Younger people might not think that beef is 'what's for dinner,' so marketers try new ways to promote consumption

With jaunty music playing in the background, beef ads
promote red meat as a way to "elevate" meals. (NCBA photo)

In 1992, the Beef Industry Council launched its marketing campaign: "Beef. It's what's for dinner." In the decades since the mantra's kick-off, beef has remained an iconic American meal centerpiece. However, younger generations might not necessarily share a love of red meat, and the industry is preparing to shift its focus to keep younger consumers eating beef for dinner.

Earlier this year, a study from Tulane University in New Orleans found that "a relatively small number of Americans are responsible for the lion's share of beef consumption — and those eaters tend to skew older and male," reports Matt Reynolds of Wired. Hillary Makens, senior executive director of public relations at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, "disputes the study's findings. She shared data from the NCBA's beef tracking survey that found that Gen Z and millennials were more likely than older respondents to have reported eating beef the previous day."

Despite conflicting evidence, one thing is clear, "The beef industry is paying closer attention to younger Americans. The meat marketing agency Midan Marketing has published blog posts calling Gen Z 'tomorrow's meat industry' and urging beef marketers to tout their meat's high protein content to appeal to younger consumers," Reynolds writes. "The rise of marketing beef as 'low carbon' might also be a way for the industry to appeal to younger generations who tend to be more engaged than older consumers with climate change."

Daniel Rosenfeld, a Ph.D. student at the University of California who studies the psychology of meat-eating, told Reynolds, "Unless beef consumption becomes remarkably sustainable, I think younger generations will always have a stronger moral opposition to eating beef on purely environmental grounds."

Tulane study researcher Diego Rose "coauthored a paper sketching out the greenhouse gas reductions that would happen if Americans significantly cut their meat intake," Reynolds reports. Some groups viewed the study's suggestion as anti-beef and claimed that President Joe Biden's climate change policies could limit Americans to "one hamburger a month." Commenting on the polarized interpretation, Rose told Reynolds: "It's silly. You can continue to eat beef but in lower quantities."