DeSmog

Facebook-f X-twitter
Subscribe
Donate
Donate

DeSmog

Donate
Search
Search

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA)

Background

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is a U.S.-based 501(c)(6) trade association which exists “to work to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand.”1“Nonprofit Explorer: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,” ProPublica. Archived October 16, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/bpNF6 

NCBA is one of the largest animal agriculture lobbyists in Washington D.C.2”Industry Profile: Livestock,” OpenSecrets. Archived October 15, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/S1cpR The group has regularly funded and promoted research that downplays the impact of cattle production on climate change.3Oliver Lazarus, Sonali McDermid, and Jennifer Jacquet. “The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers,” New York University Center for Environmental and Animal Protection (CEAP), 2021. Archived August 4, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/2eUfn It has lobbied against climate legislation4“Bill Profile: S. 1733,” OpenSecrets. Archived October 24, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/wip/aW1vM and presented beef as a “climate change solution.”5Todd Wilkinson. “Testimony on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association with regard to “Reducing Emissions While Driving Economic Growth: Industry-led Initiatives” submitted to the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,” United States Senate, 2019. Archived October 3 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/wIMuz

With roots reaching back to 1898, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association was established in its present form in 1998.6“About: History,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Archived Dec 23, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/RQCLQ Along with state beef councils and affiliates, the NCBA is an authorized federal contractor under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Beef Checkoff Program, which allows it to use program funds for advertising and promoting demand for beef. More than half of the NCBA’s over $60 million budget comes from Beef Checkoff Program funding.7“National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: Full text of ‘Full Filing’ for fiscal year ending Sept. 2020,” ProPublica. Archived October 16, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/HgjMM

Stance on Climate Change

In 2021, the NCBA issued sustainability goals for the US cattle industry, with a primary goal to “demonstrate climate neutrality of U.S. cattle production by 2040.”8“Cattle Industry to Climate Neutrality by 2040,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, August 12, 2019. Archived July 19, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/ypJus “Demonstrate” is a key part of this statement; the NCBA has been lobbying federal officials to embrace the GWP* system of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, instead of the default GWP100 system (“GWP” refers to “global warming potential).9“National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council Response to Notice of Request for Public Comment on the Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 14403,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2021. Archived October 23, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Methane emissions are a significant part of the livestock industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. Under GWP*, these emissions are considered less impactful on global climate change. 

The NCBA has contested the public perception that cattle production is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. At a February 3, 2022 hearing before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, Kim Brackett – a rancher and chair of the Beef Industry Long Range Plan – testified on behalf of the NCBA, saying that:10“Hearings: “Sustainability In The Livestock Sector: Environmental Gain And Economic Viability,” House Committee on Agriculture, February 3, 2022. Archived September 21, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/L6Oq6 

“…direct emissions from beef cattle only represent 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Not only are beef cattle not significant contributors to the full emissions profile, the work cattle and cattle producers do helps to avoid other kinds of emissions, like those from catastrophic wildfire and makes lands more drought resilient.”  

In the same hearing, Brackett touched upon a key goal of the NCBA’s policy work: avoiding mandatory emissions reductions for the livestock industry. Brackett stated: “I think it’s important to focus on innovation – having support for research and innovation as opposed to regulation, that’s something we’re very much in favor of.”

The NCBA organized against the the Kyoto Protocol11“Kyoto Opposition Washington Post Ads 1997,” Climate Investigations Center. Archived October 23, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UQuFN and cast doubt on climate science as late as 2010 in official comments regarding EPA’s Endangerment Finding.12Coalition for Responsible Regulation et al. “Petition for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 11, 2010. Archived October 24, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. The group has also lobbied against U.S. climate legislation and regulations in the United States.13“Bill Profile: S. 1733,” OpenSecrets. Archived October 24, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/aW1vM 

Funding

As Recipient

In 2020, the NCBA had an annual budget of $64 million, according to ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer. More than half of that funding came from the Beef Promotion Operating Committee’s contract with NCBA, through which NCBA is authorized to spend Beef Checkoff funds in order to promote consumer demand for beef.14“Nonprofit Explorer: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.” ProPublica. Archived October 16, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/bpNF6 

NCBA is the largest recipient of Beef Checkoff Program funds.15Greg Hanes. “Beef Checkoff: Who’s Who & How It Works,” Perishable News, April 12, 2021. Archived November 27, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Hx8UG 

The Beef Checkoff program’s funding comes from a $1 tax on each head of cattle sold, and can only be used to pay for activities that promote beef demand, excluding lobbying. In 2021, the Beef Checkoff Program gave funding to eight other organizations in addition to the NCBA, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the North American Meat Institute and the U.S. Meat Export Federation.16Greg Hanes. “Beef Checkoff: Who’s Who & How It Works,” Perishable News, April 12, 2021. Archived November 27, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Hx8UG 

In proposals for Beef Checkoff Program funding, the NCBA has referenced its “crisis work” in response environmental criticism of the beef industry. In its proposal for funding for fiscal year 2022, NCBA highlighted its response to the 2019 EAT-Lancet report, which proposed less meat and dairy consumption in order to mitigate global warming:17“AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR FY 2022,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2021. Archived October 18, 2021. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.  

“NCBA, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, has a long history of leading the beef industry and various stakeholders through issues and crisis situations. From the 2003 case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), to lean finely textured beef (aka “Pink Slime”) in 2012, to responding to the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet and Heath report in 2019, to the COVID-19 pandemic, NCBA has the experience, expertise, passion and plans in place to deploy the right message, to the right audience, at the right time. In these cases, and for the numerous issues that arise daily, Beef Checkoff-funded programs have maintained consumer confidence in beef and consumer demand. This is thanks to continuous media and pop culture monitoring and planning and preparation.”

