National Pork Board Update

Jarrod Sutton

AVP, Channel Marketing

April 25, 2012

Discussion Topics

• PQA Plus

• Crisis Management Plan

• Influencer Survey

• Pork Quality Benchmark Study

• URMIS Labeling Term Review and Application

Discussion Topics

• PQA Plus

• Crisis Management Plan

• Influencer Survey

• Pork Quality Benchmark Study

• URMIS Labeling Term Review and Application

Vast majority of Americans are at least three generations removed from the farm

1900 -- 36% of all U.S. occupations were “agricultural

pursuits.”

1950 -- 11.6% of all U.S. occupations were farmers, farm managers or farm laborers.

In 2000 -- 0.7% of U.S. population was employed in farming, forestry or fishing.

How the public visualizes farms …

What they see …

Times have changed …

Times have changed …

Times have changed…

Craig Watkins

Times have changed…

50 Years Ago Today

• 2,000,000 Pig Farms

• Diversified farms: A little of everything

• Open lots/pastures

• The animals were fat

• Public had some connection with agriculture

• 68,000 Pig Farms • Highly specialized

farms • Confinement • The animals are lean • Public has little

connection with agriculture

History & Evolution

• 2005 - Board of Director developed plan approved by the USDA

– Initiated with a Coalition Discovery Team meeting with all segments of the food-chain • NPB

• NPPC

• Producers

• Packers

• Channel Partners – Foodservice & Retail

Development

• Content development

– Swine Welfare Committee

– Pork Safety Committee

– Producer Services Committee

• All committees have these types of members:

– Researchers

– Veterinarians

– Producers

– Allied Industry

Program Objectives

• Continuous improvement in pork production practices

• Demonstrate that pork producers are accountable for the way we produce pork

• Provide a workable/affordable/credible tool for the pork chain

Participation in the PQA Plus

• Producer Certification

– 52,854 individuals

Site Status

– 16,501 sites

2013 PQA Plus Revision Update

New Mission Statement

• Pork Quality Assurance Plus will build consumer trust by educating pork producers on good production practices while measuring and tracking continuous improvement consistent with the Ethical Principles of: Producing Safe Food; protecting and promoting animal well-being; protecting public health; safeguarding natural resources; and providing a safe work environment.

2013 GPP’s

• GPP #1: Use an Appropriate Veterinarian/ Client/ Patient Relationship (VCPR) as the Basis for Medication Decision Making

• GPP #2: Establish and Implement an Efficient and Effective Health Management Plan

• GPP #3: Use Antibiotics Responsibly

• GPP #4: Properly Store and Administer Animal Health Products

• GPP #5: Follow Proper Feed Processing Protocol

2013 GPP’s Continues:

• GPP #6: Establish Effective Swine Identification, Medication Records and Withdrawal Times

• GPP #7: Establish Environmental Stewardship

• GPP #8: Worker Safety

• GPP #9: Provide Proper Swine Care to Improve Swine Well- Being

• GPP #10: Utilize Tools for Continuous Improvement

2013 PQA Plus Revision Changes

Testing

Online Certification

Site Assessment

Frequency of site assessment re-certification

Criteria for self-assessment

2013 PQA Plus Revision Changes

Testing

– Implementing a testing component to the PQA Plus certification

– The test will consist of questions related to animal wellbeing and pork safety and will be no longer than 25 questions

– 85% = pass (missing 3 questions)

2013 PQA Plus Revision Changes

Online Certification

– Individuals will be able to renew their PQA Plus certification online • First time certifications must be obtained through a face to face

training with a PQA Plus Advisor or Trainer

• Renewals can be done online, by contacting their PQA Plus Advisor

Trainers/Advisors certifications

– Trainer/Advisor certifications will still be conducted face to face

2013 PQA Plus Revision Changes

• Site Assessment – Requiring a producer to submit corrective action plan for all non

compliances; follow up with a signed written action plan in order to receive site assessment status

– All producers who complete their site assessment will sign a statement acknowledging that they may be selected for the 3rd party verification

• Frequency of site assessment re-certification – The Committee is recommending that the frequency of site-

assessments remain at the three year renewal time frame

2013 PQA Plus Revision Changes

Content

– Committees signed off April 16th

– Alignment with We Care Ethics Principles/ Good Production Practices

Vendor Selection completed

Review scheduled for Q4 2012

Questions about PQA Plus?

Discussion Topics

• PQA Plus

• Crisis Management Plan

• Influencer Survey

• Pork Quality Benchmark Study

• URMIS Labeling Term Review and Application

Crisis Management

• The National Pork Board has conducted a vulnerabilities assessment in an attempt to identify potential threats to the pork industry

• Remember H1N1?

• Vulnerabilities have been ranked, preparedness plans are ongoing

• Foreign animal disease, specifically FMD, is a real threat, and something we must prepare for

Crisis Management

• Foot and Mouth Disease

• What is it?

• What is the threat to U.S. pork production?

• National Pork Board Plan

• Gather the experts; information gathering; communication and dissemination of facts

• Aggressive PR campaign, consumer messaging, Q&A factsheet for the meatcase

• What else?

Protect Your Brand…& Your Business

• Activist groups are targeting your brands with tactics aimed at tarnishing your reputation and your image to further advance their agenda

• Undercover video footage, manipulated to tell a story of abuse and neglect of livestock, with a strategy to end meat consumption in the U.S.

