University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evolution in the processed foods industry: exploring the impact of the health foods movement

(USC Thesis Other)

Evolution in the processed foods industry: exploring the impact of the health foods movement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EVOLUTION IN THE PROCESSED FOODS INDUSTRY: EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF THE HEALTH FOODS MOVEMENT by Samantha Wan A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS) May 2012 Copyright 2012 Samantha Wan ii Dedication To Mom, Dad and Sherwin, thank you for the everlasting love and support during this process. My accomplishments are within reach because of what you have instilled in me. I hope my journey has made you proud. For my friends and family, whose unconditional encouragement have motivated me and inspired me to pursue my dreams. Thank you. “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are.” – Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I’d like to thank my thesis chair, Jennifer Floto. Her encouraging words and guidance, not only during the thesis process but though out my USC graduate journey, has been invaluable. I would also like to thank my thesis committee members, Brenda Lynch and Kjerstin Thorson for their feedback, insight, and direction. Lastly, thank you to all the participants who spared the time to partake in completing my survey, allowing me a glimpse into their shopping carts and eating habits. iv Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vii Abstract viii Preface ix Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Birth of Processing 5 Origins 5 Industrial Revolution 6 Adding Value to Foods 7 Working Women 8 Frozen Dinners 8 Chapter Two: Literature Review 11 Functional Foods 11 Labeling and Standards 12 Food Additives 14 Food Preservatives 18 Chapter Three: Processed Foods & the Consumer 20 The Western Diet 20 Dieting Culture 23 Snacking Culture 23 Chapter Four: Industry Analysis 25 Current Snapshot 25 Average Consumer Spending 26 Distribution 27 Sales in the U.S. 27 Rising Segment: Organic 28 Issues and Opportunities in the Industry 28 Chapter Five: The Nutrition Label 30 Buzz Words 31 The Froot Loop Syndrome 32 Health Claims 33 Chapter Six: The Science of Food 35 Taste 35 Ever-changing Science 37 Artificial Sweeteners 39 Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) 40 Industry Mistrust 41 Chapter Seven: U.S. Food and Drug Administration 43 Chapter Eight: Natural & Organic 48 All Natural Ideals 50 Farming Processes 52 A De-industrialized Nation 52 Natural and Organic Processing 55 All Natural, Always Safe? 56 Chapter Nine: Primary Research—Survey 58 Chapter Ten: Food Movements 63 The Foodie Revolution 63 Celebrity Advocates & Activists 65 Chapter Eleven: Reforming With Consumer Tastes 67 New Products 67 Brand Obstacles 68 Phasing Out Unpopular Ingredients 69 Chapter Twelve: Consumer Outlook 72 Need for Convenience 72 Varying Opinions on Highly Processed 73 Consumers Reading Labels 74 Chapter Thirteen: Educating a Confused Public 77 Bad Reputation in the Industry 77 Confusing Recommendations 78 Recalls 78 Dietary Guidelines 79 Government Input 80 Chapter Fourteen: Recommendations 83 Adapting and Evolving 84 Brand Partnerships 88 Customizing Nutritional Information 89 Chapter Fifteen: Conclusion 91 Bibliography 94 vii List of Figures Figure 1. 1950s Swanson TV dinner advertisement ........................................................ 10 Figure 2. Widely Used Food Additives .......................................................................... 15 Figure 3. Classification of GRAS Substances ................................................................ 17 Figure 4. Annual Food Spending at Home, 2007 ............................................................ 26 Figure 5. USDA Organic Labeling ................................................................................. 54 Figure 6. Kashi TLC Cheddar Crackers & Nutritional Facts .......................................... 57 Figure 7. What type of markets do you shop at most often? ........................................... 58 Figure 8. Do you look at nutrition labels, ingredients lists or health claims? ................... 59 Figure 9. How would you define food that is "good for you?" ........................................ 60 Figure 10. Are you willing to pay more for food that is "good for you?" ........................ 60 Figure 11. How often do you eat packaged foods? ......................................................... 61 Figure 12. How likely are you to consider cutting processed foods from your diet? ....... 62 Figure 13. Lactose Intolerance by Ethnicity/Geographic Region .................................... 71 Figure 14. Criteria to purchase a product - Calorie Content v. Ingredients ...................... 75 Figure 15. Fiber One Chewy Bar Nutrition Facts ........................................................... 76 Figure 16. Food Pyramid, 1992 ...................................................................................... 81 Figure 17. MyPyramid, 2005 ......................................................................................... 82 Figure 18. MyPlate, 2011............................................................................................... 82 Figure 19. NuVal Rating System ................................................................................... 