As Donor 

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has a political action committee (PAC) that regularly donates to over 100 House and Senate candidates, nearly all Republicans.18“PAC Profile: National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn,” Open Secrets. Archived October 11, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/PWUsM

YearRecipientAmountReason
2022Animal Agriculture Alliance$5000Sponsor, Speaker Panel (2022 AAA Summit)19“2022 Stakeholders Summit sponsorship form,” Animal Agriculture Alliance. Archived May 22, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
2018Western Legal Resources Center$5000Grant paid via CATL Fund20“CATL Fund: Form 990-EZ for period ending September 2018,” ProPublica. Archived Feb 20 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.is/tu4hS 

Lobbying

Lobbying for GWP* Method of Methane Accounting

At the 2022 CattleCon & NCBA Trade Show, the NCBA’s annual convention, CEO Colin Woodall spoke about how important it was for the federal government to adopt GWP* as its system for methane accounting.21Matt Krupnick. “US beef industry emerges from Biden’s climate pledges ‘relatively unscathed’,” The Guardian, March 7 2022. Archived June 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/CztWH Unlike the default accounting method GWP100, GWP* rates methane as a less potent greenhouse gas because it breaks down in the atmosphere more quickly than carbon dioxide. This is the basis for NCBA’s claims that the beef industry can be climate neutral by 2040.22“NCBA Confident in U.S. Cattle Record, Urges Open Dialogue on Methane Target,” NCBA, Sep 17, 2021. Archived November 1, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/LchGb  

Woodall noted that NCBA lobbyists had been advocating the GWB* system of accounting with lawmakers:

“For us to be successful, GWP* – global warming potential star – is the methodology we need to make sure that everybody is utilizing in order to tell the true story of methane. And that’s one of the reasons why NCBA spends time on Capitol Hill making sure that our government recognizes it.”

According to reporting from Unearthed, NCBA President Don Schiefelbein told the convention that if GWP* was used to measure methane’s impact going forward, it would “be pretty easy to” achieve climate neutrality by 2040 “without reducing the number of cattle.”23Zach Boren. “Beef lobbyists celebrate methane ‘win’ at COP26,” Unearthed, July 3, 2022. Archived August 6, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Zb5Hb

Lobbying for Voluntary Methane Reductions

At the 2022 CattleCon and NCBA Trade Show, CEO Colin Woodall celebrated the industry’s success in lobbying the Biden administration to propose voluntary, rather than mandatory, methane reduction targets at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26). “Any way you slice it, that outcome from COP26 was a win for us,” he said, according to reporting from Unearthed.24Zach Boren. “Beef lobbyists celebrate methane ‘win’ at COP26,” Unearthed, July 3, 2022. Archived August 6, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Zb5Hb  

At the 2021 conference, COP26, the United States and the European Union committed to a 30 percent reduction of methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030.25“Global Methane Pledge,” Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2021. Archived July 5, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/po6L9 While the pledge committed the two countries to standards which would require the energy and waste sectors to reduce emissions, it called for only voluntary reduction targets for the agriculture sector. Mary Thomas Hart, the NCBA’s environmental counsel, told attendees at the 2022 CattleCon and NCBA Trade Show:26Zach Boren. “Beef lobbyists celebrate methane ‘win’ at COP26,” Unearthed, July 3, 2022. Archived August 6, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Zb5Hb 

“The President’s methane pledge could have gone badly for livestock production in the United States, badly for the cattle industry…But this administration seems to recognise the positive value that we bring. Beyond research funding and encouraging technological innovation, there were no additional regulatory proposals.”

Lobbying Against Proposed SEC Climate Disclosure Rule

In March 2022, the NCBA and other agribusiness trade associations denounced a proposal by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require publicly traded companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions.27(Press release.) “SEC Proposes Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, March 21, 2022. Archived October 13, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zei1z 

Though the rule did directly require farms to report their emissions, it raised the possibility of requiring publicly traded companies to report both upstream and downstream emissions, known as “Scope 3” emissions. The NCBA and other agribusiness trade associations filed comments in opposition to the rule, arguing that because the emissions involved in a publicly traded company’s value chain could include those from agriculture, small farms could face the burdensome task of reporting emissions.28Agricultural Retailers Association et al. “Re: Comments by National Agricultural Associations on SEC’s Proposed Rules on the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Archived June 27, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. In these comments, the NCBA requested that the SEC revise the Scope 3 emissions reporting provision to include a specific exemption for agriculture.

On October 3, speaking about the SEC proposal to Ron Hays on the Beef Buzz radio segment, NCBA CEO Colin Woodall said that the SEC did not have the jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that Scope 3 emissions reporting could be a big issue for agribusiness:29“NCBA Working to Keep GIPSA Rules in the Past,” Oklahoma Farm Report, October 4, 2022. Archived October 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/jyz6S 

“[The proposed rule] is an agenda driven action by an agency to try to force more greenhouse gas regulations on all segments of the supply chain. With this, especially if it covers scope 3, it means that all of our greenhouse gas emissions as cattle producers are going to have to be passed up the chain as we sell our cattle.” 