• MFA video at Iowa Select Farms, linked to JBS and Costco, Safeway, Kroger and Hy-Vee (June, 2011)

• HSUS video at Seaboard and Prestage Farms, linked to Walmart (January, 2012)

Response Plan, Proven to Work

• Media attention

• Coverage has a short life - boils up, boils down

• Statement

• Experts assembled, video reviewed, statement created/released

• Action Plan

• Advisements per industry experts

• Follow up

• Necessary steps to correct and/or improve

Thoughts?

Discussion Topics

• PQA Plus

• Crisis Management Plan

• Influencer Survey

• Pork Quality Benchmark Study

• URMIS Labeling Term Review and Application

Influencer Survey on Meat and Poultry Production Issues

Purpose

To obtain baseline influencer perceptions of meat and poultry production issues in order to plan audience-appropriate messages, prioritize issues and measure future changes in opinion

Method and Respondents Source

Online survey in early 2012 with:

1. Retailers (Retail Advisory Committee),

2. Foodservice Operators (multi-unit foodservice operators and foodservice management firm headquarters executives),

3. Registered Dietitians (community dietitians who are members of American Dietetic Association), names put into drawing for Amazon gift card

4. Mommy Bloggers (via a blogger network), bloggers were compensated $25 each

5. Traditional Food Media (from NPB media lists)

Research Findings

Customer/Client/Patient Inquiries on Meat and Poultry Production Attributes

Factor Dietitians** Foodservice Retailers A/O S/N A/O S/N A/O S/N

Produced without the use of hormones

27% 38% 26% 47% 12% 29%

Produced without use of antibiotics

18 45 21 59 24 24

Produced locally 20 40 15 53 29 53 Certified organic 21 35 9 62 18 41 Produced from heritage or specific breeds

2 78 9 82 12 82

Q How often do customers inquire about the following production related attributes related to red meat and poultry?

**Q. (Dietitians only) How often do patients or clients inquire about the following production related attributes related to pork?

Scale: Always, Often, Occasionally, Seldom, Never, Don’t know

A/O = Always & Often responses

S/N = Seldom & Never responses

Factor Dieticians** Foodservice Retailers

A/O S/N A/O S/N A/O S/N Produced without the use of crates, stalls or cages

8 68 9 82 0 77

Produced using methods that reduce the carbon footprint

6 67 6 79 0 82

Produced using free access stalls that allow animals to come-and-go

- - 6 85 0 70

Produced using outdoor housing

2 67 3 94 0 94

Produced using indoor housing 2 79 3 94 0 88

Key Findings 1. Production issues are not top drivers for meat purchasing or

recommendations for any influencer audience.

2. The five audiences have very different opinions on what influences their purchases or recommendations related to proteins.

– Food media: recipes, local sourcing, health and nutrition

– Foodservice: customer appeal

– Mommy bloggers: natural/organic products, recipes, health/nutrition

– Grocery/supermarket retailers: quality

– Dietitians: ease of preparation, affordability

Key Findings 3. When presented with a list of production-related issues, antibiotics

and hormones are the leading production-related factors that affect their opinions. Bloggers appear to be more concerned about the different production-related factors compared to the other groups.

4. A significant percent of respondents are unaware of how specific protein industries are performing on sustainable and socially responsible practices. Education opportunities exist with the five audiences surveyed.

Discussion Topics

• PQA Plus

• Crisis Management Plan

• Influencer Survey

• Pork Quality Benchmark Study

• URMIS Labeling Term Review and Application

Objective

• Consumer preferences for pork have been established from the Taste and Preference Study (2008)

• National study will determine the quality attributes of current pork offerings

• The information gathered from the pork quality initiative will be used to: • Set a baseline for future initiatives

• Determine a long-range plan to supply preferred product to consumers

• Narrow the variance of pork quality, which will increase the percentage of consumers' enjoyable eating experiences

Methodology

• NPB has contracted with North Dakota State, Ohio State, Penn State, University of Florida, Texas A&M, and Cal-Poly

• Teams of meat scientists gathered information from stores across the country (120 stores in all) late Jan thru early March, including purchasing up to thirty (30) packages of fresh pork from each store • Product was shipped via Fed-Ex back to the university meats lab to be

frozen for a later date analysis of quality attributes such as tenderness, marbling, etc.

• Visual assessments were recorded in-store (eg. color)

Results

• Product is being analyzed, data will be aggregated, results will be shared before fall RAC

• An immediate opportunity:

• End-point Cooking Temperature

Discussion Topics

• PQA Plus

• Crisis Management Plan

• Influencer Survey

• Pork Quality Benchmark Study

• URMIS Labeling Term Review and Application

ULTRA

• URMIS Label Term Review and Application

• NCBA, ALB, NPB, USDA, VM Meat Solutions, Mettler-Toledo, Midan Marketing, ICMISC

• Initial qual. told us we have a big opportunity

• Most meat consumers do not know what they are looking for, or what they are buying

ULTRA

• Change the names + merchandise accordingly = sell more meat

• Additional research tells us we are on the right track with criteria for naming cuts

• Pork Porterhouse Chop

• Pork Ribeye Chop

• Pork Pot Roast

• More to come, full introduction at 2013 AMC

This message funded by America’s Pork Producers and the Pork Checkoff.

Questions?