Labeling Cell-Based Meat Raises Questions

Last Week’s Moves

BLS Cash Index  629.56 (-0.32%)                  BLS Industrials Index 656.21 (-0.38%) 

BLS Foodstuffs Index 592.50 (-0.22%)         BLS Fats and Oils Index 848.91 (-0.16)   

BLS Livestock Index 704.81 (-1.17%)

______________________________________________________________________

Welcome to your weekly food & beverage report, where we cover everything you’ll need to know for the week ahead. This week, we’ll look into the responses to the USDA’s request for cell-based meat commentary, unpack the NFL and Pepsi sponsorship terms, and explore the start of new product lines. 

The USDA’S Food Safety and Inspection Service went to the public to ask about cell-based meat labeling. They got thousands of responses

In September of 2019, the USDA put out a formal request for input around the cell-based meat category and how products should be labeled. Over the course of the two months that comments were being accepted, 1,179 comments were submitted. Food Dive has released a tracker of all of the comments from companies, industry groups, foreign and state governments, trade groups, consumer groups, public officials, and a well-known plant-based industry entrepreneur. Private individuals or anonymous commenters are absent from the list. 

• Worth the conversation… While the comments offered a range of viewpoints, there was a key common denominator: everybody thinks these products represent something new and different, and as such, they deserve regulators’ attention and specific labeling. 
• Public discourse… A lot of parties suggest terminology associated with meat from a slaughtered animal should not be applied when discussing cell-based products. Generally, comments from cell-based meat companies and their proponents lacked some of the passion infused in comments from traditional animal agriculture. 
• What’s next?... The USDA and FDA will work together to decide on labeling terms, though no timeframe is currently set. Although it’s important to these agencies to get proper terminology established, the USDA indicated it won’t necessarily wait for these rules to be put forth in order to approve products for sale. 

While you’re here, check out the latest episode of our new podcast The Food Biz, streaming across all podcast platforms. If you have any feedback or input, reach out to us at news@barchart.com. We’d love to hear what you think!

The NFL has renewed its deal with Pepsi, however the Super Bowl halftime show is up for grabs

While the NFL and Pepsi (PEP) have renewed sponsorship rights that have been in place for nearly four decades, the NFL will be putting sponsorship rights for the Super Bowl on the market for the second time since 2012. CNBC reported that the NFL could seek up to $50 million for rights to the halftime show, leaving some marketing executives questioning the value for the price tag. 

• What’s the deal?... As a key NFL sponsor, Pepsi will retain pouring rights at top NFL events, including the NFL Draft. Gatorade will keep its high visibility on the sidelines, which will help the brand’s new pre-workout product launch in partnership with the NFL. The terms of the sponsorship renewal were undisclosed, however previously the deal was valued at over $2 billion for 10 years.
• Bridgestone may bite… Before Pepsi, auto parts manufacturer Bridgestone (BRDCY) held the rights to the Super Bowl Halftime show. When Bridgestone held the rights, industry executives suggested they paid between $5 and $10 million annually. Compared to the $50 million the NFL is currently quoting, some industry executives are wondering if the price tag is worth it. 

Other stories…

• The best policy… Coca-Cola (KO) will phase out its Honest teas product line at the end of 2022, though the company will continue to manufacture the Honest Kids juice offerings. 
• It’s the remix… Since 1912, Mondelez International’s (MDLZ) Oreo Cookies have taken on north of 85 different varieties. The most recent? RitzxOreo mashup sandwich cookies.
• The good, the bad, and the ugly… Companies trying to redistribute “ugly” fruits and vegetables passed over by supermarkets aim to generate profits while also curbing food waste. However, these companies are struggling to answer the question of how to define “saving” food that otherwise would have been wasted. 

That’s all we have for you this week, do you have anything for us? We’d love to hear from you with stories or recommendations for new sections to include! Drop us a line at news@barchart.com with any feedback or input.