During this radio segment, Woodall referenced the NCBA’s support for the Protect Farmers from the SEC Act, a bill that Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) had introduced in September 2022.30“Congressman Lucas introduces bill excluding agriculture from SEC climate disclosure rulemaking,” Office of Congressman Frank Lucas, September 29, 2022. Archived September 29, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/K6ZgT Woodall told Hays: “We have quite a few members on Capitol Hill who have been very willing to step up and help us fight back.”31“Congressman Lucas introduces bill excluding agriculture from SEC climate disclosure rulemaking,” Office of Congressman Frank Lucas, September 29, 2022. Archived September 29, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/K6ZgT The Protect Farmers from the SEC Act would exempt agricultural products from being included in SEC Scope 3 emissions reports, and is backed by the NCBA, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the National Cotton Council. The NCBA’s political action fund has contributed $33,500 to Rep. Lucas since the 2016 election cycle.32“National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates,” OpenSecrets. Archived October 21, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Vnl66 

Some finance experts have disagreed with the claim by NCBA and other agricultural groups that Scope 3 emissions reporting would involve an expensive emissions accounting process for private companies, including farms. Kristina Wyatt, a deputy general counsel at the carbon accounting firm Persefoni and former climate and environmental and social governance counsel for the SEC, told E&E News that under the proposed rule, it would be “perfectly permissible for companies to use methods that don’t require them to go directly to their suppliers to get the actual emissions data.”33Avery Ellfelt. “SEC climate rule sparks backlash from business groups,” E & E News, June 2, 2022. Archived June 2, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/t385f For example, the rule states that it may be necessary for companies to rely heavily on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from certain sources when reporting Scope 3 emissions.34“The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [Proposed Rule],” Securities and Exchange Commission, 2022. Archived October 15, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

Public Relations Campaigns and Advertising

The NCBA has publicly discussed its strategy of using “credible third party actors” to restore trust in the beef industry. 

When NCBA member Kim Brackett testified on behalf of the NCBA before the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture in February 2022, Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS) asked her how the NCBA could change the public’s perception that beef production is a significant contributor to climate change. Brackett replied:35“Sustainability in the Livestock Sector: Environmental Gain and Economic Viability,” Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, February 3, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. 

“Considering the society that we’re in, and the distrust that we seem to be facing, I think the solution lies with having credible third parties, um, talking about what the cattle industry does and what our sustainability story really is. I see those third party experts, if you will, they could be chefs, well known chefs, they could be respected journalists, scientists, but we need, um, we need other people out there talking about what we’re doing.” 

Several of the NCBA’s most recent advertising and public relations campaigns have relied on this strategy of third party mobilization. 

In the Authorization Request for Beef Checkoff Program funds for FY 2022, the NCBA outlined its public relations goals, and detailed its contracts with third party public relations firms.

Well Known Chefs: United We Steak campaign 

In 2020, the NCBA hired Linhart Public Relations to lead “United We Steak,” a campaign focused on increasing American demand for beef during the summer months.36“People on the Move: Libby Pinkerton,” Denver Business Journal, March 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/56nQi Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Linhart PR was the NCBA’s agency of record for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, according to NCBA’s Authorization Request to the Beef Checkoff Program for FY 2022.37“Authorization Request for FY 2022,” Beef Board, 2021. Archived October 18, 2021. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 38“People on the Move: Libby Pinkerton, “ Denver Business Journal, March 22, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/56nQi Beef Checkoff Program funds paid for the campaign, which the NCBA managed under its “Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner” brand, according to a press release from NCBA.39“‘United We Steak’ Campaign Celebrates Americans’ Love of Grilling,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, June 29 2020. Archived October 16 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/x9uIJ  

On its website, Linhart PR describes how it secured national broadcasts of beef grilling demonstrations by celebrity chefs Lamar Moore and Hugh Acheson, which were aired by Good Morning America and ABC News online.40“Case Studies: Promoting beef as the top protein for summer grilling season,” Linhart PR. Archived January 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/8uoQh According to its website, “Linhart PR secured 131 stories and more than 7.3 billion impressions for summer grilling with beef.” The Cattlemen’s Beef Board 2020 annual report, which documents how Beef Checkoff dollars are spent, noted that the NCBA reached 238 million consumers through the “United We Steak” campaign’s paid advertising, social media, earned media, and influencer outreach.41“Cattlemen’s Beef Board 2020 Annual Report,” Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 2020. Archived November 24, 2021. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

In 2021, Linhart PR founder Sharon Linhart reposted a LinkedIn post of the NCBA’s criticism of the science behind a 2021 study finding that beef production was a major air polluter. She commented: “So good to see a correction of the false narrative around beef!”42Sharon Linhart. “So good to see a correction of the false narrative around beef!,” LinkedIn. Archived October 16, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6ioz7

Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner Campaign

The “Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner” promotional campaign is managed by NCBA and paid for by Beef Checkoff Program funds, according to the brand.43“BEEF. It’s What’s For Dinner. Brand Announces Tony Romo As New Spokesperson,” Cattlemen’s Beef Board and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, February 1, 2022. Archived September 25, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/RJdlB The campaign launched in 1992 with television and print ads created by the Leo Burnett Company. In 2008, the campaign claimed that 88 percent of Americans recognized the tagline.44“A Snapshot of the Advertising Campaign for America’s Number One Protein,” Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner. Archived July 15, 2009. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

In 2017, NCBA hired the ad agency VML to revive the tagline in a campaign encouraging beef consumption which was targeted towards a millennial audience.45(Press release.) “New Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner. Campaign Celebrates Consumers’ Love for Beef and the People Who Raise It,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, October 6, 2017. Archived June 20, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UGW6X The campaign has been renewed through 2023.46“Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2023,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, June 30, 2022. Archived November 29, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. In FY 2019, NCBA requested and was granted $9.6 million from the Beef Checkoff for the campaign,47“Authorization Request for FY 2019,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2018. Archived January 4, 2023. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. and in FY 2020, NCBA’s request for $9.4 million in Checkoff funds was accepted.48“Authorization Request for FY 2020,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2020. Archived June 9, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

VML created the website beefitswhatsfordinner.com, which features the page “Beef’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”49(Press release.) “New Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner. Campaign Celebrates Consumers’ Love for Beef,” NCBA, October 6, 2017. Archived June 20, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/UGW6X That page states:50“Beef’s Role In Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner. Archived October 25, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.is/5PJG8  

“Contrary to some of the misconceptions about beef’s role in greenhouse gas emissions, cattle-generated gases are completely natural, are very different from the types of gasses stemming from fossil fuel emissions, and are on the decline.”

