Irradiation: the opposition

The Fresh Talk poll this week was solidly in support of irradiation. But a check of the consumer press headlines reveals the issue is fairly divisive. Here is an excerpt of edit against irradiation in the SF Chronicle:

Irradiation isn't just expensive and unwieldly, it's a distraction from what we really need to be doing to secure the food supply. Beefing up the FDA's regulation team, for instance, would do a world of good when it comes to catching the next outbreak before it spreads too far. It's also time to start encouraging farming methods that won't encourage contamination. The 2006 spinach recall, for instance, was due to infected cattle feces that had tainted the local water supply. The cattle operation was located far too close to the produce operation. It's as simple as that.

Escalating food prices and escalating instances of food-borne illness should have woken the FDA up to the fragility of our food system. Unfortunately, they're still pushing policies that are safe for business but not for the rest of us.

TK: On the other hand, some readers have chimed in to voice support. The Montreal Gazette opinion piece is called "Irradiation is the answer." From that piece:

Augmented use of irradiation technology, used in conjunction with other handling and processing safeguards, would go a long way to preventing future contamination of our food by E. coli, salmonella, and listeria bacteria.

It is a practice endorsed by the World Health Organization. Rational debate on this topic has been undermined by the popular but utterly false belief that foods thus treated become radioactive. Isn't it time to give health-conscious consumers a choice? Personally, if irradiated food is safe enough for NASA astronauts, it's good enough for me.

Michael Wiener

More irradiation headlines:

Would you buy irradiated spinach or lettuce?

Fear not: salmonella outbreak shows benefits or irradiation

TK: For me, it is not a question of whether I would buy irradiated spinach or lettuce, it is whether I would pay the premium demanded for irradiated spinach or lettuce. Probably not....

Dr. Doom

My poll question this week was about whether the produce industry was in "recession." For the pessimist's view, I pulled this interview with Nouriel Roubini from New York University from youtube. Roubini predicts a recession that will last until the middle of next year in this interview done earlier this year.

McCain v. Obama

Our Fresh Talk poll this week found that John McCain was a 52% to 33% winner over Barak Obama in our readers' presidential preference, with the balance of voters undecided as of the week ending Aug. 16. Find the Fresh Talk poll archive here.

This week's vote is probably a pretty fair reading of the produce industry as a whole. As a matter of course, more in the trade can be expected to vote Republican over Democrat because of the GOP orientation toward lower taxes and pro-business policies..

Can Obama convince business leaders that he has an economic plan that will lead to prosperity? Is his rhetoric about "change" beginning to wear thin? Can he bring America together on the immigration issue?

Will McCain's advanced age play a role in voters' verdicts? Will the prospect of a "Dr. No" to the expectation of a Democratic Congress in the next Administration bring comfort or angst for the majority of Americans?

One can only hope the race between McCain and Obama brings defining moments in the weeks to come. I have a link to Election 2008 on the blog. Here is their coverage from Saturday's megachurch event:

Barack Obama and John McCain made a rare joint appearance at Rich Warren's huge Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA yesterday. Warren quized each candidate separately about faith, marriage, and evil. When Obama was asked to name his greatest moral failing he cited his drug use as a teenager. When McCain was asked he cited the failure of his first marriage but added President Bush's call for the country to go shopping after Sept. 11 as a moral failure (but conveniently not his). Obama used the event to emphasize over and over that he is a Christian--in part to counter a below-the-radar campaign by some Republican operatives claiming he is a Muslim. When asked when a baby gets human rights. McCain said "at the moment of conception." Obama said the question was "above my pay grade."

When Warren, who has had a long history of preaching about our need to help the poor, asked Obama what his definition of "rich" was, Obama quipped: If you sell 25 million books (which Warren has done), you qualify. McCain said anyone making $5 million a year was rich. That may come back to haunt him in Democratic attack ads that say: "John McCain thinks that if you are making only $4 million a year you're not rich, you're just an ordinary hardworking American." By making a joke, Obama demonstrated his ability to think quickly and not say things that could boomerang. McCain tends to speak his mind (like his remark that being in Iraq for 100 years was OK with him) and some of these quotes provide fodder to the other side.

Poll closed and new poll

Here is a wrap on the poll that ended today:


Would the U.S. benefit from a single food safety agency?
Yes 9 (45%)

No 5 (25%)

Perhaps in the long term but change would cause problems in the beginning 6 (30%)

TK: No overwhelming mandate, but the poll reveals more people than not believe a single food safety agency is a long term solution. Check out the results of all 47 previous Fresh Talk polls here.

Meanwhile, this week's poll question is easy: How much time do you think you spend on the Web during the work day?

Question and answers : Is a single food safety agency best?

Relating to the Fresh Talk poll question this week, I asked a question on the Food Safe message board about the wisdom of creating a single food safety agency. Here is my question and a few responses from the group. The NACMSF refers to the National Advisory Committee on. Microbiological Criteria for Food. As you can see, there is a difference of opinion among food safety professionals about broad reform.


