
How This 109-Year-Old Company Leverages Mental Well-being to Attract Gen Z
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
It is officially the fifth month of the year. The month of freshly bloomed flowers, calling your mom and honoring those who have died while serving in the military. May is also Mental Health Awareness Month—an observance many companies often mark by promoting mental health initiatives to their employees.
But that's not really in Omaha Steaks' style. At the Nebraska-based meat-delivery company, employees' mental well-being involves an around-the-clock approach. In January, the company focuses those efforts on burnout. In February, the conversation circles around substance abuse. In March, it's parenting, and in April, it's about financial stress. And in May, Omaha Steaks encourages its employees to reflect on trauma.
The rotation goes on. The monthly topic for June is loneliness. July is depression. August grief, September suicide prevention, October stress, November anxiety and December anger—a full calendar year of mental health topics.
"Mental wellness and mental well-being is just as important, if not arguably more important, than physical well-being," Nate Rempe, the president and CEO of Omaha Steaks, told Newsweek.
For the second year in a row, Omaha Steaks appeared on Newsweek's ranking of America's Greatest Workplaces for Mental Well-being 2025, achieving 4.5 stars this year. The company received 4 stars last year.
The list, published in partnership with data firm Plant-A, was determined through an assessment of publicly accessible data, interviews with human resource professionals and large-scale confidential online surveys conducted among employees. The study incorporated more than 400,000 employee interviews and over 4.9 million comprehensive company reviews.
Plant-A's research found that 81 percent of employees believe mental well-being is important or very important to their overall job satisfaction. Companies that scored well on mental health were also more likely to be recommended to others.
Omaha Steaks' 12 Months of Mental Wellbeing
Omaha Steaks' 12 Months of Mental Wellbeing
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty
When it comes to wellness, Rempe said most of the conversation remains focused on physical health: We're constantly being reminded to get enough sleep, exercise, follow a healthy diet, take our vitamins, schedule routine visits with our doctors and so on.
But what we're not considering, Rempe said, is the "compounding effect" that many Americans feel due to increasing levels of pressure, adversity, fatigue and anxiety—both in their personal and professional lives.
"If employers don't take [mental health] serious and help their team members get the well-being resources they need... puzzle pieces start to miss, and the performance of teams start to degrade," he told Newsweek.
As part of Omaha Steaks' effort to provide mental health resources to its employees, the company recently increased the number of Employee Assistance Program (EAP) visits—which include free and confidential assessments, short-term counseling, referrals and follow-up services to enhance employee well-being—from five to eight sessions a month.
Since upping the number of EAP visits in 2024, the company has reported a 170 percent increase in sessions used. Rempe said these resources have also resulted in stronger retention rates and reports of higher resilience, job satisfaction and happiness in the workplace.
"We spend more time at work than we spend time with our family," he said. "Employers need to recognize that to have robust, dedicated, bought-in, vested team members, the company needs to provide a space where they can feel happy and healthy."
Nowhere is the concept understood as deeply as Omaha Steaks, a company that has been passed down through five generations of the Simon family over 109 years. However, much like America's definition of "family" has changed, so has the company's. In 2020, Rempe, who jokes that he's an adopted Simon, became the first person outside the Simon family to serve as the company's president.
When Rempe ascended into his current role, he was on a mission to focus on themes "you might say were associated with this next generation of CEOs in America." Those include leadership, connection and transparency—values he said are necessary for corporate leaders to connect with a younger workforce.
"These are the things [Gen Z workers] value, and we've invested significant time and money in making those things important," he said. "It doesn't really matter so much what the job is, what matters more is the culture that surrounds the job."
Rempe said every job can be exciting, but what differentiates workplaces for younger Americans is a company "that believes team members can do more than they think they can," one that can "elevate them and inspire them." That's precisely what he believes drives "Gen Z to want to work at Omaha Steaks."
Omaha Steaks also appeared on Newsweek's ranking of America's Greatest Workplaces for Gen Z 2025. The company received five stars, the highest available ranking. The list was published Tuesday in partnership with Plant-A.
Nate Rempe, the CEO and president of Omaha Steaks, is the first person outside of the Simon family to lead the company since the Nebraska-based business began more than 100 years ago.
Nate Rempe, the CEO and president of Omaha Steaks, is the first person outside of the Simon family to lead the company since the Nebraska-based business began more than 100 years ago.
Omaha Steaks
"Employers that offer mental health services are not only providing an immensely valuable benefit to Gen Z, they are also benefiting the employer through greater Gen Z engagement and retention," Jason Dorsey, a Gen Z researcher and generational expert at the Center for Generational Kinetics (CGK), told Newsweek.