The website also includes a graphic titled “Biogenic Carbon Cycle” copyrighted to the NCBA in 2020 which shows greenhouse gas emissions from cows all returning to the earth, instead of accumulating in the atmosphere. The webpage also seeks to differentiate between the warming impact of greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and those from fossil fuels, claiming that “there’s a clear difference between biogenic carbon (described above), and carbon from fossil fuels.”51“Beef’s Role In Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner. Archived October 25, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.is/5PJG8 

When NCBA hired VML for the digital “Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner” campaign, NCBA also continued working with its agency of record since 2003, Ketchum, for earned media stories related to the campaign.52“Ketchum Food Center Celebrates 30th Anniversary,” Ketchum, October 13, 2008. Archived July 1, 2011. Archive URL: https://archive.is/PcnET In a 2017 interview with the Wall Street Journal, NCBA’s senior vice president of global marketing and research Alisa Harrison said that “there are people out there in public dialogue that have an agenda” to “make the case that people shouldn’t be eating meat.” She also told the Wall Street Journal that “people were misrepresenting how beef is produced.”53Alexandra Bruell. “Beef Is Back for Dinner as Marketers Woo Nostalgic Millennials,” The Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2017. Archived November 3, 2017. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/DMkdV 

Rethink the Ranch Campaign

In 2021, the NCBA hired ad agency VMLY&R to create the “Rethinking the Ranch” campaign to persuade consumers that cattle ranching – and thus beef – was a sustainable part of the food supply.54El Peña. “Rethink the Ranch,” Archived August 24, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 55“BEEF. IT’S WHAT’S FOR DINNER. // RETHINK THE RANCH.” TR Goode. Archived May 8, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/WAFp1 The campaign was a response to market research showing that nearly half of consumers cared about the environmental impact of their food choices, and that consumers saw beef production as less sustainable than other dietary choices. Rethinking the Ranch was launched on social media platforms and with influencer outreach.56“Beef Sustainability Campaign Reaches 96 Million Consumers,” Beef Checkoff. Archived May 17, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/PF0la Ads also ran on ESPN networks and radio platforms. According to the NCBA, over 96 million people saw this campaign, which was funded by Beef Checkoff funds and part of the “Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner” brand. 

Annual Advertising Spend, NCBA57“National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: Tax Filings by Year,” ProPublica. Archived October 15, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/bpNF6

2009Leo Burnett Company $9,859,181
Ketchum$1,859,935
Edelman$1,326,807
Midan Marketing$933,391
2010Leo Burnett Company$12,655,290
Ketchum$1,924,004
Edelman$1,361,516
Golin Harris$818,810
2011Leo Burnett Company$10,955,510
Ketchum$2,729,156
Edelman$728,671
Texas Agrilife Research$721,825
2012Leo Burnett Company$10,771,851
Ketchum$3,199,807
Porter Novelli$1,016,851
Baxter Communications$749,453
2013Leo Burnett Company $9,719,796
Ketchum$3,172,069
Foodminds LLC$745,245
2014RGA Media Group$8,005,852
Ketchum$3,193,484
Foodminds$790,751
Baxter Communications$642,144
2015RGA Media Group$10,783,705
Ketchum$3,151,996
Foodminds LLC$946,126
RK Group$815,998
2016RGA Media Group$7,935,639
Ketchum$2,319,779
Foodminds LLC$868,511
Baxter Communications$814,238
2017RGA Media Group$8,124,385
Ketchum$3,267,158
VML Inc$1,582,896
Foodminds LLC$977,435
2018VML Inc$8,361,047
Ketchum Inc$1,593,713
Google Inc – Advertising $1,477,610
Foodminds LLC$1,223,565
2019VML Inc$7,465,861
Google Inc – Advertising $2,231,003
Pinterest Inc – Advertising$974,040
2020VML Inc$6,089,207
Google Inc – Advertising$2,235,884
Facebook – Advertising$1,119,432

Actions

September 28, 2022

On September 28, 2022, Hema Budaraju, the director of Google Search, announced that the search engine would integrate the emissions impact of food ingredients into search results for recipes.58Hema Budaraju. “New ways to make more sustainable choices,” Google, September 28, 2022. Archived October 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/LkpVX In her announcement, a sample search for tofu panang curry recipes compared the emissions per pound of food of the dish – 1.4 kgCO2eq – to beef’s 32kgCO2eq. Subsequently, on October 11, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association denounced the proposed change in a press release, saying that the search feature used “inaccurate climate information about cattle production.”59“NCBA Denounces Google Feature That Misrepresents Beef’s Environmental Impact,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, October 11, 2022. Archived October 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/obQWS In a press release, NCBA wrote that “eliminating all livestock in the U.S. and removing beef from the diet would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.36% globally.” However, this comparison of U.S. emissions to overall global emissions fails to account for the fact that animal agriculture makes up 14.5 percent of the world’s emissions, and that beef production is responsible for about two thirds of those emissions.60“Key facts and findings.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013. Archived October 6, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/h4Kbl

September 20, 2022

On September 20, 2022, the NCBA hosted the virtual event “Choosing a Climatarian Diet: the case for choosing beef” as part of New York City’s climate week. On the event’s registration webpage, NCBA wrote:61“Choosing a Climatarian Diet: The Case for Including Beef,” New York City Climate Week, September 20, 2022. Archived October 15, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/ifi2M 

“Eating in a way that’s good for the environment is on all our minds, but we don’t have to forego beef in the name of sustainability. In fact, a climatarian diet is one that incorporates beef.”

In the 2023 funding request for the Beef Checkoff, NCBA wrote that the sustainability materials created for NYC Climate Week helped “maintain consumer confidence in beef.”62“Authorization Request for FY 2023,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. ArchivedNovember 29, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.  