Congress will likely push hard for a single food safety agency next year, led by Rosa DeLauro and Dingell and others.Would creating a a unified food safety agency be a positive long term move for food safety efforts in this country? Are there are strong opinions yea or nay about tihs issue among the Food Safe group? Tom K


Tom,

A single agency isn't going to help a lot. What they need is a single group to write the process standards that all the agencies and inspectors have to use, and we have that, the NACMSF. Give the NACMSF the funds to let contracts with labs to get the science to write one set of processing rules that the retail uses, Fish HACCP, FDA processing uses and FSIS uses. That is what is wrong. Every agency wants there own cooling, pasteurization, acidification etc, and you don't know the research basis for the control. For the last 15 years, the NACMSF has been used by both FDA and FSIS as the group to write unified process rules and it seems to work.

Pete




Yes, I've come to the conclusion that for political reasons a single federal food agency is required. The FDA and their funding is one problem, the USDA and their other roles (agricultural marketing) is another. A "naked" regulatory agency covering all foods may show more clearly where the shortcomings are in either the executive, legislative , or judicial branches of the government and where industry may be using its influence to the disadvantage of the public at large.
Jeff Lewis



I can't agree with Carl more about the need to communicate with your members of Congress about the strong need to fix things at the federal level in food safety during this upcoming election. Let them know that we are "fed up" with all the problems and gaps in the system.
While I believe that the Single Agency would be the best answer to the problems, I'm not certain that it can be done quickly. For this reason we are working on some smaller steps to address funding deficiences and gaps in authority at FDA. There is some progress and promising developments. Clearly if it doesn't happen this year (and time is too short to think it will), many of these ideas will emerge early in the next Congress.
So communicating with your own members will help to move the ball now and in the future.

Caroline Smith DeWaal
Food Safety Director
Center for Science in the Public Interest




Everyone knows what a busy body I am so with that in mind, I suggested to Dr. Acheson directly that he make the model food code into a closed loop model food code "Wiki".
That would allow everyone to add and contribute within a 12 month period and at the end of the year the CFP would look over the changes, add issues and on January 1 of each year the public version would be online.
Any registered user, with qualification, would be able to submit changes like on Wikipedia, Then the CDC, FDA, ARS, ERS and other agencies could add or modify what they see and then click on "submit", perhaps it would require three approvals to publish but changes would be not only up to date but relevant to the needs of today.
This fits in tightly with what Pete said below.
"That is what is wrong. Every agency wants their own cooling, pasteurization, acidification etc, and you don't know the research basis for the control. For the last 15 years, the NACMSF has been used by both FDA and FSIS as the group to write unified process rules and it seems to work."

Rich

Who is most to blame? Survey says: consumers

The latest Fresh Talk poll has ended, and not without a little controversy. Here is the question and the results.

Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?


Growers 11 (26%)
Retailers 5 (12%)
Foodservice operators 10 (24%)
Consumers 15 (36%)

TK: For a complete reading of this issue, you must turn to a discussion of this question at the the Food Safe Group. Find that thread here. I found that I should have added "lawyers" and "transportation" to the list of suspects. Here is one thoughtful response from that discussion group:

Carl Hansen wrote:

Consumers and patients have no way of knowing if the food they receive is provided free of contamination and handled in a safe manner. Production schedules and practices go against food safety in many restaurants and health facilities. If employees do not work fast enough they receive warnings and termination notices from their employer. Training offered on Monday is often forgotten and not in application by Thursday. The management principles of Deming are rarely in practice. Safety strategies are not given a prime position by the leaders and people controlling the money. Plants, animals as well as humans have immune systems that do poorly when they are malnourished, stressed, inadequately or inappropriately supplemented or poorly treated. How to manage pests and microbes in truck produce is well established gives the best guarantee that consumers will enjoy healthy food. It comes down to safe food handling being a realistic practice in a hygienic environment with built-in failsafe systems on ongoing monitoring of quality measures and hazards established and funded by corporate leaders.

More on the blog poll question

Still 18 hours to vote on the blog poll question, and I think it will already set the record for participation. In any case, the question was admittedly imperfect, and I have come to see more of its flaws revealed in the discourse of the question on a couple of discussion boards. From the Food Safe Group:

Professor Frank Hartman wrote:

I believe we are missing the true problem. Every refrigerated container carries a massive number and variety of pathogens, Take three perti dishes and place them in any truck container for food or plants. the entire refrigerated container system is contaminated.

http://www.zp-research-group.com/FoodBornePathogens-1.html

More on trucks from Roy Costa:

This is very true. Transport is a missing link and we are involved in a risk assessment study now to define the parameters for safe transport. Should be published in the Federal Regitrar this fall or early winter.Roy E Costa,



TK: On the question of consumer "blame," from Robert LaBudde:

Attempts to blame FBI illness on consumer behavior are typically pure conjecture. And there is no scientific evidence to support these conjectures, except a feeling that "it must be true".
Having said this, there are situations and pathogens where consumer (and restaurant) behavior plays a key role. Backyard barbeques and E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef are an obvious example. In this case, however, the extreme carefulness to avoid cross-contamination and to provide proper cooking are an unrealistic expectation (implied by FSIS' rules) for consumer behavior.


