When I first became a vegetarian in 2004, after reading an article by Michael Pollan in the New York Times about the treatment of steers on American beef farms, many of my friends scoffed at my meager attempt at changing the face of Big Food.

“You think you’re going to change anything just by not eating meat?” they would say. “They’re still going to produce it, whether you eat it or not.”

I hope they’re surprised now: according to a new article by Hank Cardello, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute for Forbes, food activists have taken on the role previously held by brand managers in deciding what is produced, what is sold, and which Big Food companies are successful.

“Only the food companies that recognize this shift have a hope of maintaining or regaining consumer trust and loyalty,” Cardello writes.

For examples, we need not look far.

The buzz in the media over GMO labeling, before a bill for a national labeling law had even been approved, forced brands like Campbell’s, a long-time opponent of GMO labeling, to slap that information on its packaging or risk losing customers.

Meanwhile, consumers voting with their dollar essentially forced big companies like McDonald’s, Costco, and Walmart to make the switch to cage-free eggs, to such an extent that caged eggs will likely become obsolete in the U.S. within the next few years.

While these companies have learned to respond to consumer activists, others seem stuck in the 1930s, when food marketing was less about health and more about value. According to Cardello, companies that stick to this traditional model of “delivering the optimum combination of taste, convenience, and value, regardless of impact on consumers’ health or environmental sustainability” are in for a rude awakening when the realize that that just doesn’t jive with modern shoppers.

This model of “taste, convenience, and value” is translating to the current generation of shoppers as “unhealthy, unnatural, and cheap.”

For most consumers, the voices of Big Food are no longer trustworthy or even worth listening to, now that citizen journalists and activists have taken over. According to the Natural Marketing Institute, 72 percent of Americans believe that most food and beverage companies are more focused on profit than health; when consumers have the choice of listening to a big company in it for the buck or a mom blogger just looking to feed her family healthfully, it’s not surprising which opinion they are going to trust.

“People want to be told what to do so badly, they’ll listen to anyone,” Don Draper famously said in “Mad Men.” It seems the time of consumers blindly following food brand managers is over, and a new age – the age of the conscious, conscientious, activist consumer – has arrived.

Related on Eco Salon
Chipotle Label GMOs… So, Should You Still Eat There?
Label It Yourself Movement Raises Awareness About GMOs
Food Activism: Civil Eats’ Kitchen Table Talk in San Francisco Tonight

Supermarket image via Shutterstock

The post We’re in Charge Now; Big Food Has to Learn to Market to Food Activists appeared first on EcoSalon.

Acai berries! Kale! Spirulina! Quinoa!

Oh the world of superfoods, where some foods just get a better reputation than others. But when it comes to healthy eating, are superfoods actually doing us more harm than good?

The first problem with superfoods is that there is actually no definition of what a superfood is. In fact, if anything, the term “superfood” is used more for marketing purposes than health. Be honest: if you see “superfood” on the label of something at the market, you consider buying it now don’t you?

Don’t worry, we’ve all been there. In a time where fast food rules the world, agribusiness keeps us eating anything and everything made from corn, and obesity rates are skyrocketing, it’s no surprise that we’re looking for ways to eat better, and incorporate more healthy ingredients into our diets. That’s why the “superfoods” term has caught on so well.

In general, superfoods are foods that are “nutrient powerhouses.” In other words, they pack a nutrient punch; full of lots of vitamins and minerals and all the good things that a body on the Standard American Diet (yes, it’s SAD) naturally wants more of, even if it’s on a subconscious level. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of foods that could qualify as a superfood. We live in a culture of “bigger and better” and just like we want fast cars and larger houses, we want food that ups the ante on all the other foods.

However, the problem with superfoods is that the concept gets us focusing on individual ingredients instead of diets as a whole. No one is going to argue that eating kale or blueberries isn’t good for you, but individually targeting certain foods distracts our attention from not only a lot of other foods that are good for us – hello, why doesn’t anyone care about celery root?! – but also it encourages a mentality of “if only I eat a few extra good things, I can continue eating whatever I like.”

Let me break it down for you: popping exotic berries into a smoothie is not going to make you immortal, or even get you to the age of 90, and it certainly isn’t going to offset the negative effects of a poor diet. Sure, you may eat a raw acai bowl for breakfast every morning, but if that’s followed by a can of Coca-Cola at lunch, then you can forget about taking advantage of all the nutritional benefits of your morning meal.