Research conducted at CGK, an Austin, Texas-based firm that provides generational insights to business leaders, shows that mental health work policies are extremely important to Gen Z employees. In their 2025 State of Gen Z national study, CGK found that nearly three-quarters, 73 percent, of Gen Z believe there to be a mental health crisis in today's workforce.
"We consistently see that Gen Z values mental health work policies more than any other generation in the workforce today," Dorsey said. "We expect this trend to grow in importance as Gen Z becomes a larger part of the workforce every day."
As part of an effort to appeal to a younger workforce, Rempe has become a familiar face on Omaha Steak's TikTok account, which boasts 22.3K followers.
"I did a challenge where I tried to eat six of [our new smash burgers]," Rempe laughed. "That's super fun. A food company is a total blast to work at—and that's not to say that we don't have challenges like every other business, but again—having a healthy workforce and a culture that cares about people is what America's businesses need to attract and retain talent in the future, no matter where you are in the country."
Rempe said it's not enough for employers to just provide services where employees can see an outside professional. They also need to support those initiatives with internal resources.
At Omaha Steaks, those supporting components include "lunch and learns" that seek to socialize and normalize discussions about mental health. Plant-A's data shows that only 65 percent of U.S. employees feel comfortable discussing mental health concerns with their managers. Discomfort in discussing mental health in the workplace is particularly low among women and young adults.
Omaha Steaks' webinars also make a concerted effort to address the anxieties and stresses specifically experienced by younger employees who might be having kids for the first time and learning to juggle working with less sleep or more financial obligations.
But the real key to a company's mental well-being policy is to practice what you preach.
Rempe recognized that in order to create a workplace that values mental health, he and other leaders at Omaha Steaks need to lead by example. When he sends emails on the weekends, he makes a point to note that while he chooses to do that on his own time, there's no pressure for his staff to do the same and respond outside their working hours. He said Omaha Steaks encourages team members to take time off and have succession plans to avoid feeling paralyzed by the thought of leaving their desks.
"It is certainly a comprehensive approach that doesn't just require awareness and resources, but also requires modeling from leadership," Rempe said. "That's something that I think every company should be thinking about.
"As a leader, the behaviors that you exhibit set a standard and an expectation in the culture in which you operate."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kitten deaths raise questions about Clarksburg-based pet rescue
FAIRMONT — Around the middle of May, Brendalynn Rose's niece purchased a kitten from an adoption event in Clarksburg after her grandmother's cat passed away. But after only a few days, the kitten died. 'My mom kept saying, 'this kitten isn't as old as they're saying it is,'' Rose said. 'It was just so tiny, and obviously — probably shouldn't have been away from the mama. But my mom called me and told me, 'it's not really moving.' It's only been up twice since we bought it and it wouldn't eat. So they took it up to the vet, and they said it had Parvo. It ended up dying on the table while there.' Rose's kitten was one of eight kittens from the event that died shortly after their adoption. As a result, the Clarksburg-based rescue who organized the adoption, PupSavers Rescue, is the subject of outrage from members of the community who adopted the animals. Rose said after the kitten died, she reached out to the proprietor of Pupsavers Rescue, A.J. Springfield. She was told that a veterinarian out of Charleston had checked the animals before the event, and none of the kittens were found to be sick at the time. She said Springfield offered to give them another kitten, but declined to give Rose a refund. 'He was like, in the contract there's no refund,' Rose said. 'And I'm like, but in the contract, it doesn't say your cat comes with Parvo. Now, [my niece] is $120 out of a cat and I'm just $300 out of a vet bill trying to see what was going on. But yeah, they will not give me any records for the checkup these cats supposedly had. He won't give me the number to the vet that supposedly checked them.' Lexi Fetty shared a similar experience. On May 14, she adopted a kitten and named it BroDarius. However, while she was at the event she noticed the kittens up for adoption at the event were showing signs of distress, including runny feces. (Rose said her kitten also had diarrhea.) Fetty said they were told that runny stool was a normal reaction to a change in food, but Fetty noticed BroDarius also looked small and frail. She spent $150 for the adoption, but after 10 days, the kitten died. 'He showed no signs of illness other than the runny stool and symptoms previously listed above,' she said in an email statement. 