TK: The result of the poll is perhaps incidental to the discussion of the problem, but if you are keeping score at home, the poll tally at about 9 pm central on Sunday night: "Consumers" top the vote as the "most to blame" with 39% of the vote.

Free At Last?

Where were you when word came from the front?

I was negotiating downtown Boston traffic when I heard the breaking news on the radio from Acheson that, yes, tomatoes are OK. My goodness, this came as such a revelation that I wanted to stop the rental car in the middle of Boylston Street, get out and scream to the assembled multitudes, forget about your beloved Red Sox! We can eat tomatoes again, I'm telling you!

Of course, the FDA & CDC want it to be over, but then the mind wanders & as a result I must respectfully submit the following dialogue from that educational thriller, 'Animal House':


D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] Bluto: What happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these guys. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!

Man, it feels good just to read that. Makes me all warm & fuzzy inside.

Back to reality, then. The financial cleanup from this toxic waste is one thing, but the psychological rebound will be quite another. Check out the AP from this morning:


WASHINGTON - Troubled by the tainted tomato scare, nearly half of Americans are concerned they may get sick from eating contaminated food and are avoiding items they normally would buy, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll has found.

Although three in four remain confident about the overall safety of foods, the poll found that consumers overwhelmingly support setting up a tracing system for produce in the wake of the salmonella outbreak first linked to tomatoes and, now, hot peppers.


Enjoy your weekend, folks.

Jay

Psychological distortion?

The 45th Fresh Talk poll is one of the most provocative and hotly contested.

The question simply asks, “Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?
As of July 17, and with four days left to vote, the voters were pinning the blame fairly evenly between growers, retailers, foodservice operators and consumers.

Full disclosure: I voted for “consumers,” primarily because I think too many of us pay no heed to concepts such as the “safe food zone” and other common sense practices.
I asked the question of Fresh Talk’s companion board, the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group, and an online message board called “Food Safe.” That forum draws many food safety professionals. Beyond that, I asked what statistics are available to support any answer. Check out the Food Safe thread here.


You will find the first response to my question on “who is to blame” was “lawyers,” left in tongue in cheek style by the food safety attorney himself, Bill Marler.
Another Food Safe board member, David, said this:

“As soon as I saw Consumer on the list, that was a given, but consumer ones don’t make the news. Even if the consumer causes their own problems they are more likely to blame it on the last place they ate out, than their practices at home. Unless there are enough people who get sick, there is no way to track an illness anyway. “

Roy Costa wrote this response on the Food Safe board:

“You asked: "Who do you think is to "blame" for most cases of foodborne illness"?
I believe you have to ask a different question to get the answer you are looking for. The better question is: "What is the "population attributable risk" for FBI at each step in production for each of the major FBI pathogens"? You must ask this question because FBI hazards flow down through the chain creating exposures at each link.
Definition: Population attributable risk (PAR) is the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current (actual) exposure pattern.
In the example below, if all the risk from Salmonella exposures attributed to primary producers was removed, the remaining risk of salmonellosis in the population would be 80%, etc. These following estimates are mostly my best judgment, but I have some data to support them. (OK. I will dig it all up if you are willing to send me a retainer, whataya want for free?)
Costa’s estimates for Population Attributable Samonellosis Risk Primary producers: 20%
Manufacturers 20%
Retailers 10%
Foodservice 40%
Consumers 10%

Carl on the Food Safe board said the question was loaded.
"Who do you think is to blame for most cases of foodborne illness?"
“(This question is a form of psychological and perceptual distortion, better known as blaming the victim, i.e., the people doing the work.)”
“When you ask about blame, it is a vastly different list. “
“This list is a list of people charged with carrying out actions not designing, training, governing, promoting and funding the actions involved with feeding people and caring for public health and sick people. “

Luis, a long time contributor to the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Board, posed this question in return:

Question is harder to answer than it appears.
“Suppose someone grilled a burger medium-rare this past 4th of July and his family got sick. Assuming, to quote Rosa DeLauro, that E. Coli does not occur naturally in beef, who do we blame? “

Finally, Steve on the Food Safe Board perceptively said that “holes” in each of the supply chain segment are where the blame lies.

“The biggest hole of them all – the regulatory agency that throws blameless growers under the bus.”

Who is to blame? As the salmonella investigation shows, everyone will get their share whether they deserve it or not.

New life for 'Frankenfoods?'

Europeans' skepticism toward genetically modified crops and food products is well documented.

