IBJNews

Lilly hopes Elanco unit becomes a cash cow

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As Jeff Simmons, president of Elanco Animal Health, ambles to the back corner of a Kroger supermarket in Greenfield, he stops halfway between the milk and the cheese.

On each glass door of the milk refrigerators, a multicolored sign stands out sharply against the white jugs behind them: “Our farmers pledge not to treat their cows with the artificial growth hormone rbST.” The signs, now familiar to shoppers, are a direct attack against Elanco—the Greenfield-based maker of rbST.

But no such sign appears amid the blocks, bags and cartons of cheese—meaning those products are made with milk from cows given rbST.

Elanco factsSimmons is making a huge bet the cheese will win over the milk. He predicts retailers and consumers—especially in emerging markets—will opt for food made cheaper by using Elanco’s productivity-enhancing drugs over the pricier organic and locally grown products made without them. But, as a hedge, Simmons has Elanco developing products to help organic farmers, too.

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. needs Simmons to cash both bets.

Lilly is counting on rapid growth from its hitherto sleepy Elanco unit to help offset some of the $10 billion in current revenue it stands to lose over the next five years as patents on its best-selling drugs expire.

Lilly CEO John Lechleiter is high on Simmons. Just before Simmons took the top job at Elanco in January 2008, Lechleiter predicted great things.

“More energy than I’ve had hot meals,” Lechleiter said of Simmons, a 42-year-old father of six.

But the heat on Simmons and his Elanco compatriots rises every day that Lilly goes without producing a new breakthrough in its human medicines. Lilly has launched only one new drug in the past five years, Effient, which is so far producing minuscule sales.

“Five years ago, [Lilly] people said, ‘Don’t go to Elanco because they’re going to get sold,’” Simmons told IBJ. But today, he added, “We know the limelight is on us.”

Indeed, Lilly is investing more resources in animal health than ever before. On May 27, Elanco will hold a private dedication of its $25 million, 135,000-square-foot headquarters in Greenfield—home to Elanco’s 350 local employees and a symbol of its growing importance within Lilly.

Lilly has made a string of animal health acquisitions in the past three years. On Simmons’ recommendation, it bought rbST, also known as Posilac, for $300 million from Monsanto Co. Most recently, Lilly acquired the European rights to animal health products from New York-based rival Pfizer Inc.

In 2007, Lilly launched a fast-growing pet health business, which sells medicines for dogs to treat fleas and separation anxiety.

Elanco relies on acquisitions and Lilly’s laboratories to discover animal drugs. But it has no trouble finding new ones. From 2002 to 2008, Elanco launched 15 products—more than any of its competitors, according to statistics from United Kingdom-based consulting firm Vetnosis Inc. Simmons said Elanco has four dozen products in development and could launch as many as five this year.

Almost none of the Wall Street analysts following Lilly pay much attention to Elanco, since it accounts for less than 6 percent of the company’s sales. But they do expect it to grow nicely over the next few years—from $1.2 billion to as much as $1.8 billion by 2015.

Elanco’s sales rank it fifth in the $19-billion-a-year global animal health business. However, it will be dwarfed by the $5-billion-a-year giant joint venture being formed by France-based Sanofi-aventis and New Jersey-based Merck & Co. Inc.

Those companies are going after the same opportunities as Elanco: Rising world population and burgeoning middle classes in Asia are expected to double the world’s cattle population and global meat consumption by 2050.

“Animal health is a growth driver [albeit not high growth],” wrote analyst Les Funtleyder of Miller Tabak & Co. in a note to investors, “due to an increase in companion animals as well as a move to a more protein-based diet in emerging economies.”

Consumer company

One way Elanco is trying to grow faster than its industry is by turning itself from a farm-focused company to one focused on the actual steaks, chickens, eggs, milk and cheese consumers eat.

“We used to say, ‘We can help you [farmers] need one less pound of corn per hundred head of cattle,’” Simmons said while perusing the meat cases at Kroger with an IBJ reporter. “No, no, no. We’ve converted our business. We are a people business.”

The next day, Simmons was scheduled to meet with the president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.—the biggest food retailer in the country.

It’s a big shift in mind-set for the 56-year-old company. Until recently, Elanco’s primary focus has been on feed additives and antibiotics for farm animals. For instance, it uses a compound called ractopamine to boost muscle formation in pigs, beef cattle and turkeys.

It’s also a big shift for Simmons. He strolled through Kroger in typical attire for a corporate executive—black suit and BlackBerry—which he had to turn off after getting three calls in half an hour. But Simmons was raised in a farm family in upstate New York. He has owned his own vineyards since he was 9 years old.

Simmons is a believer in the superiority of technology-driven farming methods—what critics call factory farming—even though he also has steered Elanco to begin to develop products for organic farmers.

He once took his mother-in-law to a “chicken house” to cure her of eating only free-range chickens. He grabbed two chickens—one free-range and one not—pulled their heads off and cut them open with a jack knife. The intestine of the free-range chicken was filled with stones, mud and “lots of enteritis.” The one fed chicken feed in a pen had an intestine that was “pure and almost looked like meat,” Simmons said.

