What’s in a name? Would a roast by any other name smell of beef?
Probably not, considering the efforts of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA). The group is urging the USDA to define what “beef” actually means.
“Currently, there is no definition of what constitutes a ‘beef’ or ‘meat’ product,” read the group’s Feb. 9 petition to the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). “In light of the new market for synthetic products, new regulations should be adopted limiting the ‘beef’ and ‘meat’ labels to animals born, raised, harvested, and processed in the traditional way.”
The group is asking FSIS to add two definitions to the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book. The first is that “beef” products only come from slaughtered bovine animals. The second is that “meat” only refers to “the tissue or flesh of animals that have been harvested in the traditional manner.”
“USCA is concerned with the recent introduction and development of alternative products that are being marketed or may be marketed as though they are ‘beef,’” the petition explained, citing potential consumer confusion and misbranding.
“The common names of ‘beef’ and ‘meat’ are widely understood by consumers to be the tissue or flesh of animals that have been slaughtered for food. As such, any products that are labeled as ‘beef’ or ‘meat’ that are neither derived from animals, nor slaughtered in the traditional manner are misbranded.”
Fake meat motivators
The growing investment and market share in alternative protein products has motivated this move. Alternate proteins include plant-based burgers such as the Beyond Burger, insect-derived food items, and cultured meat products from companies such as Memphis Meats.
Though plant-based burgers are nothing new, recent offerings have been specifically focused on—and reasonably successful at—mimicking the look, taste, and texture of ground beef. Most notable are Beyond Meat’s “Beyond Burger” and Impossible Foods’ “Impossible Burger.” The Beyond Burger is available in a few grocery stores and chain restaurants. The Impossible Burger is currently only available in a few restaurants in some states around the country.
Tyson made headlines recently for investing in Beyond Meat. Other high-profile investors in Beyond Meat and cultured meat companies have included Bill Gates.
Unlike the plant-based burgers, the vat-grown cultured meats—products produced using animal cells but were never actually part of an animal—are not yet available to the public. Commercial availability in select markets is projected for 2020 or 2021.
Insect-based protein products are not widely available in the U.S. Where they are, they are not usually available in mainstream markets. The most common forms are chips or protein bars made with cricket flour which can be found in specialty shops.
“Such products, which are not derived from animals born, raised, and harvested in the traditional manner, should not be permitted to be marketed as ‘beef,’ or more broadly as ‘meat’ products,” USCA argued.
Not alone
The beef industry is not alone in sharing its supermarket space or restaurant menu with alternative analogs. The dairy industry has had to share its shelf space with plant-based “milks” for years now.
Efforts have been made to put an end to calling those things “milk,” however. A year ago, the House introduced the DAIRY PRIDE Act, H.R. 778. The bill would have limited terms like “milk,” “cheese,” and “yogurt” only to products sourced from lactating, hooved mammals. Products made from almonds, soy, rice, and other plant could not be labeled as “milk” or similar dairy terms.
That bill, and its Senate counterpart, S. 130, were referred to committee and have not moved since. A similar bill—H.R. 4828, called the CURD Act—was introduced last month specifically focusing on cheese labeling, but it has also been referred to committee with no subsequent action.
USCA is also not alone in its desire to see the “beef” title reserved for cattle-sourced food. During its recent convention, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association released its 2018 Policy Priorities. “Fake Meat” was one of its five major priorities.
The group’s announcement of these priorities said it “opposes alternative proteins being permitted to use nomenclature associated with protein sourced from livestock production.” It added that it “supports the definition of beef to only include products derived from actual livestock raised by cattle farmers and ranchers and harvested for human consumption.” — WLJ