However, The International Herald Tribune reports rising food prices worldwide have European Union officials rethinking their position on GMOs:

"Climate change and increasing concern about fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest in new seed varieties likely to be more resistant to drought and able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water. GM technology still has many opponents, who fear that genetically modified crops can create health problems for animals and humans, wreak havoc on the environment, and give far-reaching control over the world's food to a few corporate masters."

The article goes on to report the average European's view of GMOs hasn't changed -- well, actually it has: for the worse.

"In a Eurobarometer opinion poll in March, ... 58 percent were apprehensive about the use of such crop technology and just 21 percent were in favor, down from 26 percent in a 2006 Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology."

GMOs haven't been much of factor in fresh produce yet. Few remember the Flavr Savr tomato and its ill-fated short run on U.S. grocers' shelves.

Americans eat GM food products daily (often corn or soy in processed foods), most without knowing it.

Marketed correctly, GMO seeds and foods hold potential to alleviate hunger and ensure food security.

GMO marketers should stand by their products, spelling out the benefits and dispelling misconceptions.

I don't envy them having to educate a public that is largely ignorant concerning food science and safety in a 24-hour media environment where scare stories that are short on facts receive all too much attention.

Odds and ends

I'm looking forward to the guest blogging contributions of Russian produce consultant Ksenia Evdokimova and several members of United's Leadership Class, all of whom I have recently extended invitations to. Not to mention our new star Jay Martini and recent staff contributor Fred Wilkinson.....

I talked to Jane Proctor of CPMA and the Produce Traceability Initiative today - she said the time line for industry adoption of case-level traceability systems has not yet been released for public consumption by the group but it was extensively discussed and tentatively established at the June 12 meeting of the task force.

The Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group continues to add members, and I've also moved the archive files of Fresh Talk chats, Tk headlines, and Fresh Talk poll results to the group's pages. Here is the link to join the group, if interested.

McDonald's to tomatoes: We want you back

My Fresh Talk poll asked how long it will take before tomatoes are back on the menu at McDonald's. A fair number of those who voted on the poll thought tomatoes wouldn't make it back in less than three weeks, but this video reports the chain will have tomatoes back in the system in seven to ten days:

Poll closed: Split decision

The Fresh Talk poll over the past week offered this question:

Are federal agencies and the industry better prepared to deal with a foodborne illness outbreak linked to produce than was the case two years ago?

No: 12
Yes: 11

TK: After an early lead by the yes vote, the responses later in the week were dominated by the "no" vote. While so much work has been done by so many since the spinach outbreak of two years ago, it is easy to see the industry is dispirited by the tomato/salmonella outbreak. We we are still in the midst of the crisis and lacking answers, and it is too soon to assign blame to the either the FDA or industry players. Clearly, there is more work to do to prevent contamination on the farm and throughout the supply chain, to identify the source of pathogens and minimize the impact of food borne illness on consumers and commerce.

Poll verdict

The Fresh Talk poll question last week:

What message should be the main driver for increasing produce consumption?

The results:

Health - good for you	4 (25%)
Taste - appeal of the senses	6 (37%)
Convenience - making it an easy choice	6 (37%)

Votes so far: 16
Poll closed

TK: Why didn't "health - good for you" make a stronger showing in the poll? I wonder if it is because consumers already know or assume that fruits and vegetables are good for you. Selling taste or freshness, to me, is fraught with peril - can marketers or retailers actually deliver on the promise of unique taste or uncommon freshness? Convenience, to me, is a more straightforward sell - look at how we have made it easier for you, the consumer to take home (healthful and good tasting) produce.

Nutrition v. Taste/convenience

Here is the exchange that was the inspiration for my Fresh Talk poll this week. First, the column by Dan Galbraith of The Packer on the failed promise of "marketing nutrition."

From Dan in the April 14 issue of The Packer:

