the meat industry offers consumers. If you follow this topic you may be nearly convinced that all consumers think all meat should be from animals raised with no antibiotics. Not true.

Our research shows that 54% of consumers are aware of the “no antibiotics ever” (NAE) term; 50% state they look for meat/poultry that includes this claim, but only 19% state they regularly buy it (Meat Consumer Segmentation 2.0, Midan Marketing, June 2019).

So why all this social buzz that may lead you to believe otherwise? I think Angie Krieger correctly identified it in her recent blog “Defending animal protein against the tyranny of the minority.” What she describes as the “tyranny of the minority” has a very, very loud voice on the antibiotic use topic. They are a passionate, yet small group, most of whom have an entirely different agenda; an agenda focused on eliminating animal agriculture. Unfortunately, all too often, they tend to be the “squeaky wheels” with the loudest voices who fuel the “no antibiotics” fire working to influence retailers’ and restaurateurs’ meat offering decisions.

I give them credit. Their loudness and squeakiness often get them invited to the table for important conversations with key decision makers. That is the frustrating part. It isn’t until we read some proclamation in the news that XYZ company is announcing the phase out of conventional meat products that we realize there was no one sitting at the table to present the rest of the story.

Nearly 10 years ago (2010 to be exact), The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals Guidance was issued by the FDA. Since then, the animal agriculture industry has taken numerous positive actions to ensure the continued safety of not only the meat we eat, but the animals we raise. This is where science has helped us become even better stewards of our resources.

And, programs like Beef Quality Assurance, Progressive Beef™ and Pork Quality Assurance® Plus have assisted us in making further strides.

The use of antibiotics isn’t just about humans or just about animals. Both are weighed by consumers as they make purchasing decisions. Based on my own experiences with consumers, there are at least three pretty distinct categories consumers fall into on the topic:

There is a group of consumers who say something like: I prefer to purchase meat from animals raised without the use of antibiotics but I recognize that just like myself and my family, animals get sick and I don’t want them to suffer so please, if they need an antibiotic to get well – give it to them, just let me know because it is important to me to not buy that meat.

There is another group that says something along the lines of: Yes, I recognize that a sick animal may be treated with antibiotics if needed and I understand that the science tells me it is not an issue to eat this meat so this is not a topic of concern for me.

For the third group this topic is not on their radar at all.

Most consumers are reasonable. They are bombarded with a lot of information they pick through to get to their own conclusions. That is where choices come in to play.

What concerns me more are the special interest groups who seem to be most interested in getting everyone to believe all consumers are saying something more like this: No antibiotics should ever be given to animals no matter how sick they get. If the result is less animals, then that is the outcome and we should all be prepared to eat less meat.

Loud, squeaky wheels. The minority, not the majority. We in the meat industry need to carefully analyze where the “no antibiotics” messaging is coming from – it’s not necessarily the consumers seeking NAE products – it’s often fueled by the anti-ag groups.

We also need to be talking to our customers about this topic so we can make sure there is someone at the table to present the rest of the story when the squeaky wheel is invited into the corporate headquarters. Sure, we are biased, but you can put money on the table that the special interest groups are too. I would much rather the key decision makers hear more than one point of view before making proclamations.

We need to make sure retailers and restaurateurs are listening to meat eaters too, because choice is a good thing.

Don’t let the squeaky wheel drive the antibiotics narrative

Join for free* to continue reading.