87 viii Abstract This paper examines the evolution of the processed foods industry and its changing nature in relation to the changing tastes and trends of consumers. The introduction of “functional foods,” created to supplement nutrients missing in diets, has evolved into fulfilling the demand for “healthier” food products. After an assessment of the current industry as well as how and why it has evolved, communication recommendations for the future of the industry will be proposed. The purpose of this study is to find a healthy balance that satisfies the needs of consumers without abandoning the industry of convenience foods. The key issues discussed here include the origin of the processed foods industry, consumer tastes and food trends, food labeling, governmental advice, food science, health claims on packaging, addressing the negatives of the food processing industry and finally recommendations for the industry. Results reveal that consumers’ busy lifestyles require convenient, easy to prepare meals yet they are now quite mindful of their health and crave food prepared close to the source. The principal conclusion is that the education of consumers on each ingredient’s purpose will generate a more positive and trustworthy image of the processed foods industry. ix Preface Research Methodology Qualitative primary research was conducted through a public online survey launched on November 13, 2011. A total of 118 respondents attempted the survey and 108 completed the questionnaire. Participants included both male and females ranging in age. For the purposes of this analysis, the research was narrowed down to participants ages 18 to 26, resulting in a pool of 102 survey subjects. Public Relations in the Processed Foods Industry The processed foods business has grown to become a behemoth in the food industry. The sector provides the public with a supply so plentiful, affordable, and varied, regardless of the geographic location or season that Americans have unlimited choices available to them on a daily basis. Companies must vie for the attention of consumers, igniting competition within the industry. In order to compete, organizations spend countless resources on the development and proactive marketing of innovative food products. In 2007, the sector spent $19.7 billion on food and agricultural research— 56 percent in food manufacturing and 44 percent in agricultural sectors. This accounted for about half of total spending on food and agricultural research and development in high-income countries (Fuglie). As consumers grow increasingly removed from food production, the role of product creation, marketing and public relations become the primary vehicles for information about food. In order to demonstrate to the public as well as government x officials, health influencers and the media that they provide consumers with the best tasting, most nutritious choices, communication and public relations efforts are needed. During difficult times when companies confront risks and crises, especially during times of organizational distrust and skepticism, the industry depends on the role of public relations to convey the positives in a transparent manner. By acting proactively and taking control of the conversation before other influencers overhaul public opinions; companies can protect their brand and thus future sales and revenue. Public relations’ role is to educate consumers on the available choices and the ongoing news of the industry—informing people on the new discoveries, products and other news and being mindful of the results of those efforts. As consumers become more and more skeptical, the challenge is in transparently divulging information without seeming as if the reasoning behind it is to deceive. The challenge is in adjusting key messages to constantly changing consumer tastes, aligning what is nutritious yet convenient for the busy lives of diners. 1 Introduction Our ancestors ate to live while today we live to eat. Unlike the days of our hunter/gatherer predecessors, most people today do not have the time to dedicate to foraging and farming. It is now a juggling act between work life, social life and family life. Food culture has evolved, food was first only regarded as a physical substance—it was at times scare and difficult to come by, then food became increasingly abundant and centered around innovation. The birth of processed foods— the process of altering the state of raw ingredients into consumable end products—centered on the appeal of preparing food in a quick and convenient manner. The methods used for processing foods include canning, freezing, refrigeration, dehydration and aseptic processing. People tend to associate processed foods with negative images of food that has added chemicals that are difficult to pronounce and meant to extend shelf lives. Technological advancements led to increased sales in the processed foods industry and little attention was given to the long-term effects these foods had on health, the environment or sustainability. For years, Americans believed that we had the world’s healthiest diet. When the first processed foods were available to consumers, no one seemed to mind eating products which were eerily indestructible, for example; Twinkies which seem to be virtually indestructible and possess an unnaturally long shelf life. The line between food science and medical advances was quickly blurring, and no regulation seemed to be devised for consumption safety. 2 Processed foods are “value-added” products, referring to the fact that a raw commodity or commodities are transformed into a processed product through use of raw materials, labor and technology. The process utilizes crops and/or animal products using them to yield long shelf life products that are highly marketable for their convenience and added value. As a nation we have a desire for convenience foods—ones that are easy to prepare, taste good and require little to no clean up. We like to eat without having to spend time in the kitchen. We purchase foods that will not quickly spoil, and are quick to prepare. Such actions, desires and lifestyle preferences lead our American society to require convenience foods to be widely available (Packard 55). Companies flourish by selling convenience—creating a steady stream of new and improved products which rely heavily on promotional strategies. The HealthFocus Processed Foods Study