Produce marketers should take new angle
Dan Galbraith, Sections Editor
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. -- There's a famous "Seinfeld" episode that repeats the line, "Not that there's anything wrong with that," and that buzz phrase pops into my mind as I look back at the April 3-5 Produce Marketing Association's Consumer Trends '08: A Produce Solutions Conference in Newport Beach, Calif.
Conference attendees already knew the product they're selling is fresh and healthful, yet not as popular or as profitable as many food alternatives proven to be detrimental to health.
Fresh produce is healthy and that healthfulness is promotable -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- but are produce industry marketing agents missing the point?
Possibly, if you listened to some of the conference speakers closely enough.
Harry Balzer, vice president of the NPD Group, Port Washington, N.Y., for instance, spoke on "Eating Patterns in America: The Scoop on Who's Really Eating What -- Regardless of What They Say."
That's "scoop" -- as in ice cream -- one of many poor-nutrition foods Americans like to eat more than they like to eat fresh fruits and vegetables.
Perhaps the title of the speech should have been changed to "… Who's Really Eating What -- And Why" because Balzer stressed, among other things, that Americans said "eating light" was the main reason they ate a particular meal only 2% of the time.
That's right -- only 2 Americans in 100 said healthfulness was the major motivating factor behind a given meal.
And that should have been quite an eye-opener.
What's worse, when asked what they ate when they sought out a "light meal," salads finished no higher than the middle of the Top 10 pack. And guess what: burgers topped the list.
It's important to note that Balzer's data is based on what Americans actually ate, not what they reported they ate.
Balzer also talked about how factors such as convenience and perceived value are most vital to Americans when they make their food choices.
Speaker Jim Perkins, president of ULATAM Retail Solutions, Chicago, talked about the importance of connecting with Hispanic consumers through responding to their culture "in a culturally relevant way regarding produce."
Perkins emphasized the need to make packaging, store displays, advertising and store atmosphere both user-friendly and culturally appealing to Hispanics.
Except during the food safety seminar, I didn't hear speakers equate factors such as healthfulness of the product and safety behind the product as money-makers.
We all know fresh produce ranks among the most healthful and safe types of food in the world. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But, for maximizing produce profitability, most conference speakers suggested maximizing taste and convenience messages to consumers.
In the vein of Taco Bell's "Fourth Meal" promotion, perhaps produce industry marketers should take the emphasis off the healthfulness of the products they're pushing and appeal to good ol' American excess, for a change.
After all, the biggest trend in American eating is, that, well, we're eating bigger and getting bigger around our waistlines.
Of course, excess is part of the American dream -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- but can't the fresh produce industry capitalize on this phenomenon instead of being victimized by it?
It sounds absurd, but how about a "Mass Quantities" produce promotion, with the old Saturday Night Live "Coneheads" as spokespeople, devouring entire heads of lettuce or entire bags of carrots?
Check the state-by-state statistics presented at the conference on obesity careening out of control and you should realize Americans are going to overeat, no matter how much nutrition education they get.
Fresh produce has long been food's "good guy" -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- but it's apparent Americans prefer the "bad boy," and Balzer's presentation supports this fact (he concluded, "so health is a secondary factor" in American eating).
Chicken snack wraps, which Balzer dubbed "the hottest thing right now," in foodservice, could wind up being a positive development because the wraps include fresh produce -- lettuce and sometimes tomatoes.
If consumers could get into the habit of eating snack wraps now offered at places like McDonald's and KFC without any dressing, it could be a positive development for the fresh produce industry.
Call me an anti-traditionalist, or call me crazy, if you will, but the fresh produce industry's prior attempts to tout the nutrition and the relative low cost of their products hasn't put fruits and vegetables at the top of any shopping list I've seen.
Especially now, when high input costs necessitated by food safety efforts and skyrocketing energy bills have taken away some of the produce industry's price advantage, now is the time to promote produce taste any way possible.
In the real world -- and in Harry Balzer's statistical world -- taste is the only true factor, other than convenience, that will drive what Americans eat through 2020 and beyond. For fresh produce companies to survive in this world, they have to become aware of this food-trend knowledge, embrace it and adapt their marketing efforts to play to it.
That's called making money off American excess, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Email dgalbraith@thepacker.com


---------------------------------

TK: The retort to Dan's comment comes in the May 19 issue of The Packer from John Sauve, managing director of the food and nutrition division at the Swardlick Marketing Group, Portland, Maine. Suave argues that the industry hasn't reaped the advantage of the nutrition/health message but the cause is the industry's execution rather than the message itself.

