Click here to download:

beef (57 KB)

A recent campaign issued by the National Cattle Association is promoting the benefits of eating “lean beef” as part of a healthy diet.  The tagline of the campaign is “ 29 lean cuts. One powerful protein” starring a generously sized portion of T-bone steak in their feature ad.  The initiative is intended to educate the public on the health benefits of eating lean beef as part of a healthy, balanced diet.

The main portal for the campaign has a great deal of nutritional information including breakdowns of caloric values, saturated fat grams, and total fat per serving.  In their nutritional information, they state:

“Beef is an excellent source of protein. In fact, it’s one of the best natural sources of protein in the supermarket! While your customers often associate beef with protein, they may not know about its other nutritional benefits and how those nutrients can contribute to a healthy, well-balanced diet. Beef is also an excellent source of zinc, vitamin B12, selenium and phosphorous; and a good source of iron and other B-vitamins.” (Beefretail.org)

While there is no argument that beef contains vitamin B12, zinc, selenium and phosphorous, is their message entirely accurate and ethical?

The ethics of advocacy addresses the “practices of persuasion that operate only on the basis of what is effective in the quest to achieve advocacy objectives, without sufficient regard for the basic moral principles that might be violated, or the people and interests that might be harmed in the process” (Baker, 2009, p. 115).  When we examine the  “29 lean cuts” campaign through this lens, we might first consider the motivation of the message, before moving on to determine its accuracy, truthfulness and social responsibility.

The first indication of the moral fogginess of this campaign is the self-serving motivation of the advocates (a group made up of cattle ranchers and livestock farmers that have a vested interest in the promotion of beef in the US).  According the 5 Baseline model for assessing motivations of advocacy (Baker, 2009, adapted from Baker, 1999b), this campaign would fall under the guise of the Entitlement Model which suggests that “professional persuaders have a right to advocate for legal products and causes, even if they are harmful; that caveat emptor [let the buyer beware] is a morally acceptable position” (Baker, 2009, p. 121).  But is the buyer aware?

There are very opposing views on the overall morality of positioning beef as a healthy food, but based solely on their advertising, it’s clear they have bypassed some ethical steps to advocate their message. For example, their  “model T-Bone steak” which appears in their ads is clearly no less than an 8 oz portion of steak. According to CalorieKing.com, this caloric size represents less than a 4 oz portion – at least half the size of the steak they show in their photo. Ironically, they suggest a T-bone steak has only 150 calories and 8.2 grams of fat, but this is over 50% calories from fat, so hardly a choice for a low-fat dieter.

Kim Essex, SVP of Marketing for the National Cattlemen’s Association was quoted in Brandweek noting the campaign “stemmed from research that showed consumer interest in leaner meats, but most being unaware that there are 29 such options that meet government standards” (Brandweek).  However, the USDA suggests Americans “Keep total fat intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories, with most fats coming from sources of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, such as fish, nuts, and vegetable oils. (Health.gov).  It’s unclear then, which government standards they are aiming to withhold.

Is this campaign truthful and authentic?  Apparently not.  Does it have respect for the persuadee or does it take advantage of the audience?  I would argue for the ladder.  Is it a socially responsible message?  This might be debatable, although certainly a diet focused on T-bone steaks might well be considered harmful.   These are the questions we would evaluate this campaign on base on the TARES Test, a five principle based model for addressing the “basic and moral duties of advocates” (Baker, 2009, p. 122).

In my opinion, the campaign failed the test.  Miserably.

References

Baker, S. (2009). The ethics of advocacy: Moral reasoning in the practice of public relations. In L. Wilkins & C. G. Christians (Eds.), The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics. New York: Routledge.

Beef Producers Go Lean in New Campaign. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i8f1f42046a622bdab369305cf8550d24

Beef Retail – Nutrition Central. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://beefretail.org/nutritioncentral.aspx

Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board – MyBeefCheckoff.com. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.beefboard.org/

Key Recommendations for the General Population, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/recommendations.htm

Posted via email from Caren Magill