August 2021

On August 31, 2021, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine petitioned the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates advertising in the United States,63“Advertising and Marketing Basics,” Federal Trade Commission. Archived October 16, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/VHu6H to stop the NCBA’s “Beefing Up Sustainability” advertising campaign in the Washington Post,64NCBA. “Beefing up Sustainability,” The Washington Post.  Archived August 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/O2Qc0 the New York Times65Carol Ryan Dumas. “NCBA slams beef advertising complaint,”Capital Press, September 16, 2021. Archived September 16, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.is/RNOFb and the Wall Street Journal.66“Doctors Group Petitions FTC to Stop National Cattlemen’s Beef Association From Placing Ads That Downplay Beef’s Impact on Climate Crisis,” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, August 31 2021. Archived October 7, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/Sdf34 The ads made claims such as, “beef’s environmental footprint may drive headlines, but the truth is, eliminating beef is not a realistic or impactful solution for climate change.” The Physicians Committee pointed to a World Health Organization report stating that “reducing livestock herds would also reduce emissions of methane, which is the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide,”67“Reframing climate change as a health issue,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92 (‎8)‎, 551 – 552, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.020814. Archived February 20, 2023. Archived .pdf available at DeSmog. as evidence that the NCBA was making inaccurate claims about beef’s sustainability. The Physicians Committee also cited findings by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as  the EAT-Lancet report, that beef production was contributing to global warming.68“EAT-Lancet Commission Summary Report,” EAT-Lancet Commission. Archived February 2, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/3dyQC  

NCBA responded forcefully to the petition, questioned the Physicians Committee’s credentials and stated that the NCBA “will not be silenced by animal extremists who pretend to be doctors.”69Carol Ryan Dumas. “NCBA slams beef advertising complaint,” Capital Press, September 16, 2021. Archived September 16, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.is/RNOFb

NCBA submitted its work on the “Beefing Up Sustainability” campaign to the Public Relations Society of America, and it was shortlisted for the organization’s 2022 Anvil Award.70“2022 PRSA Anvil Shortlist,” Public Relations Society of America. Archived October 16, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/3kha9 

January 2021

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council submitted comments to the USDA in response to President Joe Biden’s January 27 “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” In these comments, the NCBA argued that the federal government should adopt GWP* and promote its use abroad.71“National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council Response to Notice of Request for Public Comment on the Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 14403,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2021. Archived October 23, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

October 2019

In October 17, 2019 testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Todd Wilkinson of the NCBA pushed back against climate policies that he said were “unfairly” targeting the beef industry.72Todd Wilkinson. “Testimony on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association with regard to Reducing Emissions While Driving Economic Growth: Industry-led Initiatives,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, October 17, 2019. Archived October 3, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/wIMuz Wilkinson commented that “American beef production and consumption is a climate change solution.” 

Wilkinson backed up this claim by referencing a methane emissions accounting method put forward by a few climate scientists that had been lauded by the animal agriculture industry. According to these scientists, several of whom received funding from the animal agriculture industry,73“Roger A. Cady, Ph.D.,” Dairy 2050. Archived February 18, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TTcad methane emissions from cattle were not harmful to the environment because methane does not accumulate in the atmosphere.74“Rethinking Methane Promotion Timeline,” CLEAR Center, University of California Davis. Archived February 18, 2023. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. The Global Roundtable on Sustainable Beef, of which NCBA is a member, helped fund a report promoting global warming potential star (GWP*) to measure the climate impact of methane emissions. GWP* finds the impact of methane emissions on the environment to be far less than the current standard of measurement, GWP.75Roger A. Cady. “A Literature Review of GWP*,” Global Dairy Platform, 2020. Archived Dec 20, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Wilkinson went as far as to say that American cattle did not contribute to climate change:

“Methane has no long-term impact on the climate when emissions and oxidation are in balance. And this balance has been maintained for centuries: the buffalo population that roamed prior to the European settlement is estimated to be near equal to today’s cattle population. The U.S. cattle population has not contributed to a significant increase in methane emissions and, according to the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, is not a significant contributor to climate change.”

Other climate scientists have criticized this portrayal of cattle methane emissions, noting that animal agriculture does have a significant impact on climate change. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website notes that methane emissions from U.S. agriculture had increased from 1990-2020, even though the nation’s overall methane emissions had declined.76“Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Methane Emissions,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Archived October 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/eu6XD 

April 2019

Opposition to EAT-Lancet Report

On April 16, 2019 the NCBA released a statement on its website titled “There is no alternative to BEEF.”77“There is No Alternative to BEEF,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.  Archived February 18, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. In the statement, NCBA CEO Kendal Frazier stated that the organization was pushing back against the “false facts” of climate science related to the beef industry. He specifically criticized the EAT-Lancet study, a major international report on “what constitutes a healthy diet from a sustainable food system” and called for a “greater than 50% reduction in global consumption of less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat.”78“EAT-Lancet Commission Summary Report,” EAT-Lancet Commission, 2019. Archived February 2, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/3dyQC Frazier wrote:79“There is No Alternative to BEEF,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.  Archived February 18, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

“Some plant-based and cell-cultured meat advocates have been using false claims about beef, particularly when it comes to the impact of beef production on climate change. [“]Checkoff[”]-funded research is providing the information we need to demonstrate the falsehood in their claims. For example, a recent report by the EAT Commission in Europe grossly misrepresented beef’s important role in the diet and used misleading information regarding beef’s impact on climate change.”

Frazier went on to describe how NCBA had organized opposition to the EAT-Lancet report: 

“NCBA, working with others in the meat industry, fought back hard. The result is that the report has been discredited by leading scientists around the world. A special webpage was developed to help reporters and others get the facts around beef’s role in a healthy, sustainable diet more easily. Through our checkoff-funded Digital Command Center, we are monitoring several hundred media outlets and social media sites daily for misinformation about beef.”