Produce's health message matters most
John Sauve, Swardlick Marketing Group
I have a bone to pick -- make that a carrot -- with your sections editor, Dan Galbraith, author of the opinion piece "Produce marketers should take new angle."
In Galbraith's April 14 column, he suggests the health message as a driver for produce consumption has failed and therefore a new angle is necessary.
As an experienced marketer in the field of food and nutrition, I believe Galbraith is off-base on this one. I don't agree with his premise or his support points.
Maybe he really wanted to evoke the kind of response I'm expressing -- to find someone who truly believes and can articulate that, when it comes to fruits and vegetables, health matters most.
As the managing director of the food and nutrition division of Swardlick Marketing Group, the agency that developed the science and nutrition-based 5 a Day The Color Way program for the Produce for Better Health Foundation, I have seen the power of a science-backed health story to dramatically move produce sales.
In the late 1990s, our agency discovered, developed and promoted the emerging phytochemical research and antioxidant-based health story behind the enormous success of the blueberry business.
A health-based marketing message was -- and continues to be -- the driving force behind the worldwide demand for blueberries, as well as other individual fruits and vegetables that have chosen to focus on health as their principle marketing message.
In our view, the health message has not failed the produce industry as a driver of consumption for fruits and vegetables; rather, the industry itself has failed to effectively drive and support the right health message into the marketplace.
Most healthful food group
We believe the produce industry, representing the healthiest food group, has yet to really embrace, understand and truly market the health benefits of its colorful, nutritionally advantaged products.
Until that happens, we will lose ground to the many other categories in the marketplace - think dairy, cereal, soy, beverages and supplements - that have grabbed "health" and benefited from it. These categories put money behind health in a big way: at point of sale, in advertising, in packaging.
The same cannot be said of the produce industry. While we are off talking about other things, the other food groups will take away our inherent health advantage. That's just good competitive strategy on their part. We talk a good health game -- amongst ourselves -- but our actual playing is way short of the mark.
Think about it: when was the last time you saw the words "health" or "wellness" prominently displayed in the produce section of the supermarket? You are more likely to find those words in the pharmacy section.
Take a walk through your produce department. What health-related messages hit you between the eyes -- the ones that make you immediately call up the latent health images you have of fruits and veggies?
When was the last time the industry had a national campaign running to promote the health benefits of fruits and vegetables? When was the last time you saw an ad for healthy fruits and vegetables on TV?
Milk, cereal (look at the front of the Cheerios box), beverages, soy, even pharmacy, are grabbing the health messages being conveyed to Americans, while fruits and veggies talk about freshness and quality and admittedly other good things - but not health.
It's not that we aren't communicating good things. We are. It's that the most important one, the lead health story, is missing or is way down the list.
Product positioning built upon delivering a meaningful, compelling and differentiating consumer benefit is what marketers try to do for their brands.
While Galbraith calls upon some broad research to support his points on taste and convenience -- certainly important and necessary barriers and solutions to address -- theses are not the primary positioning points that will win the good vs. not-so-good food fight or the wellness challenge.
Collectively, we can and must differentiate and market fruits and vegetables first and foremost on the health dimension -- our core product positioning -- something that comes naturally to our nutritionally advantaged product portfolio.
Our beautiful color array alone is a competitive advantage for fruits and vegetables. All other attributes and benefits are support points, helping us meet the needs of the marketplace.
The irony is, colorful fruits and vegetables are the true health heroes in the supermarket. Health rightfully belongs to produce, yet we are letting these other categories win the "health and wellness" mantle.
Our biggest marketplace voice, the Produce for Better Health Foundation, a wonderful organization with dedicated people, is too underfunded to effectively compete and somewhat restricted in its health messaging strategies by governmental guidelines.
We simply have no outlets consistently and effectively doing the health-focused marketing job for the whole industry.
We hope the collective industry will wake up and get on the health track, because health really does matter most.
John Sauve is managing director of the food and nutrition division at the Swardlick Marketing Group, Portland, Maine.


TK: The fresh produce industry certainly does not need to run away from the nutrition/health message. But does not everyone understand that fruits and vegetables are "good for you"? More of the emphasis, I think, needs to be focused on ways to make fruits and vegetables more accessible, more convenient and easy. Let the nutrition message be a throw in or supplementary message, but let the primary driver should be the convenience and ease of fresh produce. Taste can be promoted when it is a bona fide change from consumer expectations - such as a new variety - but don't over promise and under deliver on the taste message.

In praise of eating at home

Take that, restaurant chains. The Food Marketing Institutes's recent report about consumer behavior came with the assertion in the second paragraph that 71% consumers are eating out less because of economic concerns. Not just that, but children who eat meals at home with family are less prone for substance abuse!
The survey would have been couched a little differently had it been released by the NRA, but surely both supermarkets and restaurants are feeling the impacts of tighter consumer budgets.
Also note in the summary the huge rebound in the confidence of consumers in the safety of the food they buy in both supermarkets and at restaurants. Although confidence is up, consumer beliefs about safe good are "fragile," the FMI states. Also note some interesting data about the appeal of nutrition issues in shopping, which relates nicely to our Fresh Talk poll this week.

While FMI said that sustainability programs are an emerging issue, only about 20% of consumers surveyed deem the issue "very important" when selecting a primary store.

Higher fuel and food costs and other economic pressures are having a pervasive impact on how consumers shop, cook and dine, according to the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2008 report released here (May 5)

Economic concerns are compelling Americans to cook at home more and eat less often at restaurants (71 percent). In fact, families eat their main meal at restaurants only 1.2 times per week, down from 1.3 in 2007 and 1.5 in 2006.

Consumers are buying fewer luxury foods (67 percent) and more store-brand items (60 percent) and eating more leftovers (58 percent). The high cost of fuel is contributing to the decline in the number of shopping trips — below two per week for the second straight year at 1.9.

When deciding where to shop, 37 percent of consumers cite “low prices” as the overriding factor — up from 31 percent in 2007 and well ahead of the second most often cited factor (convenient location at 13 percent).

“Food retailers can turn these economic challenges into benefits for consumers and the industry,” said FMI President and CEO Tim Hammonds. “As people eat out less often, we can help revive the great American home family meal tradition. This presents retailers an opportunity to win back a share of the meal-time market long owned by restaurants, and it provides American families important health, economic and social benefits.”

