USDA Finds American Egg Board Engaged in “Inappropriate Conduct” Against Hampton Creek
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) has completed a report reviewing nine allegations of
misconduct asserted by Josh Tetrick, head of Just Mayo producer Hampton Creek, against the American Egg Board (AEB). The report
concludes that AEB staff and board members engaged in inappropriate
conduct, including failing to adhere to USDA guidelines, targeting a
specific company and sending inappropriate emails.
The report found substantiation for five of Tetrick’s nine allegations: (i)
AEB employees exchanged inappropriate emails about Tetrick, including
references such as, “Can we pool our money and put a hit on him?”
and “old buddies from Brooklyn pay him a visit”; (ii) an AEB executive
accepted a consultant’s offer to contact Whole Foods Market Inc. in an
effort to persuade the company to stop stocking Just Mayo, although the
consultant never actually contacted the company; (iii) a public relations
expert conducted market research on egg-replacement products, identifying
Just Mayo specifically in violation of guidelines against targeting a
specific company; (iv) AEB developed egg-positive pop-up ads to display
when consumers searched for terms related to “Beyond Eggs,” including
“Hampton Creek, Inc.,” “Josh Tetrick” and “Just Mayo”; and (v) AEB
executives violated guidelines in creating internal budget and program
documents specifically identifying Just Mayo. The report also notes that
AEB staff will be required to complete additional training on appropriate
activities and procedures.
Four of Tetrick’s allegations were unfounded, the report concluded,
because they constituted regular activities for a research and promotion
board. That AEB paid bloggers to promote the benefits of consuming
and cooking with eggs was a standard practice and not an effort to
“discredit Hampton Creek, Inc., online,” as Tetrick alleged. In addition,
AEB’s attempt to join The Association of Dressings & Sauces could
not be construed as an attempt to manipulate standards, and AEB did
not intervene in Unilever’s litigation with Hampton Creek when an
executive informed Unilever that AEB could not support the litigation
nor make a statement. Finally, AMS could not find any evidence to
support the allegation that AEB attempted to persuade the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration to pursue action against Hampton Creek for
labeling issues.
The AMS memo about the report specifies that at the time the agency
initiated the review, “all of the inappropriate activities had stopped.”
Additional details on the allegations appear in Issue 578 of this Update.
Issue 619
