WHAT HAPPENED: Rabobank’s RaboResearch division published a new report, “Protein Economics: How Nutrient Density Can Support Premium Packaged Goods in the US,” examining the growing role of nutrient density in consumer purchasing decisions and how food manufacturers are responding. The report identifies protein as the “winning nutrient” in today’s packaged food landscape and introduces the concept of “protein economics” — evaluating food purchases based on protein delivered per calorie and per dollar spent.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR CHICKEN: Chicken is one of the best values in the entire grocery store when evaluated through the lens of protein economics — and this report makes that case in economic and not nutritional terms. The report finds that consumers are increasingly asking not “how many calories is this?” but “what do I get for those calories?” and “what am I actually paying per gram of protein?” By that measure, chicken wins handily.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Several structural forces are converging to make this moment particularly important for the chicken industry. The report points to the rapid adoption of GLP-1 weight-loss medications, which reduce appetite and increase consumer focus on getting maximum nutrition from fewer calories — making high-protein, lean foods like chicken even more attractive. It also highlights the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which boosted recommended protein intake by as much as 100% over prior editions, and notes that 83% of US consumers now report reading food labels before purchasing. Meanwhile, prolonged food inflation has made shoppers more value-conscious, further elevating chicken’s reputation as an affordable, high-quality protein.
WHAT’S NEXT: The Rabobank report suggests that nutrient density is “just getting started” as a framework shaping how consumers, retailers, and manufacturers evaluate food. The report predicts that label-scanning apps, evolving dietary guidelines, and continued GLP-1 adoption will further amplify consumer focus on protein content per calorie and per dollar.
Deputy Under Secretary Vaden, addressing the NCC Board in January
“Reducing ultra-processed food in schools doesn’t necessarily have to result from more scratch cooking. What it does mean is purchasing more whole food items and fewer items that have already been pre-seasoned or otherwise processed. More fruits and vegetables, more whole meats, fewer things like pizza and what have you, which may be popular on certain days — they certainly were when I was in elementary school — but aren’t necessarily the best for you.”
— Deputy Ag Secretary Stephen Vaden Tuesday at a Wall Street Journal Global Food Forum
L-R: John Crowgey, Farm Credit Bank of Baltimore; Scott Andrews, Allied Bank of Texas; Victor Fontane, Corbett Enterprises; Roger Barr, Rabobank Netherlands; Carl Blackham, Bank of America. NCC Annual Conference 1984.
NCC’s Washington Report will resume on Friday, June 19. We look forward to seeing many members next week in Jackson Hole for NCC’s Summer Board of Directors meeting! Safe travels!
WHAT HAPPENED: NCC this week filed comments with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in response to the agency’s proposal to revisit how it classifies meat and poultry establishments as “large,” “small,” or “very small.” NCC’s comments call on FSIS to amend the 30-year-old employee headcount method and replace it with a production volume-based system — and to add a new “medium” category to better reflect how the industry actually operates today.
WHY IT MATTERS: The way FSIS categorizes a plant affects everything from how new regulations are introduced to what resources and support a facility can access. The current system counts employees — a metric that made sense in 1996 but has become increasingly outdated as automation has enabled plants to produce far more with fewer workers. Under today’s rules, a highly automated facility and a small family operation can end up in the same “small” bucket, even though their scales, complexities, and regulatory needs may differ significantly.
WHAT NCC IS ASKING FOR: NCC recommended that FSIS use data it already collects — production volume in pounds per day — to build a new four-tier classification system tailored separately for each species (chicken, turkey, beef, pork, etc.). We also urged the agency to update those classifications at least annually so that plants are placed in the right category should their operations grow or change. For administrative purposes like grant eligibility or reduced inspection fees, we said revenue-based metrics can play a limited role — but shouldn’t be used for regulatory classification.
THE BOTTOM LINE: NCC supports FSIS taking a fresh look at this system and sees it as an opportunity to make oversight smarter and more efficient. Getting the classifications right means small plants get the support they need, and agency resources go where they’ll have the most impact on food safety.