reported that processed foods are a “negative necessity” in today’s on-the-go society. According to a Pew Research Center study, a majority of Americans report that they eat more junk food than they should, either often (19 percent) or sometimes (36 percent). The biggest reason, people say, is due to convenience (“Eating More, Enjoying Less”). Primary research also revealed that convenience ranked second to price when asked about criteria when purchasing food products. Rising concerns about the long term effects of chemicals and additives in processed foods fuel mistrust of the industry resulting in the accelerating trend towards natural and organic foods. According to Food Technology magazine, consumers believe limiting processed foods is among the most important components of healthy eating, 3 behind consuming fruits and vegetables (Sloan). There is also a strong correlation between processed foods and health where many believe that the more a product is processed the less healthy the item is. More and more shoppers are reading ingredient labels and nutritional information before purchasing an item, and try their best to avoid products with additives, preservatives and artificial ingredients. Half (50 percent) of consumers deliberately avoid preservatives, 49 percent avoid monosodium glutamate (MSG), 47 percent artificial flavors, 44 percent colors/dyes, 43 percent growth hormones, and 29 percent genetically modified organisms (Sloan). Consumers are also wary that big companies do not have their best interest in mind and are solely concerned on how to increase profits. They believe that packaged foods are the cause of Americans’ deteriorating health and surge in obesity rates. Primary survey respondents 18 percent strongly agree and 40 percent agree that convenience foods are responsible for the nation’s obesity epidemic. When HealthFocus International and Innova Market Insights conducted a study to find opinions associated with processed foods, they found that these phrases dominated the dialogue: “we try to avoid high fructose corn syrup,” “the whiter the bread, the sooner you’re dead” and “they last a long time” (Katz). But not all processed foods are “bad for us.” Every product that requires some degree of processing is referred to as a processed product, regardless of whether the amount of processing is minor, such as prewashing fruits and vegetables, or more complex, such as cereal bars (“Industry Outlook”). Consider milk—it is a processed food product because it undergoes homogenization and pasteurization to remove bacteria and 4 keep the fats from separating. Raw milk can lead to food borne illnesses, so the majority of consumers eagerly purchase processed milk. Another example is the freezing of food which preserves vitamins and minerals and is convenient to cook, store, and eat all year round. Any food not it its “direct from Mother Nature state” is deemed a processed food. It is clear that the benefits of packaged foods are often overlooked. Most of us under appreciate its advantages because we have become so accustomed to benefits such as toxin removal and rapid spoilage. With constant information being pushed onto people about the dangers of certain foods, many are left confused by the constant barrage of changing studies and scientific conclusions. Thus it is the communications professional’s duty to share information in order for Americans to make educated decisions on their own food consumption. By disseminating all the pertinent details, each consumer can decide for him or herself which healthy eating choices best fit his or her diet and lifestyle. 5 Chapter One: The Birth of Processing Humans have been strategically preserving available food sources as a method of survival since the prehistoric ages. The origins of food processing began with our ancestors fermenting, salt preserving, drying, smoking and other methods of cooking were used to keep food from quickly perishing (“Food Processing Market Research Reports”). Processed foods are defined as “food that has been treated by physical and chemical procedures to increase its edibility, safely, nutrient content, convenience, or attractiveness” (Ronzio 533). Modern food processing emerged in the late nineteenth century when canning, freeze drying, artificial sweeteners and preservatives were introduced. In the twentieth century, convenience foods became popular due to societal changes and further technological innovations. Origins During the 1800s, land in America was fertile and copious with nutrient-rich soil. Farmers were quick to adopt mechanics and other technologies to improve productivity and reduce labor-intensive tasks. Inventions such as the McCormick reaper, made available in 1847, liberated farm workers from hours of back-breaking labor with the capability to fulfill the work of up to five men. It brought an end to tedious work and encouraged others to invent and manufacture labor-saving farm machinery (Bellis). In 1837, a farmer required 148 hours of labor to produce an acre of wheat; by 1890, the same work was completed in 37 hours (Roberts 18). 