| Tom kicked the panel off with some consumer research on how consumers have very negative associations with the term "processed food." And, unfortunately for dairy, consumers DO consider many dairy products to be "processed food." Especially "processed cheese." Later in the discusssion, I pointed out that your typical "Michael Pollan" type advice would be to eat around the perimeter of the store. That DOES include dairy except for ice cream. And who in their right mind would give up ice cream? Processed food to me is mostly items that are shelf stable and don't represent any foods found in nature. Dairy's a real food - a whole food - made with real ingredients. Or at least, it can be. It's when you doctor it up with artificial food dyes, preservatives, or high fructose corn syrup that's when it becomes a no-no to me.
Tom was also rather upset by the idea that the food industry shouldn't be trusted and that it's out to kill the American people. I think Sally brought up the comparison of the food industry to the tobacco industry. I countered that idea too. I don't think it's the food industry's GOAL to kill us. It's their goal to make money. More money every quarter. And with a relatively stable population, each of us has to eat more and more. Obesity and diet-related illness are certainly complex and fitness and other factors play a role, but food IS part of the picture. The fact of the matter is that the American people are a lot fatter and sicker now than we were in the past and food - food sold to us by the food industry - is a large part of the reason why.
Another idea brought up is that it's not good for marketers to try to out-NO each other. By that they mean that it's not good for one product to say "No Trans fats" and another one to come up with "No trans fats and no rbGH" so a third one comes up with "No trans fats, rbGH, or antibiotics" and so on. Why confuse the customer with all of these things they should be worried about when cutting out various additives and production practices makes life more difficult for food companies? Nagle made a comment about how this is the game activists like PCRM and PETA play and the food industry needs to make the debate on their own terms. (PCRM is the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine and they've been very active in opposing rbGH.) I countered that it's not a game we're playing. As a consumer, I simply want to buy food that I believe is good for me and I need labels to tell me the information I am looking for.
Louie Gentine, for his part, was a lot more connected to the reality of selling cheese than he was to any philosophical debates about what should or shouldn't be put into food. It seemed to me that his attitude is that if consumers want a pony, you should sell them a pony. His comments were very much right on that what consumers say during market research studies and how they behave when actually buying groceries are often very different. It reminded me of one of the big lessons I learned back in business school: When doing market research, never ask a consumer how much the product should cost because they always want it to be free. But despite the difficulties of getting good market research that resembles reality, when Gentine finds out that consumers are going to buy a product, he's interested in selling it to them - whatever it is. He spoke about giving consumers choices, as did the other panelists.
As much as the folks here were not pleased to be compared to the tobacco industry, this is where I feel like they fall into that analogy. After all, the tobacco lobby would say that consumers deserve the choice to smoke. Are all choices good? I realize that Americans do not like to have their freedom to choose limited by burdensome government regulation (which we've been trained to hate since Reagan) but the fact of the matter is that the choices people have made on their own have caused a health crisis. So does the government have a role to play in getting products it knows to be harmful off the market - or at least in enforcing honest labeling and advertising that tells consumers of the risks? At some point, I would say yes. But do we want everyone to go back to the 17th century (as Nagle suggested we did)? Absolutely not. I would say that the good, clean, fair food movement is about using the BEST of science and technology to move forward in a healthy, delicious, fair, and sustainable way. It's certainly not about abandoning science and technology. I didn't get a chance to say that on the panel though.
Nagle was also concerned about efforts to get chocolate milk out of schools. He said that based on research, when kids are only offered white milk, they drink much less milk overall. They switch to soda and juice. By that logic white milk > chocolate milk > juice > soda and therefore, if you can't get them to drink white milk, you might as well go with chocolate. That doesn't entirely sit well with me because it makes me wonder if we should give kids apple pie to get them to eat apples or carrot cake to get them to eat carrots (and so on). However, I do think that soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and perhaps even juices should not have a presence in schools. Kids should eat fruit, not drink it. Then again, if they don't have juice as an option WILL they eat the fruit? And if they don't have chocolate milk as an option, will they drink white milk if it's their only choice? Or will they get calcium from other sources in their diets? All in all, I'd be very glad to see all high fructose corn syrup removed from chocolate milk. That in itself would be an improvement.
rbGH did come up a little bit, but I never got a chance to comment on it. Gentine felt that it was safe and useful but understood that some consumers were against it. Nagle estimated the percent of consumers who wanted rbGH-free dairy as 5-15%. Both noted that it costed more and agreed that if consumers want it and are willing to pay more, that's fine. But, again, they want to give consumers the choice to buy cheaper products made from milk from cows treated with rbGH.
What didn't come up but perhaps should have is the precautionary principle. Here in the U.S. things like rbGH are safe until proven unsafe. In Europe, they are more likely to judge new products as unsafe until proven safe. I'd certainly prefer the European model since I don't like the idea of being a human guinea pig (particularly when it's done without my knowledge or consent) for every new technology that comes out.
Another area that came up for discussion briefly was "functional foods" (a.k.a. "nutraceuticals"). These are foods sold for their health benefits. While there was some thoughts among the panel that most consumers really just want taste, convenience, and affordability more than anything else, Nagle did say that consumers read labels. They spoke about whether fortification was a good idea. I said I don't think it's a good idea health-wise (compared to selling healthful whole foods and letting consumers get their nutrients from that) BUT there is a certain segment of the population that seems to respond to health claims on labels. Sally asked if yogurt should be marketed as having probiotics and I replied that they are already a wonderful, healthy food that needs no fortification to be nutritionally great - but if you want to put on the label that yogurt has live cultures, go for it.
After the session, I spoke to a company that makes yogurt cultures and assured them that YES, I think yogurt and probiotics are healthy. Then I spoke to a rep for a major yogurt company and he discussed his frustration that his company sells plain, unsweetened yogurt and nobody buys it other than the big tubs for use in recipes. (I told him I buy it and he said he does too, actually.) But overall, consumers won't eat yogurt that isn't sweetened. So what does he do? Does he let consumers miss out on the nutrition in his yogurt by adding no sugar, or does he sell a nutrient rich yet sugary product? I agreed with him that consumers want a free lunch nutritionally. They want it to be packed with vitamins and minerals, low calorie, low sugar, low sodium, convenient, tasty, sweet, and cheap to boot. My response was that if consumers won't eat it without sugar, add sugar. But don't add high fructose corn syrup. And go easy on the sugar if you can. And perhaps add extra fruit to sweeten the yogurt that way. He seemed relieved. We also agreed that when the government comes out with new recommendations for advertising to kids, they should split out the 2-17 age bracket into at least two (if not three) age groups. What is appropriate to advertise to a 2 year old is not the same as what you would advertise to a 16 year old.
So that's a summary of the panel discussion I just participated in. It was highly enlightening, and I told Tom Nagle to feel free to contact me if he wants more information on the "crazy" locavore market segment. |