When we put certain individual ingredients on a  pedestal, it also keeps us from thinking locally. This is often the problem with superfoods marketing, as you’ll commonly find lots of foods that come from nowhere near your backyard. Let’s take goji berries for example. Do you know where goji berries come from? They may be branded as the Himalayan superfood, invoking images of tranquil fields in the foothills of mountains, but the reality is that the majority of goji crops hail from industrial fields in Northwestern China. And hey, even if we get sick of that superfood, the food marketing world will always come up with another exotic option to replace it with. Kakadu plum anyone?

While superfoods may seem like a healthy alternative to all the chips, cookies and other processed foods on the market, don’t let yourself think that these food companies are operating in your best interest; they’re applying savvy marketing principles just like all the other food companies and brands on the market.

Superfoods can, and do, get recalled – Sunburst Superfoods had to recall a raw carob powder earlier this year – and companies that market them definitely get reprimanded for mismarketing their so-called incredible benefits. One of the more notable cases was POM, the seller of pomegranate juice, who the FDA charged for making “false and unsubstantiated claims that their products will prevent or treat heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.” Proof that you can never believe the marketing claims on food packaging, even if the food product in question appears to be a health food.

Superfoods in and of themselves aren’t hurting us, but the concept and marketing of superfoods certainly is, so much so that it’s probably time that we simply got rid of the term “superfoods” entirely. “I don’t believe there is such a thing as a superfood,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, told the Washington Post. “All plant foods — fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains — have useful nutrients. The whole point about diets is to vary food intake, because the nutrient contents of various foods differ and complement each other.”

In Europe, the use of the term “superfood” is in fact banned, and if we know one thing about the Europeans it’s this: they tend to have a much better relationship to food than we do, certainly a more well balanced one.

But beyond the effects (or lack thereof) of superfoods on our health, there’s something else that’s even more important to consider: the effect on the people that grow them. The popularity of quinoa has made it so that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, quinoa’s native growing spot, can’t afford the grain that once sustained them.

Our obsession with exotic superfoods also has a negative affect on growers back here at home. As Tom Philpott pointed out in an article in Mother Jones last year, “The domestic blueberry, for example, is periodically (and justifiably) marketed as a superfood, and in 2012, products featuring blueberries as a primary ingredient saw their sales nearly quadruple. But they only raked in $3.5 million—less than 2 percent of açaí-based product sales.” In a world where so many people are talking about eating more local and supporting communities closer to home, do these kind of sales statistics make any sense to you? It’s as if we have to say, “sorry blueberry farmers, your berries just aren’t as sexy as the ones that come from far away.”

Want to eat healthy? It’s not a well-packaged bundle of berries that’s going to be your solution. Skip the aisle full of health claims, and walk right over to that produce aisle and fill your basket with fresh fruits and vegetables.

Eat whole grains. Make your daily diet of real foods that don’t come from the other side of the world.

Related on EcoSalon

Kakadu Plum: The New Superfood?

Can We Stop Talking About Superfoods? Foodie Underground

Homemade Breakfast Bar with Goji Berries

Image: theglobalpanorama

The post Are Superfoods Actually Bad for Us? appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnAdvertising tricks from the food world.

In this edition of Fit to Eat, we’re focusing on advertising and marketing: the good, the bad, the ugly and some gray areas in between. The very bad form award goes to one well-known seafood chain using the prospect of ocean species extinction as a marketing campaign to sell menu items; Chipotle, the burrito chain, enlists Willie Nelson to cover a Coldplay hit to highlight the company’s commitment to supporting small scale farmers; Yum! Brands, the grease factory that brings us Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell, is working state by state to make it possible for food stamp recipients to use their Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dollars on fast food (I can see the billboards now); Con Agra is being sued in a class action for advertising its genetically modified corn oil as “100% natural”; and Dean Foods touts that its chocolate milk is made from…milk! Imagine that, real milk, coming soon to a school lunch tray near you.

