While most retailers SN contacted were noncommittal about the new U.S. Department of Agriculture ruling mandating nutrition labeling on meat and poultry, others emphasized that they're not sure the labels will have any effect on meat sales.
Meanwhile, Food Marketing Institute and National Cattlemen's Beef Association representatives said their organizations will be ready to help retailers get in compliance before the deadline, currently set for Jan. 1, 2012. Some retailers showed little concern, saying it's good that for muscle cuts, the USDA ruling indicates a POS poster with nutrition information will suffice.
“Our customers haven't asked for [nutrition labeling on meat] although I know it's front of mind for most shoppers,” said John Gerlach, meat buyer, supervisor for three-unit Stauffers of Kissel Hill, Lititz, Pa.
“People will say it's nice to have information, but I don't know if it'll change their buying habits or [affect] sales. I don't think there'll be any bad consequences.”
Another retailer, Jack Gridley, meat/seafood director at Dorothy Lane Market, Dayton, Ohio, expressed a different view.
“I don't think [nutrition labeling on meat] is a big thing with customers, and there will be some expense to implementing it.”
Steve Lutz, executive vice president, Perishables Group, a Chicago-based research and consulting firm, talked about what's ahead for the retailer.
“I think there may be significant operational challenges in implementation. For example, getting the right labels on various grinds of hamburger with different fat contents is just one of the challenges,” Lutz said.
The labeling, he added, would be attractive to a certain segment of consumers.
“However, I would not expect the labels to have much impact in shifting consumer purchase behaviors.”
By contrast, the NCBA contends that nutrition labeling has been shown to sell more beef.
The NCBA has conducted numerous studies under the Beef Check-Off Program, not just on ground beef, but also on muscle cuts. In each case, there has been a lift in sales when nutrition labeling was used, Meghan Pusey, NCBA director of public relations, told SN last week.
“We see the new law as a plus. We know that consumers want the information. Our pilot studies have shown that,” Pusey said.
The best results are when there's dual declaration, she said. That means there's supplemental information, showing nutrition information for the meat when it's cooked, as well as when it's raw.
The nutrition profile for ground beef changes dramatically when the meat is cooked. Much of the fat, for example, is cooked out of it.
Pusey also said that when combined with NCBA's Easy Fresh Cooking labels on the same package of meat, nutrition labeling produced the best sales results.
“Customers want to know how to prepare particular cuts of meat.”
NCBA maintains a nutrition database for all fresh meat and poultry and Pusey encouraged retailers to visit NCBA's website at beefretail.org.
“We've also built a template for posters. We're working with FSIS right now to confirm it.”
The USDA ruling allows, as an option to on-pack labeling, a point-of-sale poster detailing nutrition information for whole muscle cuts.
Ideally, NCBA would prefer that retailers use micro-nutrient information as well on labels. The organization had success using micro-nutrient labeling in tests in a number of supermarket chains, including Marsh, Giant of Carlisle and Hannaford Bros. Besides boosting sales, the labeling acted as an effective differentiator, Pusey said.
Meat itself is a point of differentiation, making it a particularly important category, said Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at FMI.
“We've found it's one of the most important factors a customer considers in choosing a grocery store,” Lieberman added. “The most frequently offered amenity is having a butcher.
“Since for ground and chopped products, the nutrition facts label has to be on the product, there will be a bunch of issues we'll encounter. Like a meatloaf mix that has pork as well as beef in it.”
Lieberman spoke of other downsides.
“Every new regulation like this just imposes one more expense on an industry whose profits are in pennies,” he said. “Meat has attributes consumers will want to know about, maybe, but it [nutrition labeling] won't affect sales one way or the other. Speaking to retailers, we've found that county-of-origin labels have had not a bit of effect on sales.”
Lieberman pointed out that FMI will have posters available for retailers that detail nutrition information for muscle meats, and he emphasized that FMI, with USDA, would be holding education meetings in the few months.
“We'll be with USDA in its outreach to retailers.”
