Running up and down the staircase of my in-laws’ condominium building in Sarasota, Fla., on Monday, which is what I chose as the cardio portion of a larger workout, I thought to myself, “Is this my resolution?” A week into 2020, it was already my third workout, after all — well ahead of the rather slovenly pace I established for myself last year.

I’d have to say, though, that the clear blue, sunny skies and wonderful warm temperatures were more an inspiration to exercise than anything else. I never consciously resolved on New Year’s Day, like so many often do — and to no avail, that this is the year I’m going to get in great shape; rather, it was a change of scenery, a fresh outlook that got me moving.

I won’t be an Iron Man or an American Ninja Warrior any time soon, or, hell, maybe ever. But hopefully I’ve generated some momentum toward establishing some more positive and productive habits that are, well, sustainable.

And there’s that word again: sustainable. As the word, the thought, bubbled up in my brain during my workout, it triggered a thought about the meat industry. The word takes on so many meanings, but as I see continuous coverage of the devastating brushfires in Australia, the environmental stewardship piece of that puzzle comes to the fore. We’re not hearing the constant hum of anti-industry voices blaming cattle production for the Australia brushfires, but it stokes the recent memory of them making that connection daily when the Amazon was on fire last year.

Remember, that connection — not any so-called health attributes — is the primary marketing fuel for the hot-hot-hot meat alternative market. Retail sales of plant-based meat grew 10% in 2019; animal-based meat grew 2% in the same year. The market value of plant-based meat, at about $10 billion in 2018, is expected to more than triple by 2026, according to Statista.

The industry has a long list of to-dos when it comes to its self-improvement. There is no single resolution for this year. I believe, though, that the time is now for the industry to address one of the biggest on the list— the environmental stewardship slice of “sustainability” — in a meaningful way.

Florida’s sunshine inspired me to get up and move, and I focused my exercises on things (like running and leg strength that comes naturally from a lifetime of playing soccer) that I can do well on a consistent basis. The industry, too, could benefit from a fresh outlook — in this case, on what steps it can manage and what it can effectively communicate to consumers about its efforts.

Jayson Lusk, an economist and Distinguished Professor and Department Head in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, made an intriguing point at the National Chicken Council meeting last fall, when he said that the industry’s gains in production efficiency is its best angle. If the chicken industry, for example, were using 1970s technology, it would have to slaughter 41% more broilers (5.4 billion more head) to produce the same amount of ready-to-cook chicken as was produced in 2018 (49.2 billion pounds), he noted.

In an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, Lusk wrote, “We may be able to reduce our impact on the environment by eating less meat, but we can also do the same by using science to make livestock [and poultry] more productive and environmentally friendly.”

Sounds simple. Of course, it isn’t. Some consumers, as Lusk also points out, don’t like the means by which the industry became so darned efficient. Yes, that meant confining animals in large-scale farms, and using antibiotics when necessary to control illnesses, among other things.

The challenge then, as with so many topics in this industry, is determining how to communicate the message to consumers. It will take an inclusive approach that will likely have to involve participation of some non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but not one that lets them dictate the terms — as they did with the removal of antibiotics — for a particular type of consumer.

And so it will take a focus on the right audience. It could be something more like the North American Meat Institute’s Trust in Animal Protein campaign. As the organization's senior vice president of public and legislative affairs, Pete Thomson, explains it, the program is focusing PR efforts on the 70% of consumers in the silent-majority middle of the meat love/meat hate spectrum.

The industry is never going to convince those who would rather see its end that it is the perfect environmental steward. It can, however, make meaningful progress toward improving in that regard and in capturing more support for its efforts.

Time to get moving

Join for free* to continue reading.