“She was convinced,” Simmons said. “And she has convinced over the next 10 years probably 150 to 200 people never to eat free-range chickens.”

Sales pitch

Simmons has asked his Elanco team to think about their business in terms of how much money Elanco’s animal drugs save consumers on each kind of product in the grocery store. And that’s his message to the president of Wal-Mart and other retailers, too.

“We save 45 cents on every pound of beef, 11 cents on every gallon of milk, 22 cents on every package of shredded cheese,” Simmons said.

ElancoSimmons also is taking that message around the world—where many countries ban Elanco’s products—including rbST and ractopamine—but where less-efficient agriculture means consumers spend far higher percentages of their income on food than Americans do.

Simmons says he’s getting traction. Uruguay is considering approval of Elanco’s growth hormone for dairy cows. And India has put rbST into a development trial that Elanco hopes leads to its approval in the world’s largest milk-producing country.

In Uruguay, it takes more than 2-1/2 cows to produce as much milk as one cow in the United States, according to statistics from the 2009 World Dairy Situation report, made available on the Web site of the International Dairy Federation. In India, it takes more than 7-1/2 cows to equal the production of one American cow.

Other foreign markets where Elanco is trying to introduce rbST and some of its other products include Argentina, Brazil, Russia and, of course, China.

“We never bought it with the assumption that it was going to come back in this market,” Simmons said of rbST, acknowledging its controversy here and in Europe. “But China, its government, is trying to triple its citizens’ daily intake of milk. They need 36 million more dairy cows. They said, ‘There’s no way we can do this.’”

Courting controversy

As Elanco becomes a consumer-focused business, it’s also a bigger target for criticism and the kind of controversy formerly reserved only for Lilly’s psychiatric drugs.

Some question the safety of Elanco’s products or the long-term health impact they have on consumers. In February, the liberal Web site CounterPunch.org published a story citing a 2002 warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about ractopamine, which said Elanco had failed to disclose instances where animals had adverse reactions to the drug.

CounterPunch called ractopamine’s muscle-boosting effects “a macabre version of economies of scale.” Elanco sells ractopamine under the names Paylean, Optaflexx and Topmax.

Some researchers claim that overuse of ractopamine in pigs has contributed to higher numbers of pigs that can’t walk. But whatever the FDA’s concerns, they’ve been satisfied. The agency has continued to approve new products that have ractopamine in them—including one in February.

Jill Richardson, a food activist and author of the 2009 book “Recipe for America,” recently attacked a white paper written by Simmons, which called for retailers to refrain from marketing products, such as milk, by trumpeting that they don’t contain rbST, also known as rbGH, or other animal health products.

“They call for two things: technology and choice,” Richardson wrote of Simmons’ white paper, on her blog La Vida Locavore. “Translation: Legalize our products please. We have technology, and consumers should be able to choose whether or not they buy foods that were produced using our technology. But please don’t actually inform the consumers about that or label your foods ‘No rbGH.’ Just feed it to them without a label and they won’t know the difference.”

Simmons is happy to spar with critics of Elanco and the “factory farms” its antibiotics, insecticides and growth hormones make possible.

He’s swapped e-mails with one of the producers of “Food Inc.,” the 2009 documentary that lambasted industrial agriculture. He’s done a point-counterpoint debate with Michael Pollan, the New York Times Magazine writer who has become the most famous critic of factory farms and food products—as opposed to simple food, which our great-great-grandmothers would have recognized.

“I go to the heart of the storm,” Simmons said. His main counterargument comes from a prediction by the United Nations: The world’s growing population will require twice as much food in 40 years but, because of a land shortage, 70 percent of that food must come from efficiency-enhancing technologies.

Simmons even says he’s thankful for the controversy. As he stood between the milk and cheese cases at Kroger, he said the criticism Elanco has faced—especially over rbST—has forced it to get smarter about how its business affects stores and their shoppers.