'It was devastating to find him lifeless the next morning after a night of cuddles and purring.' After BroDarius passed, Fetty said she learned at least three other people had reported a similar incident that week. Janissa Hayes also learned from her vet that the kitten she adopted was not the three months old she was told, but closer to seven weeks. Hayes' kitten fortunately survived, after Hayes spent $800 on care. Fetty and Hayes said the rescue did not provide them with vet records. Fetty alleged a lack of proper veterinary care and evaluation prior to adoption. On May 28, PupSavers Rescue acknowledged the deaths through a post to the Fairmont Community Facebook Page. At the time, they said the cause of death was unknown, with the time frame between adoption and passing ranged from nearly two weeks to a few days. On a separate post, they confirmed a vet looked over the kittens while at the event. They pointed out there is no Parvo testing that can be done at a young age, especially when they're not showing any symptoms. However, late Thursday evening the veterinarian, who asked not to identify them, reached out to the Times West Virginian. 'The rescue's director, AJ Springfield, has been untruthfully using my name as a veterinarian that deemed the kittens healthy after a 'thorough physical exam,'' the vet said. 'That information is in no way true.' PupSavers Rescue quarantined the remaining kittens. The rescue declined to comment beyond what they posted on Facebook, but did leave one comment on a post asking for sources for this story. 'We aren't exactly hiding anything,' PupSavers wrote in their post. 'Every kitten that was adopted out has come straight from the shelter with their first shot and deworming. One of the shelter vets examined these kittens in person on Saturday at our last adoption event. The kittens that have died showed no symptoms of anything were fine and then died. We made a public post about this, but some people making comments about dead kittens didn't even adopt from us. We have been in touch with many local vets as well as our own. No one knows exactly what happened but none of the kittens that we have quarantined here have passed away.' They noted they offered a replacement kitten to one of the people who lost their kitten. PupSavers confirmed at least eight kittens had died. However, they said claims that multiple kittens died from panleukopenia was 'flat out untrue.' They said the only thing they could confirm was the presence of coccidia, which causes 'diarrhea with weight loss, dehydration, and (rarely) hemorrhage,' according to They also said some of the people who complained online had their kittens over two weeks and never sought vet care or contacted the rescue either. 'No rescue or Humane Society, shelter or otherwise, would knowingly adopt anything if there was even the slightest suggestion that there could be something wrong,' PupSavers wrote. 'This isn't anyone's fault — all we can do is be as transparent as we can and share the information as we receive it. At least we tried to assist the shelters and give these kittens hope and a chance at a home instead of euthanasia.' On June 5, PupSavers posted an update. They confirmed the presence of panleukopenia after a necropsy. The pointed out the difficulty of diagnosing the disease, because fecal swabs had come back negative. Only a necropsy revealed the virus after the animal died. Marion County Humane Society Director Jona Spatafore said panleukopenia is one of the scariest diseases to contract for kittens because of how contagious it is. Kittens are especially susceptible to it if the mother wasn't vaccinated for the virus, which is especially true for strays. As a result, a kitten has no immunity to the disease until a vaccination regimen starts once they're old enough. She also said kittens, and olders cats even, are sensitive to change. They can be perfectly healthy in a rescue or shelter environment, but pop up with a respiratory infection a few days after moving into a new place. Spatafore said new pet owners should call a veterinarian as soon as they adopt an animal as best practice, so the vet can establish a baseline. She also said pet owners should look for crust around the eyes and nose, ulcers in the mouth, and check to see if they look boney and if they have a runny stool. 'Are they playing, are they laying?' she said. 'It's not always best to pick the kittens laying there real calm because they might be real calm because they don't feel good.' She confirmed panleukopenia can't be tested for until an animal shows symptoms. She also urged potential adopters to ask for vet records and to ask what tests and vaccines the animal has had, as well as diet. Ashley Reed, scam coordinator at the West Virginia Attorney General's Office, said potential pet adopters should research the seller or organization through the Better Business Bureau, and check with the Secretary of State's Office for Business Licensing. The Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division can also check if their office has received complaints about a business. They also recommended reading reviews from third party sources. 'If someone is scammed, a seller doesn't come through as promised, or, as in this unfortunate situation, the animals don't survive — they can report that to our consumer protection division,' Kallie Moore, a spokesperson with the Attorney General's office said. 'That number is 1-800-368-8808.' Pupsavers denying refunds was a major source of anger. Spatafore is no stranger to these situations, which are an unfortunate part of working in animal welfare. She said in these kinds of situations, she refunds the money and offers a replacement kitten. But after what happened, a replacement kitten is the last thing some people wanted. 'My mom's traumatized,' Rose said. 'She cried and cried and cried. She can't. He offered us another cat, and she absolutely wants nothing to do with it.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.