Consumers equate eating at home with eating healthier. As many as 91 percent say they eat healthier when dining at home, according to the report. This number includes 39 percent who believe home-cooked food is “much healthier” (click here to view release with charts). Families also save money since a restaurant meal costs more than twice as much per person, a median of $12 compared with $5.

Meals at home have a social benefit for children and the family. Research shows that children who dine regularly with their families at home are healthier, superior academic performers and less prone to substance abuse.

Many of these benefits are evident in the words that consumers use to describe a home-cooked meal. Click here to view the graphic known as a “tag cloud.”

Confidence in Food Safety Returns to 81 Percent, But Fragile

The report also found that consumers’ confidence in the safety of food bought at supermarkets rebounded to 81 percent, from the 18-year low of 66 percent last year (click here to view release with chart). Their confidence is fragile, however: only 11 percent are “completely confident,” down from 15 percent in 2007, and 70 percent are “somewhat confident.” Consumer confidence in the safety of restaurant food increased to 65 percent, from 43 percent in 2007.

“Retailers are taking extensive measures to help safeguard the food supply from the source to the consumer’s kitchen,” said Hammonds. They are ensuring that suppliers worldwide observe the most rigorous safety standards through independent audits and certification, such as FMI’s Safe Quality Food (SQF) Program.

Numerous companies send managers and employees to FMI’s SuperSafeMark^® program to learn the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. The industry and government are expanding programs to educate consumers how to keep food safe. These include the award-winning Fight BAC!^® initiative and Be Food Safe, which was launched in 2007.

Shoppers Trust Safety of Food in Supermarkets

These efforts may be making a difference based on the trust that consumers have in the safety of different types of food in supermarkets. For example, 93 percent agree with the statement, “I trust the fresh produce my grocery store sells is safe.” Nearly as many agree with the same statement about canned and boxed foods (92 percent) and meat, poultry and fish (90 percent). As with the confidence numbers, high numbers of consumers agreed with these statements “somewhat” rather than “strongly.”

They expressed less trust in the government: 79 percent agree with the statement, “I trust the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that the food I purchase is safe,” and 76 percent hold this view about the FDA. Only one-third “strongly agree” with these statements regarding the two federal agencies.

When food recalls are announced most consumers turn to nongovernmental sources for information, led by television (81 percent), and then the Internet and newspapers or magazines (39 percent), radio (31 percent), friends or family members (22 percent) and government websites (17 percent).

How Nutrition Concerns Affect Shopping

Nutrition is very much on the minds of shoppers with 41 percent “very concerned” about the nutritional content of the foods they eat, and 47 percent “somewhat concerned.” At the same time, many continue to fall short in acting on these anxieties: 62 percent of consumers believe their diets could be healthier, including 12 percent who rate the room for improvement “a lot.”

The shoppers most likely to say their diet needs significant improvement include:

§ Baby Boomers (68 percent), especially men (75 percent).

§ Shoppers earning $75,000-$100,000 (70 percent).

§ Consumers aged 25-39 (69 percent).

§ Parents with older children (69 percent).

When evaluating whether a food is nutritious, shoppers focus most on the fat content listed on the Nutrition Facts label, with more than half checking saturated fat, trans fat and total fat. More than four in 10 check the calorie count, look for whole grains and focus on the salt, sugar and cholesterol levels.

Most shoppers (82 percent) hold themselves responsible for ensuring that the food they eat is nutritious. Accordingly, those who choose to diet most often follow their own plan (49 percent). Weight Watchers is the most popular formal plan, used by 22 percent of consumers on a diet (click here to view release with chart).

Supermarkets are responding to consumer health needs with products and services. For example, 82 percent of stores now feature natural or organic foods, up from 80 percent last year and 72 percent in 2006. In fact, nearly 60 percent of food retailers feature store-brand organic foods, according to FMI’s The Food Retailing Industry Speaks 2008 report, offering customers lower-cost alternatives.

Health clinics are now featured in 9 percent of stores, and 5 percent have a dietitian on hand to provide consumers nutritional guidance.

Many Consumers Don’t Know What or Where to Eat Two Hours Before Dinnertime

Consumers remain challenged planning meals, especially dinner. In fact, 28 percent of consumers do not know what they will eat two hours before dinnertime on weekdays; the number jumps to 35 percent on weekends. On weekdays, those most likely to lack plans are members of Generation Y (46 percent), single men (43 percent) and single mothers (38 percent).

Two hours before dinnertime, many have not even decided whether to eat at home or a restaurant. On weekdays, the plan-less are led by Generation Y (27 percent), single mothers (21 percent) and single men (19 percent).

These consumers create a large market for fast-food, takeout and delivered meals. Supermarkets are responding with meal solutions and quick-stop areas for dinner, often featuring their own checkout stands. The number featuring quick-stop areas increased from 36.8 percent in 2007 to 50.6 percent in 2008, according to The Food Retailing Industry Speaks 2008 report.