Frazier’s claim that the report had been discredited by leading scientists around the world was a reference to the beef industry’s embrace of Dr. Frank Mitloehner, a professor of animal science and air quality expert at the University of California, Davis. In October 2021, Mitloehner gave a talk alongside NCBA’s Colin Woodall in which he argued that the beef industry’s greenhouse gas emissions were lower than many scientists believed.80Cara Pesek. “Cattle emissions expert: Environmental impact of beef has been overstated,” Nebraska Today, October 26, 2021. Archived June 18, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Ts0bY  

The NCBA referenced its crisis management around the EAT-Lancet report in its requests for funding from the federal Beef Checkoff Program in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

2018-2019

U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef 

On October 17, 2019, in testimony before the Senate EPW’s Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate and Nuclear Safety, NCBA Policy Division Vice Chairman Tom Wilkinson referenced a “Framework for Beef Sustainability” released by the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB).81Tom Wilkinson. “Reducing Emissions While Driving Economic Growth: Industry-led Initiatives,” United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, October 17, 2019. Archived November 11, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

NCBA founded the USRSB along with Tyson Foods, JBS, and Cargill.82Georgi Gyton. “US forms round-table on sustainable beef,” Food Navigator USA, March 6, 2015. Archived February 20, 2023. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/FUo2X In June 2018, environmental organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice wrote a letter criticizing the USRSB’s Framework for Beef Sustainability for “greenwashing” the animal agriculture industry. The joint letter accused the USRSB of failing to enact meaningful emissions reductions by not offering actual incentives, or funding to cattle ranchers, to reduce their environmental impact.83“Dear Stakeholders of the U.S. Roundtable on Sustainable Beef,” Friends of the Earth, June 27, 2018. Archived September 1, 2022. Archived .pdf on DeSmog.  

2015

In its February 2015 scientific report, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee made recommendations to the USDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The DGAC’s recommendations included a suggestion that upcoming federal dietary guidelines include less red meat consumption than past dietary guidelines: “Current evidence shows that the average U.S. diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and energy use… because the current U.S. population intake of animal-based foods is higher and plant-based foods are lower, than proposed in these three dietary patterns.”84Agricultural Research Service. “Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,” USDA, 2015. Archived October 15, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

The NCBA immediately denounced the report’s recommendations in a same-day press release, which quoted Dr. Richard Thorpe, a medical doctor and cattle producer, who called on the Advisory Committee to remove sustainability considerations when crafting the 2015 dietary guidelines.85“NCBA: Dietary Guidelines Recommendations are Misleading,” NCBA, 2015. Archived February 28, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Thorpe wrote: “We are disappointed the Advisory Committee would go outside the purview and expertise of nutrition/health research to bring in topics such as sustainability. We urge the Secretaries to reject the Advisory Committee’s recommendations on topics outside of diet and health.”86“NCBA: Dietary Guidelines Recommendations are Misleading,” NCBA, 2015. Archived February 28, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

February 2010

In February 2010, the NCBA was one of seven entities, including Massey Energy and Alpha Natural Resources, to jointly and formally petition the EPA to reconsider the endangerment finding. Coalition for Responsible Regulation et al.87“Petition for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 11, 2010. Archived October 24, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. In a press release, NCBA Chief Counsel, Tamara Thies said: “With so much scientific uncertainty surrounding climate change, and humans’ alleged contribution to it, it’s extremely premature for EPA to be moving forward with GHG regulation.”88“NCBA Challenges EPA’s Interpretation of Greenhouse Gas Permitting Rules,” NCBA, April 6, 2010. Archived April 13, 2010. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/P1WxG 

The petition relied on common climate change denial arguments, claiming that they were justified in the wake of the 2009 “Climategate” scandal.89Jess Henig. “Climategate,” FactCheck, December 10, 2009. Archived August 29, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/kJ6Fr The petition included sections with headings such as, “EPA’s Endangerment Finding is Based on Flawed Data,” “The CRU’s Data are Not Reliable or Reproducible, and So Cannot Form the Basis of the EPA’s Finding of Anthropogenic-Induced Warming over the Past 100 Years,” and “There is No True Scientific Consensus When the Peer Review Process is Compromised.” 

“E.P.A. owes it to the American people to be sure a rule of this magnitude is based on accurate information, not fudged or fabricated temperature data,” Thies stated in the press release.

She added: 

“Not only is the data questionable, but E.P.A. also unlawfully sub-delegated its duties under the Clean Air Act to foreign entities with the clear agenda of promoting the theory of human-caused climate change. It is not lawful for E.P.A.’s ‘scientific judgment’ to be based on foreign-alarmist agendas. Reconsideration of this rule is essential to restoring America’s trust on this issue.”

The references to “the CRU” and “fudged or fabricated data” referred to a late 2009 controversy, in which internal emails written by climate scientists from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit were hacked and leaked to the public by climate change deniers.90Rich Collett-White. “Where Are the Ring-Leaders of the Manufactured Climategate Scandal Now?,” DeSmog, November 18, 2019. Although the emails did not show that the climate scientists had reported inaccurate data,91Jess Henig. “Climategate,” FactCheck, December 10, 2009. Archived August 29, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/kJ6Fr climate deniers including Myron Ebell and Patrick J. Michaels misrepresented their content to make it seem as if the scientific consensus on global warming was based on flawed data. 

The NCBA petitioned the EPA to reconsider the endangerment finding as part of its larger strategy to oppose greenhouse gas regulations, citing “scientific uncertainty.” 