“We are twice the company today in retail than two years ago,” he said. “We know food policy, we know retailer policy, we know state labeling. Our retailer team is twice the size. We’re going to be a better company for it.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Does Your Comparison Presume the Milk is Pasteurized
    kwp: does you comparison between non rbST and rbST milk presume both milk products are pasteurized? If yes, please read the following link comparing raw milk to pasteurized milk. http://lindamelosnd.com/articles/the-health-benefits-of-raw-milk
  • withdrawal period
    No one get to eat a sick animal, they just don't reach the age of slaughtering, or the multiple production animals(milk, eggs), will not be able to produce milk/eggs suitable for human consumption. So, as long as the animal are treated in the right way, following the producer's recommendations for dosage and withdrawal period of medication, there will be no reason for any concern. I don't know about the growth promoter, because I am from Europian Union and here those were baned. You have to understand that there is no productivity without any medication and the all related drug issues are coming more from human side: we consume all kind of antibiotics without being a real need...
  • my2centsagain
    Interesting that we are paving over some of the world most productive ag land in the world for duke and ryerson homes. Food production could be the next major resource we will be fighting over. We should treat it with the long-term in mind. Not a fan of better living through chemistry these days.
  • demand will create supply
    I believe the fear mongering is telling everyone starvation is our fate if we do not use technology to increase our food supply. Farmers have been driven out of business by big producers and globalization. Farming could become a viable means to making a living once again, and many people need a job these days. Perhaps communities should be buying locally grown and raised foods. Communities should be supporting themselves to avoid starvation, and big cities will find a way too - there will always be some giant producers to provide for the larger populations in those areas. I don't believe the science on rbST and other similar products can prove there is no effect to humans, it can prove increasing levels of confidence in what is known, but the research on adding muscle booster to the pork we eat cannot defintively state there is no harm to humans.
  • truth
    Good article. My comments are more about the other comments already posted. My credentials; I am a beef producer in central Indiana, I have a masterâ??s degree in animal nutrition, and I worked for Elanco, on contract, in developing their r-bst compound before they purchased posilac. I doubt if I have enough time to address all the mis-conceptions presented but, I will try and touch on the big ones. First, milk is milk, regardless of how the animal was fed or treated the milk produced is the same. That is why the FDA does not require an â??r-bst addedâ?? label on milk produced using r-bst. There is no scientific analysis that distinguishes milk from r-bst added cows vs non r-bst cows. That is what is so great about this product, it is basically identical to the naturally occurring hormone that is present in every living cow on the planet. Now, thanks to the fear mongers and mis-information this perfectly good, helpful tool for the dairy farmers has been demonized to the point some wonâ??t use it. A simple analogy of what r-bst does is this; it is a fuel for milk production. If you want your car to go farther or your campfire hotter you add more fuel. You get the result you want, drive farther or hotter fire and the fuel is burned up. Same thing with a cow, if you want more milk add more fuel, the fuel is burned up and you have more milk. Secondly, organics: the mis-conception here is that consumers think â??organicâ?? is automatically better. Let me point out one of the requirements in an organic protocol, no antibiotics can be administered at any time. That means that even if an animal gets a minor respiratory infection or an injury they cannot get simple, helpful, antibiotics administered. I heard this directly from an organic beef producer, when asked what he does when one of his animals get sick, â??We separate that animal and either sell them to a non-organic producer or we butcher them immediately or sometimes they dieâ??. I donâ??t know about you but, none of those options appeal to me. The animal is either suffering unnecessarily or is dumped on his neighbor to deal with or is butchered and sold as â??organicâ??, did you catch that; the sick animal was put in the food chain. This is America and everyone has a right to choose what they do, and what they buy. If you can afford $8 a gallon for organic milk and that is what you want go right ahead but, understand you are getting the same milk as the $2 a gallon bottle and, more importantly, there are billions of people on this planet that can barely afford the $2 gallon. We need these tools and technologies that these companies develop. If they are all taken away 1 out of every 3 people you know will die of starvationâ?¦soon.
    • Fact correction
      Dave - please read the article again carefully. You quote Simmons incorrectly: "Richardson wrote of Simmonsâ?? white paper, on her blog La Vida Locavore. Translation: Legalize our products please. We have technology, and consumers should be able to choose whether or not they buy foods that were produced using our technology. But please donâ??t actually inform the consumers about that or label your foods â??No rbGH.â?? Just feed it to them without a label and they wonâ??t know the difference.â?? That is "Richardson" making the erroneous statement, not Simmons.
    • Food, Inc.
      I'm a middle of the road Indiana suburban everyman who voted for Daniels. My grandparents were farmers. And as an informed consumer, I am working to "vote with my feet" to get people like Mr. Simmons away from my food.

      Please consider watching the movie Food, Inc. (quoted in the article) and doing your own research about our food system and policies. After my family did it, we changed our eating and food purchasing habits in simple ways. No fast food ever, more fresh local produce, grass feed beef, organic stuff when possible, etc.

      Mr. Simmons comments about food labeling sum it up how lost he is. To say, "Just feed it to them [i.e., us] without a label and they wonâ??t know the difference." just staggers me. It's abhorrent. That the man wants to people to be fat and happy (with an emphasis on fat) and keep people in the dark about where are food comes from and what's in it is abhorrent.

      • And the animals are healthier for longer
        Would you rather eat a sick chicken or one that had been properly treated and cared for during its life. Guess what happens to animals that don't get meds. They die sooner.
        • And the animals?
          Unfortunately Mr. Simmons fails to openly mention the negative side effects of these products on the animals and, more importantly, the increasing research which shows that these same growth hormones are being passed to people via consumption and a leading cause of obesity.

        Post a comment to this story

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        Sponsored by
        ADVERTISEMENT

        facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
         
        Subscribe to IBJ
        1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

        2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

        3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

        4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

        5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

        ADVERTISEMENT