Emerging Issues: Sustainability, Reusable Shopping Bags and Cloning

Consumers are beginning to look for retailers who have a recycling and sustainability program: 20 percent deemed this “very important” when selecting a primary store, and 41 percent “somewhat important.” More than half of supermarkets (51 percent) sell reusable shopping bags, and nearly as many consumers (44 percent) use these bags at least once a month.

More than half of shoppers at least some of the time:

§ Use high-efficiency, energy-saving light bulbs (70 percent).

§ Recycle cans (70 percent).

§ Buy locally grown products (68 percent).

§ Recycle plastic (62 percent).

§ Recycle paper (62 percent).

§ Use environmentally friendly cleaning products (53 percent).

Consumers remain uneasy about eating products derived from cloned animals. As many as 77 percent are not comfortable, including 44 percent who are “not at all comfortable” — up significantly from 61 percent and 31 percent, respectively, in 2007.

More than eight in 10 consumers (81 percent) believe cloned foods should be labeled as such. In fact, nearly six in 10 (58 percent) hold this view “strongly.”

Methodology

Data for U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2008 were collected through surveys conducted by Harris Poll Online among a nationally representative sample of 2,020 U.S. shoppers. Respondents must have met the following requirements to participate in the survey: a minimum of 15 years of age, primary or equally shared responsibility for food shopping, and they must have shopped for groceries in the past two weeks.

This report was made possible by the generous support of PepsiCo. To purchase a copy ($95 for FMI Retailer/Wholesaler Members, $175 for FMI Associate Members and $250 for nonmembers), contact the FMI Store at 202-220-0723 or www.fmi.org/

Fresh and Easy on Sunday

Some of The Packer's editorial team going to Las Vegas will be treated to a tour of a Fresh & Easy store Sunday. I hope to get some pics from the visits to the blog on Sunday night.

I'll be anxious to hear what people think of the Vegas show, partly because I'm responsible for writing an overview next week. I might have to put up a poll on Fresh Talk to account for reactions the Vegas show, though I'm tempted to run a poll about the potatoes and WIC issue.

I need to visit the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group, but I see that the group has been very active of late, covering everything from new rules about blueberry imports from Central America to more talk about the recession and the farm bill.

Housekeeping

The month of April has seen the best readership in the relatively short history of Fresh Talk, so we appreciate that. Thanks to Cryovac for their sponsorship of the blog. At the same time thanks to Luis, Big Apple, Valerie and others at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group who continue to drive readership of that companion discussion board.

I notice the Fresh Talk poll about the vulnerability of fresh to frozen and canned is dead even, with about one more day left of voting. This merits editorial follow up with economists and retailers, no doubt.

Meanwhile, did you notice the big shortfall between shipments of imported produce this year compared with the same week last year? (check out the chart on the side of the blog). Reduced volumes of bananas likely account for some of the gap, but other factors (lower Chilean fruit volumes?) must be at work too. More on that later...

Showdown with the White House? Despite ongoing negotiations in the farm bill conference to limit subsidies to the wealthiest farmers, the White House still isn't happy with the farm bill, it seems. From the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Mr. Bush signed the 2002 farm bill but later regretted doing so, because the measure made no effort to overhaul subsidy programs. The legislation hampered his efforts to secure agreement in the Doha Round of global trade talks, amid complaints from developing countries that the U.S. isn't doing enough to trim farm supports. And against the backdrop of the 2008 campaign, the White House and Republicans in Congress have made a priority of reasserting the party's image as a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars.

Moral high ground or expedient choice

The Fresh Talk poll question this week provides you, the reader, a hypothetical scenario that in imperfect but in obvious ways mirrors the choices Chiquita faced in Colombia. Beginning in 1997 and continuing for seven years, Chiquita (or its subsidiary) paid right wing terrorist groups about $1.7 million for protection money. In previous years, four of the company's employees had been killed in two incidents. After eventually deciding to tell the Justice Department of its actions, the company plead guilty to a single felony count and paid a $25 million fine to the government for a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. A good treatment of the hard choices faced by Chiquita and the legal history of the episode can found in at this link for Corporate Counsel magazine. Thanks to Luis of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group who found the piece some time back.

Thumbs up for Tesco

Fresh Talk readers believe that Tesco's Fresh & Easy format will defy its critics and eventually become a success in the U.S. Our poll this week asked:

Will Tesco's Fresh & Easy format be an eventual success in the U.S.?

The answers were:

Will Tesco's Fresh & Easy format be an eventual success in the U.S.?

	14 (45%)
Yes	14 (45%)
No	9 (29%)
Too early to say	8 (25%)

So you heard it here first. Meanwhile, here is a blog post from the "Talking Fresh & Easy blog that speaks to the concept of self service checkouts and customer service.