In a briefing titled “Cap and Trade Legislation: What Does it Mean For Cattle Producers?” NCBA lawyer Tamara Thies walked NCBA members through the environmental policy context in the early years of the Obama administration.92Tamara Thies. “Cap and trade legislation: What does it mean for cattle producers?,” NCBA, 2010. Archived October 24, 2022. Archived .pdf available on file at DeSmog. She noted that while the NCBA was advocating for a carveout for agriculture from proposed carbon cap-and-trade bills, it would also oppose the bills. 

Thies’s presentation included the NCBA’s petition to the EPA to reconsider its endangerment finding, and said the NCBA would oppose an upcoming “tailoring rule” regulating greenhouse gasses from stationary sources as well as a motor vehicle emissions rule.93“PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 2011. Archived January 19, 2022. The presentation occurred before the rules were published in June 2010. 

January 2010 

In January 2010, the NCBA supported Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) disapproval resolution regarding potential EPA regulation of  greenhouse gas emissions.94“Cattlemen’s Capitol Concerns,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, June 2010. Archived July 7, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. According to a January 21, 2010 press release issued by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the passage of the disapproval resolution would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.95“Thune Highlights Ag Groups’ Support of Resolution Disapproving of EPA Energy Tax,” Office of U.S. Senator John Thune, January 21, 2010. Archived August 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/GAsvf 

In a June 2010 vote, the resolution failed to pass in the Senate. After the resolution failed, NCBA lobbyist Colin Woodall told the Oklahoma Farm Report that the NCBA was “disappointed” by the result, but pleased that there were not enough votes in the Senate to pass a version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act – also known as the “Waxman-Markey bill” – which the House had passed in June 2009.96“Murkowski Resolution Falls Short- NCBA’s Colin Woodall Says Several Farm State Democrats Abandoned Agriculture,” Oklahoma Farm Report, June 10, 2010. Archived March 24, 2016. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/fpJg1

April 2009

In April 2009, the EPA released research-based findings that the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere endangered public health in the present and the future. Known as the “endangerment finding,” this scientific conclusion meant that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon pollution.

The NCBA filed comments in opposition to the anticipated endangerment finding before it was released,97“Climate Change,” NCBA, 2010. Archived April 14, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. issuing a press release in December 2009 that questioned the science behind the EPA’s findings.98“EPA Greenhouse Gas Ruling Could be Devastating to Agriculture,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, December 8, 2009. Archived December 31, 2009. Archive URL: https://archive.is/bM0qL The NCBA argued that the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions, that the finding was not grounded in science, and that greenhouse gas regulations could pose a “devastating” financial burden to farms. The press release quoted Tamara Thies, NCBA’s chief counsel, as saying:99“EPA Greenhouse Gas Ruling Could be Devastating to Agriculture,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, December 8, 2009. Archived December 31, 2009. Archive URL: https://archive.is/bM0qL 

“It’s premature to issue this kind of finding, especially given the recent controversy surrounding the scientific validity of alleged human contributions to climate change. Regulation of greenhouse gases should be based on science, and it should be thoughtfully considered and voted on by Congress through a democratic process, not dictated by the EPA.”

2009

After the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association released a “primer” on climate change celebrating the group’s success in influencing the bill.100“Climate Change,” NCBA, 2010. Archived April 14, 2010. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. The NCBA noted that it had successfully lobbied for agriculture to be exempted from the bill’s proposed cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The group also claimed it had successfully lobbied to shift the bill’s regulation of agriculture industry carbon offsets from the EPA to the USDA, an agency that tends to be more sympathetic to the industry. 

However, the NCBA still opposed the bill, according to the primer, because it could cause increases in energy prices. The document closed with the promise that “NCBA will continue to fight the regulation of GHG emissions from cattle operations.”

April 29, 1999

On April 29, 1999, the House Committee on Small Business held a hearing called “The Effect of the Kyoto Protocol on American Small Business.” (Hearing.)101“The Effect of the Kyoto Protocol on American Small Business,” U.S. House Of Representatives, Committee On Small Business, April 29, 1999. Archived October 23, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.is/AbE5B The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association submitted a report to the committee titled “The Kyoto Protocol: Potential Impacts on U.S. Agriculture – An Assault on An American Institution.” 

Co-sponsored by the NCBA, the American Farm Bureau, the American Corn Growers Association, National Grange, and the United Fruits & Vegetables Association, the report concluded that the Kyoto Protocol would have a devastating financial impact on U.S. agriculture. The report predicted that the Kyoto Protocol’s legally binding emissions reductions would lead to fewer family farms, an increase in production costs of nearly $16.2 billion in 1997 dollars, and a 1.6 percent decline in U.S. GDP.102Sparks Companies, Inc. “The Kyoto Protocol: Potential Impacts on U.S. Agriculture [Hearing, ​​The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on American Small Business],” U.S. House Of Representatives, Committee On Small Business, April 29, 1999. Archived October 23, 2022. Archived .png on file at DeSmog. According to a related press release from the American Farm Bureau, the report showed that farm incomes could drop 50 percent under Kyoto Protocol mandates.103(Press release.) “Study Finds Climate Treaty to Cut Farm Income 50 Percent,” American Farm Bureau, February 16, 1999. Archived August 17, 2000. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 

1997

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, in partnership with other industry trade groups and the conservative Global Climate Coalition, paid for an advertising campaign designed to sow opposition to upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations   – which ultimately led to the creation of the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997. The campaign was called the “Global Climate Information Project,” and ran advertisements in the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as on television.104“Kyoto Opposition Washington Post Ads 1997,” Climate Investigations Center. Archived October 23, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UQuFN One Washington Post ad  – which listed National Beef Cattlemen’s Association as a funder – described the Kyoto Protocol with the tagline, “It’s Not Global and It Won’t Work.” The ad claimed that the Kyoto Protocol would lead to “50 cents more for every gallon of gasoline,” although there was no indication at the time that the Kyoto Protocol would cause such an increase in gas prices. 