6 Industrial Revolution In the 1850s, food production began to trump demand and food prices dropped drastically. During the Industrial Revolution, factories processed, packaged and preserved an array of edible goods. Vitamins were added to basic staples and the “health food” category was created. Due to the glamour in the extended shelf life of these products, refined grains were only affordable to the wealthy (Pollan, 106). Rapid mechanization and continued expansion of farmlands led to a shift in American dietary practices and food culture. As prices of food fell, dining tables were laden with dishes at every meal. Food historian Lowell Dyson describes a typical breakfast meal: ‘steaks, roasts, and chops, along with heaps of oysters, grilled fish, fried potatoes, and probably scrambled eggs, with biscuits and breads, washed down with numerous cups of coffee’ (Roberts 18). From the 1850s onward, Americans could not come close to eating all the food that U.S. farms were producing and, thus, looked to offload their surpluses in starving Europe. Breakthroughs in preservation technologies, such as canning and refrigeration allowed shipments to travel around the world safely, economically and without jeopardizing the quality of the product (Roberts 18). Certain types of food that were limited by geographical and regional constraints were now available around the world—including tobacco, rice, indigo, grain and meat products ("A History of American Agriculture”). By the late 1800s, crop yields began to level off creating a panic among America’s policymakers—fearing that without the prospect of cheap, abundant food, American factories and cities may not continue to boom and the nascent middle class to 7 thrive. Legislators realized that the private sector could not accomplish this goal alone and moved to develop a department of agriculture whose mission was the provision of affordable food by protecting farmers from harvest failures and market crashes. Included in this agricultural revolution was the search for fundamental changes in the way food was made. Researchers began to apply scientific knowledge to the development of new plant varieties and animal breeds that could grow faster and larger (Roberts 20). During the 1920s and 1930s, scientists developed hybrid strains of corn that yielded bigger, more plentiful ears and grew more closely together in the field, resulting in more corn per acre. As a result, between 1930 and 1940, bushels of corn per acre doubled and continued to rise each year. The success of melding science and agriculture soon spread to include the entire operation of farming—nitrogen-rich fertilizers to quickly replenish soil, designing plants to produce uniform fruits and compact shrubs— all resulting in even faster production at lower costs. Adding Value to Foods Companies took advantage of declining grain prices and turned cheap commodities into added value foods. Kellogg’s purchased corn at low cost and transformed into Corn Flakes—charging handsomely for the service markup. This lucrative transformation of raw commodities into finished goods is known as adding value. Processed food eliminated the time-consuming task of preparing and cooking unprocessed foods and freed up time in the busy lives of Americans. 8 Working Women World War II marked a turning point in food processing, once again women began to join the workforce to fulfill high demands in war production while the men overseas. The war created millions of jobs for females; to work war-related job was seen as a patriotic duty. Six million women workers entered the labor force. As the postwar economic boom drew more women out of the kitchen and into the workforce, fewer households could devote so many hours a day to preparing meals. Given a woman’s wage potential, it was more economical for her to work outside the house and to pay for another means to feed the family (Roberts 35). Packaged food often was the easiest and most affordable option and canned goods were inexpensive and boasted longer shelf lives. With less time to cook and plan meals and still a need to feed their families, easily women looked to prepared foods to save themselves from slaving in the kitchen for hours after a day’s work. Convenience foods had given the American housewife “the gift of time” (Roberts 35). In 1940, less than 8.6 percent of mothers with children under 18 worked. By 1960, 18.6 percent of women with children under six years old were working outside the home; by 1993, the percentage had risen to 59.6 (Coventry). Frozen Dinners In 1929, Clarence Birdseye first developed key innovations in freezing technologies including quick freezing techniques that reduced the damage of water crystals, and packaging using cellophane for consumers to see the quality of the product 9 (“Frozen Foods in the 1950s and 60s”). Not until decades later when developments in freezer technology allowed families to have affordable refrigeration in their homes did the frozen foods industry take off. By 1954, the Swanson & Sons company reformed Birdseye’s techniques to create the first frozen TV dinner. It cost only 98 cents, and it was marketed to the “happy homemaker” (See Figure 1). The strategy was to make the homemaker realize how precious time was and how handy a delicious all-in-one meal was to prepare. Americans couldn’t resist the convenience of a single-serving package that was ready to eat in “only 25 minutes at 425 degrees in the oven” (“Frozen Foods in the 1950s and 60s”). The convenience factor added value to the product creating a surge in popularity among consumers. 10 Figure 1. 1950s Swanson TV dinner advertisement Source: Flickr 11 Chapter Two: Literature Review Functional Foods By the late 1980s, Americans were spending a continually increasing amount on products prepared outside the home. Advertising health benefits increased the appeal and sales of products, and food companies marketed better diets by promoting education, supplements, and fortification of foods to make them “healthier” (Nestle 295). Processing methods, however, depleted natural nutrients so manufacturers began to replenish many of the nutrients through fortification. Manufacturers believed that by enhancing foods into “techno-foods” the benefits could be highlighted rather than the absence of the negative attributes. By adding nutrients and supplements or removing undesirable components, this category of altered food has been labeled as “functional foods,” “techno foods,” “designer foods” and even “nutraceuticals.” Functional foods are defined as “foods or food ingredients that have been modified so that they provide health benefits above the levels they traditionally contain” (Ronzio 300). Foods mixed with mass production, or “value-added” foods, combined