“Save the Salmon” says Legal Sea Food, but not because salmon are an important part of the food chain, or because they are a sacred food to Native Americans, or because they are amazing creatures. Nope. Save them so that Legal Sea Food can sauté them with lemon butter sauce. Same goes for trout and crab. Yeah, it’s supposed to be funny, but environmentalists aren’t laughing.

Chipotle, the only national fast food chain that sources hormone and antibiotic free meats, produced this animated video of farmers going back to the old ways of doing things with Willie Nelson covering the haunting Coldplay song “The Scientist” in the background. Cynical marketing campaign or sheer brilliance?

Ever looking for new markets, Yum! Brands is applying for inclusion in the food stamp programs in several states. On one hand, it looks like a giant government subsidy for fast food, but the company says fast food is one of the few food options available to homeless food stamp recipients and others without kitchens or the ability to prepare meals.

Some clever lawyers turned the GMO industry’s own language against it, suing Con Agra for its use of the verbiage “100% Natural” on cooking oil that is likely to be made from genetically modified plants. Zeroing in on this definition of GMOs from Monsanto, “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs,” the lawsuit contends that consumers are being misled by labels that convey that the product is a natural, wholesome product.

Aiming its new high fructose corn syrup-free chocolate milk squarely at school lunch programs nationwide, Dean Foods unleashes a marketing blitz to tout the attributes of its TruMoo chocolate milk product, among which is the selling point that it’s actually milk! Nutritionists are split on whether or not chocolate milk should be allowed in schools. What’s your take?

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate,  on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

The post Fit to Eat: News from the Food World – Marketing and Advertising Edition appeared first on EcoSalon.

Kids are at once prime marketing targets, financial liabilities, and cheap labor.

The business sector seems to have children in its crosshairs. If they aren’t reporting child labor in their overseas supply chains, companies are aggressively marketing junk food to kids, denying them health care coverage and teaching them the benefits of dirty energy.

Leading Them Down the Garden Path

Scholastic is a brand that has long been synonymous with educational materials, and it won the hearts of millions by bringing the Harry Potter stories to the U.S. However, the company recently had to recall a fourth grade educational curriculum it developed in collaboration with the American Coal Foundation after a major public outcry.

Scholastic materials are used in 90 percent of American classrooms, and children, parents and teachers alike have come to trust them. But Scholastic has made questionable decisions about partnering with companies that many feel have compromised the quality and integrity of their materials. Are sponsored educational materials developed for learning, or are they just ads disguised as schoolwork?

The United States of Energy champions coal as an essential energy source, ignoring the issues that come with it, such as greenhouse gas emissions, toxic waste, and mountaintop removal. This book discusses the different energy alternatives, but does not steer students to ask any questions about which one might be harmful, or consider any consequences due to production.

The materials went out to 66,000 fourth grade teachers and were used for three years until child advocacy groups kicked up a fuss and The New York Times criticized the sponsored materials. After expressing enthusiasm over the partnership and hoping to expand it to fifth grade materials, the CEO of Scholastic released a statement declaring they would no longer produce or distribute the title beginning May 2011.

This isn’t Scholastic’s only partnership misstep. Advocacy groups have also protested a previous campaign encouraging kids to drink SunnyD, a sugary, fruit-flavored drink, to earn free books. Scholastic, you’ve disappointed us so.

What Do You Mean You Use Child Labor?

Apple makes stunning products, even their packaging is elegant. However, they build many of their products overseas, requiring them to utilize foreign suppliers, and the computer giant has uncovered some very ugly practices in their supply chain. In addition to health and safety violations and negative environmental impact, Apple has found that their suppliers have employed child labor.

Apple’s Supplier Responsibility 2011 Progress Report showed that the company discovered 49 underage workers across nine facilities, and 42 underage workers in another facility. Apple has pledged to make “social responsibility a fundamental part of the way we do business, we insist that our suppliers take Apple’s code as seriously as we do,” but what is their responsibility regarding third-party contractors? As a condition of doing business can they compel them to meet certain criteria? It is a question that many companies that use third-party labor struggle with.

In this case, Apple split the baby. For the first nine facilities, the company mandated that the suppliers must support the underage workers’ return to school. They also demanded that those facilities change their recruitment practices and age-verification procedures. Since these suppliers have indicated that they would comply, Apple has chosen to continue to do business with them.