Another ad that ran in the Washington Post throughout November 1997, which also listed the NCBA as a funder, used the headline, “The Only Thing This Treaty Cools Down is America’s Economy.”105“Kyoto Opposition Washington Post Ads 1997,” Climate Investigations Center. Archived October 23, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UQuFN The ad urged readers to visit climatefacts.org, a website set up by the Global Climate Information Project106“Global Climate Information Project,” ClimateFacts.org. Archived April 21, 1998. Archive URL: https://archive.is/Sn2Wx/image which listed the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association as a sponsor.107Global Climate Information Project. “Why We’re Concerned: List of Sponsors,” ClimateFacts.org.Archived April 21, 1998. Archive URL: https://archive.is/Sn2Wx The website questioned climate science, including a section which answered the question “Is the Earth Warming?” with: “There is conflicting scientific data over whether there is a warming trend.”108Global Climate Information Project. “Science Concerns,”ClimateFacts.org. Archived April 21, 1998. Archive URL: https://archive.is/Sn2Wx Another section titled “Are Humans Causing the Warming?” began: “Recent studies indicate that the sun may be playing a larger role in the earth’s climate than was previously suspected.”109Global Climate Information Project. “Science Concerns: Are Humans Causing the Warming?”ClimateFacts.org. Archived April 21, 1998. Archive URL: https://archive.is/Sn2Wx

Key People

As of 2023, the NCBA is represented on the boards and leadership teams of the following: 

The Federation of State Beef Councils is a division of the NCBA.119“Federation of State Beef Councils,” Beef Checkoff. Archived August 15, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/o5mN3 Qualified state beef councils collect the $1 per head of cattle sold in their states as part of the Beef Checkoff, and those funds are used to promote beef demand on a national and state level. State beef councils exist in every state, except for Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. 

Qualified State Beef Councils:

  • Alabama Cattlemen’s Association
  • Arizona Beef Council
  • Arizona Beef Council
  • California Beef Council (also California Cattlemen’s Association)
  • Colorado Beef Council
  • Delaware Beef Advisory Board 
  • Florida Beef Council
  • Georgia Beef Board
  • Hawaii Beef Industry Council
  • Idaho Beef Council
  • Illinois Beef Association
  • Indiana Beef Council
  • Iowa Beef Industry Council
  • Kansas Beef Council
  • Kentucky Beef Council
  • Louisiana Beef Industry Council
  • Michigan Beef Industry Commission
  • Minnesota Beef Council
  • Mississippi Beef Council
  • Missouri Beef Industry Council 
  • Montana Beef Council
  • Nebraska Beef Council
  • Nevada Beef Council
  • New Jersey Beef Industry Council
  • New Mexico Beef Council
  • New York Beef Industry Council
  • North Carolina Beef Council
  • North Dakota Beef Commission
  • Ohio Beef Council
  • Oklahoma Beef Council
  • Oregon Beef Council
  • Pennsylvania Beef Council
  • South Carolina Beef Council
  • South Dakota Beef Industry Council
  • Tennessee Beef Industry Council
  • Texas Beef Council
  • Utah Beef Council
  • Vermont Beef Industry Council
  • Virginia Beef Industry Council
  • Washington State Beef Commission
  • West Virginia Beef Industry Council 
  • Wisconsin Beef Council
  • Wyoming Beef Council

Other State Affiliates, according to the NCBA’s website:

  • Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association
  • California Cattlemen’s Association
  • Georgia Cattlemen’s Association
  • Florida Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Colorado Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Colorado Livestock Association  
  • Florida Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council
  • Idaho Cattle Association
  • Illinois Beef Association
  • Indiana Beef Cattle Association
  • Kansas Livestock Association
  • Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association
  • Maryland Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Michigan Cattlemen’s Association
  • Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association
  • Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association
  • Missouri Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Montana Stockgrowers Association 
  • Nebraska Cattlemen
  • Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
  • North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association
  • North Dakota Stockmen’s Association 
  • Ohio Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
  • Pennsylvania Cattlemen’s Association 
  • South Carolina Cattlemen’s Association 
  • South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association
  • Tennessee Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
  • Utah Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Virginia Cattlemen’s Association 
  • Washington Cattlemen’s Association
  • Wyoming Stock Growers Association
  • Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association

Members 

As of December 2022, the following paid $100,000 or more to be Gold Level members of NCBA:

As of December 2022, the following paid $25,000 or more to be an Allied Industry Council member of the NCBA: 

The following paid $3,000 or more to be Allied Industry Partners of NCBA:

Contact & Address

Centennial, Colorado Office:

9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 300 

Centennial, CO 80112 

(303) 694-0305 

Washington D.C. Office:

1275 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 801 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

(202) 347-0228

Social Media

Resources

Related Profiles

Frank Mitloehner
Frank Mitloehner Credentials Postdoctoral Fellow, Texas Tech University, 2000 - 2001“FRANK MITLOEHNER, PHD”. CLEAR Center, UC Davis, April 14, 2021. Archived July 1, 2022. Archived version...
European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability
Background The European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability (ERBS) is Europe’s largest multi-stakeholder organisation focused on supporting more sustainable beef production,“EUROPEAN ROUNDTABLE ...
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Background The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) describes itself as the largest manufacturing association in the United States and clai...
Omnicom Group
Background Omnicom Group, often referred to as Omnicom, is a global network of marketing, public relations, and advertising agencies.  Created in 1986 in a merger of three of the larges...

DeSmog

Clearing the PR Pollution

Sections

Databases

Topics

DeSmog

Follow

Newsletter

Facebook-f X-twitter Youtube Instagram

DeSmog

Clearing the PR Pollution

Follow

Newsletter

Facebook-f Twitter Youtube Instagram

Website by SeriousOtters

Donate

Facebook-f Twitter