Bill Overview
Title: Bona Fide Beef Branding Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises labels for beef and beef food products. Specifically, the bill replaces the Product of U.S.A . label with the following voluntary labels: Processed in U.S.A .; Raised and Processed in U.S.A. ; and Born, Raised, and Processed in U.S.A.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in beef product labeling
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The legislation affects beef producers, processors, and retailers globally, as it dictates labeling that could impact how beef products are marketed and sold.
- Consumers globally who purchase beef products imported or exported to/from the United States will be affected, as they will encounter new labels that might influence their purchasing decisions.
- Producers worldwide need to meet labeling standards if their beef is sold in the U.S. market under these new labels.
- The legislation primarily affects the U.S. beef industry but could influence international standards or expectations for beef production and labeling.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects the beef production and retail industry; therefore, interviews focus on individuals within these sectors.
- We include a small sample of U.S. consumers to assess potential changes in purchasing behavior due to altered labeling.
- The impact on the Cantril wellbeing score varies based on individuals' roles in the beef industry. Farmers and processors might see greater changes compared to customers, who might be less directly impacted.
- Budget constraints suggest limited immediate impact, with long-term effects as the U.S. beef industry adapts.
- The potential market size for impacted individuals is large, but financial constraints limit the direct impact on each group.
Simulated Interviews
Beef farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might increase costs as we adapt labels, but could attract consumers valuing U.S.-produced beef.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Meat processor (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Compliance with new labels adds operational costs, a burden if not supported by price premiums.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retail grocery manager (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Label changes could improve sales of U.S. beef, aiding marketing efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Consumer (California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New labels make me feel informed but don't drastically change my buying habits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Beef industry policy analyst (Kansas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The labeling policy could benefit U.S. beef branding but requires effective strategy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Beef cattle rancher (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might improve market positioning if properly marketed as a premium product.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
International beef exporter (Illinois)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New labels might not affect exports directly but could improve brand perception.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Farmer and retailer (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Labeling policy can help emphasize local beef, which aligns with our store's ethos.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Restaurant owner (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy enhances appeal of U.S. beef, aligning with my customer preferences for quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired rancher (Tennessee)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy feels beneficial for future of local producers, though indirect at my stage of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- The transformation from 'Product of U.S.A.' to new optional labels could produce initial consumer confusion, requiring public education efforts.
- Compliance with voluntary standards versus mandatory could alter the extent and pace at which the industry implements new labeling.
- Changes in labeling might affect international trade if discrepancies with trading partners' labeling requirements arise.