As for the remaining facility with 42 underage workers, Apple instituted the same requirements, but later decided the supplier was non-compliant. Apple has since voided its contract with this supplier.

But should Apple have terminated its business with all of these suppliers? Isn’t using child labor until being forced to stop indicative of a less-than-ethical supplier? This has been a recurring problem.

Sweets to the sweet

Food marketing is big business, but the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) limits the amount of time companies can market junk food to children on television. However, marketers have found a new avenue around that restriction – the web. Obesity experts are concerned since much of the food being marketed to kids is sugary, high-calorie snacks and drinks, and companies are finding multiple, innovative ways to attract kids.

Companies like General Mills (LuckyCharms.com), McDonald’s (HappyMeal.com and McWorld.com), and Kellogg’s (AppleJacks.com) have developed multimedia games, online quizzes and cell phone and tablet apps designed to lure young internet users. In the past, companies had to sell parents on their products. Now, they can largely bypass the parents and appeal directly to kids.

The Atlantic’s Marion Nestle quotes Advertising Age statistics that show that over half of parents surveyed believe their children should be able to go online on their own by age six, and can use a cell phone for games by age five. The New York Times says that hundreds of thousands of visitors are hitting these sites each month, and about half are under the age of twelve.

Many say it’s the parents’ job to run interference, but it’s difficult when the messages are coming from all directions. The obesity problem in the U.S. has reached epidemic proportions, and experts trace much of the issue back to childhood eating habits. With children influencing household spending while inundated with images and games of sugary foods, parents are losing the battle.

Federal agencies have decided to step in. The Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, and United States Dairy Association all partnered to propose new nutritional standards for food marketed to children ages 2-17. Foods either had to contain certain nutritional elements (no sugary drinks or fatty food allowed), or they could not be marketed. So, companies could choose to continue to produce fattening food with limited avenues of marketing, or produce more nutritional food that falls within the guidelines of marketing to that all-important age group.

To date, those guidelines have not been passed, leading to speculation that the companies are fighting these regulations behind the scenes. A decision should be made in the next few months. Just as they forced Joe Camel into retirement, will the Keebler Elves and their brethren receive their marching papers, or will they find themselves promoting healthier fare?

Don’t Come to Us for Help

The redesign of America’s healthcare system has caused so much anger and distress that politicians are literally at each others throats, health care lobbyists are working overtime, and the public doesn’t know what will come next or how it will impact them.

In early 2010, President Obama signed into law health care reform legislation. One of the major provisions of the bill was that insurance carriers must offer insurance to children with pre-existing conditions. In response, several major U.S. insurance carriers announced that they were dropping individual child-only insurance plans just days before parts of the health care law were to go into effect. WellPoint, CoventryOne and Aetna, Inc., among others, announced their intention to discontinue offering the plans in several states.

Insurance companies began to fall like dominoes, and within a few months there was hardly a child-only plan to be found anywhere. Insurance companies claimed that the new legislation allowed families to avoid paying insurance premiums for their children until they were sick, and then signing them up for insurance, potentially costing insurance companies millions.

Other scenarios include parents who work for companies that don’t cover dependents and need insurance just for their children, or parents who are out of work and decide to just cover their children because they can’t afford a more expensive family plan. Children with or without pre-existing conditions were still covered under a family plan that includes an adult, and children with existing child-only plans were not immediately affected.

In early 2011, states started to fight back, passing their own legislation that levied harsh punishments on insurance companies who refused to offer child-only plans. Many companies, realizing they would lose more revenue due to the state sanctions, grudgingly reinstated the plans.  Others instituted enrollment at certain times of the year. What’s up in the air is how much premiums will cost families.

Child-only plans represent a small percentage of insurance business, yet many children in the U.S. still aren’t covered. Taking this step to make it that much more difficult to insure children left many insurance critics with a sour taste in their mouths.

A Better Future?

The good news is that many of these companies are voluntarily making changes, some due to public pressure, some due to company conscience, but changes nonetheless. In some cases government or governing agencies are stepping in and mandating compliance. Are children disproportionately targeted by businesses to increase profits or minimize financial risks? Children are a booming market so the temptation will always be there, but it’s up to the public to keep it from being a dog-eat-puppy world.

image: thejbird

The post Targeting Tiny appeared first on EcoSalon.