Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

The newly formed Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) has just announced their new principles and criteria for sustainable beef production and plan to introduce advice on how beef producers can meet the criteria by early 2015. The GRSB also will work with national and regional beef roundtables to develop their own standards for sustainable beef. Ruaraidh Petre, executive director of GRSB, stated that, “We deliberately avoided specifics of what we measure and the means of verification, knowing that it will vary widely from market to market, and must be set at a national or local level”. National roundtables groups have already been formed in Canada, Colombia and Mexico. The United States, Australia, European Union, Argentina, and Paraguay have groups in development.

The GRSB defines sustainable beef as “a socially responsible, environmentally sound and economically viable product that pri¬oritize Planet, People, Animals, and Progress. More than 96 percent of the GRSB General Assembly members voted in favor of the definition, principles and criteria.

The GRSB has stated though that individual companies do not have to wait for the countries in which they operate to develop similar roundtables. Instead, they can simply adopt the GRSB principles. Marfrig Global Foods’ Keystone Foods has already indicated that they could adopt the GRSB standards and pass down through their supply chain. McDonald’s has already announced that they plan to start using verified sustainable beef by 2016.

The GRSB met for almost two years to determine their “Five Sustainable Beef Principles”. These include:

• Natural Resource – Produce beef in a manner that identifies and manages natural resources responsibly and maintains or enhances the health of ecosystems.
• People and Community – Protect and respect human rights and recognize the critical roles that all participants within the beef value chain play in their community regarding culture, heritage, employment, land rights, and health.
• Animal Health and Welfare – respect and manage animals to ensure their health and welfare.
• Food – Ensure the safety and quality of beef products and utilize information-sharing systems that promote beef sustainability.
• Efficiency and Innovation – Encourage innovation, optimize production, reduce waste and add to economic viability.
  

It is evident when you read the above that the current criteria are quite vague and were written that way on purpose. The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef production issued a statement that reads, “GRSB does not intend to set standards or to create a certification program but to provide a common baseline understanding of sustainable beef that national roundtables and other initiatives can use to meet their needs… GRSB has agreed that the next steps will include the development of more regional-specific indicators, but that we will not develop a seal, certification or comparable standard for sustainable beef.”

I guess we can infer from this statement that the GRSB does not intend to put itself in a position to be held accountable for the “sustainable” criteria developed. They make the direct comment that the GRSB will not “develop a seal, certification or comparable standard….” Instead, it appears that onus will be on the national and regional roundtables that the GRSB encourages.

It is important to note that the current membership in the Global Roundtable, established in the last quarter of 2012, includes more than 40 processors, producers, civil society constituents, retailers, foodservice operators and observing members. The founding members include McDonald’s, World Wildlife Federation, Walmart, Cargill, JBS, Elanco, Merck, and Solidaridad.

The GRSB did say that the five principles were purposefully written in a vague manner and that more specific guidelines will be reported in the first quarter of 2015. According to Fawn Jackson, Manager of Environment and Sustainability with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, The Natural Resources principle was written very broadly so that national and regional groups could write standards that their producers could reasonably meet. The GRSB did recommend that the beef industry follow the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for adherence to Principle 2, and to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for Principle 3.

Concerning the use of antibiotics in beef production, particularly feed grade antibiotics, The GRSB wanted to avoid “picking winners and losers”. According to Nicole Johnson-Hoffman, Vice President at Cargill Value Added Meats Foodservice, “We know that antibiotics are a critical issue for human health, but we wanted to keep this out of the criteria and allow for national-level specificity”.

Since the release of the GRSB sustainable beef production principles, there have been a number of consumer, environmental, animal health and public health organizations that have signed a letter critical of the newly developed criteria. The letter was addressed to the GRSB Executive Committee and included 23 different groups and organizations. These include Animal Welfare Approved, Consumer Reports, and Food & Water Watch. The letter states that, “unless the GRSB addresses the fundamental flaws outlined, the document will represent nothing more than an industry-led attempt to greenwash conventional beef production at a time when real, measurable, and verifiable change is so desperately needed”.

Specific criticisms from the group include:

• The GRSB’s criteria lack specific measurable performance standards, guidelines and verification methods;
• The criteria fail to address the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock;
• The Roundtable does not address what the opposing organizations say are the “key, inherent environmental problems associated with confinement beef production;”
• The published criteria do not “establish meaningful standards for workers’ rights, animal welfare or environmental performance.”
  

In a responding statement from Ruaraidh Petre, executive director of the GRSB:
“The letter demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding not only of the global beef production system, but the committed and diligent work of Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef member organizations and individuals. … The command and control approach proffered by [the activist groups] is an attempt to force change through mandates or standardized ‘one-size-fits-all’ production systems that would lead to counterproductive outcomes at best.”

Petre went on to say that the GRSB welcomes participation by “…any individual or organization committed to a sustainable future….”. He noted that currently, the World Wildlife Fund, Solidaridad, Rainforest Alliance, National Wildlife Federation, Earth Innovation Institute, and the Savory Institute are actively involved.

So, bottom line is this is not going to be an easy effort, but an arduous one that will be contested at every turn. Certainly motives on either side of the debate will be questioned, arguments will be posed and politics will play a role. The real issue is whether there will emerge a truly adoptable and defensible set of standards and criteria that can be applied within our industry as a whole, and how will those standards and criteria impact alternative forms of beef production and consumer preferences and desires. My guess is that this debate will continue for the foreseeable future.