with marketing gave producers profit potential that was unavailable before. Functional foods include a wide array of products including: Foods enriched or fortified with vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber, amino acids, or fatty acids, as well as herbs, plant phytochemicals, and even wood pulp derivatives. They also include ‘lesser-evil’ foods that have been formulated to be low in calories, fat, sugar, salt, caffeine, or allergens or to contain artificial substitutes for unwanted ingredients such as sugar or fat (Nestle). For example, in white flour, vitamins: thiamin, niacin, riboflavin, and folic acid; and one mineral: iron is added at higher levels than found in the natural grain to replace the 12 nutrients lost during the milling process. Fortification was designed to overcome widespread deficiencies of certain key nutrients in the diets of the general population. By contrast, enrichment is the restoration of nutrients to their original level in the unprocessed food (Nestle 301). At the time these products emerged, federal law permitted statements about health benefits on packages which further stimulated interest in developing food items for specific nutritional purposes. Goods improved with additional benefits could be marketed positively—emphasizing the positive attributes rather than highlighting the absence of undesirable elements. The industry believed that after being inundated with health recommendations to cut back on sodium, fat and cholesterol, consumers would warm up to food that highlighted the positive benefits of added ingredients, even if there was not yet scientific confirmation that these foods were as beneficial as their claims. Labeling and Standards To protect buyers, a standard of identifying ingredients and processes solidifies the quality of a product in the market. Many foods have assigned criterion to qualify as a particular product. For example, all mayonnaise recipes call for egg yolks, oil, vinegar, lemon juice, and seasoning. Various brands feature different measurements of each ingredient—some companies may use a recipe with fewer quality ingredients, for example, using a blend of oils. This may be deceptive to the consumer, but it may also be a product that appeals to consumers seeking a mayonnaise-like product lower in cholesterol. 13 To protect the customer, companies must clearly and transparently inform the buyer what they are purchasing through labeling. Labels such as an ingredient list also act as a guarantee to shoppers that the product will be the same no matter where the item is purchased. This means that a food meets legal requirements if “(1) no ingredient is used over and above the ones listed in the standard, (2) no ingredient is left out, and (3) quantities of ingredients conform” (Packard 6). A standard of identity solidifies the formulation of a product. Even the inclusion of an incidental additive must be granted clearance. Hence, food processors are responsible for consistently and accurately following a product’s declared recipe down to and including the most minuscule ingredient. All components must be recognized and accounted for, and the manufacturer is bound, under threat of prosecution to disclose the ingredients. It is essential to note that “no statutory authority exists to require declaration of mandatory ingredients in standardized food” (Packard 14). Processors, though legally required to include ingredients, are not obligated to declare them on the label. But pressure from consumers has pushed organizations to clearly list all elements, especially where food allergies may be involved. On the label, the ingredients must be declared by their common or usual names. The list is printed in descending order with the most prominent ingredients by weight first followed by the lesser; serving as a guide to consumers concerned about his or her dietary intake. A naming system was developed to simplify ingredient listings to allow the grouping of certain foods into a single food name class (Packard 41). For example, a 14 label may read “vinegar” which encompasses cider vinegar, apple vinegar, wine vinegar, malt vinegar, sugar vinegar, glucose vinegar or spirit vinegar. Regulation is meant serve to prevent deception, not to impede or discourage the development of new products and new technology. The basis for developing food labeling is to be informative—accurately depicting the contents of the food package. Food Additives A food additive, as defined by the FDA is known as: Any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food (including any substance intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or bolding food; and including any source of radiation intended for any such use) (Packard 43). Much of the difficulty in attaining a balanced viewpoint of the benefits and hazards of food additives originate from a failure to fully understand the meaning of terms. There exists a language barrier among food science and consumer, between the government and the industry, and even between processors in the same industry. Evaluation of safety must take into account probable consumption and cumulative effects. For a home cook, food is typically not made to remain fresh for elongated periods of time or for long periods of transport. Therefore, for food products manufactured for the purpose of sale, additives and preservatives are necessary in creating a quality product. The term “food additive” generally has a negative connotation among consumers but is actually an umbrella expression. Intentional additives might be better understood 15 as food ingredients—elements from which food is created. Incidental additives are food contaminants—materials that get into food from an outside source during food production, processing or handling along the way from farmer to consumer. A few widely used food additives can be seen in Figure 2. Examples include chemicals, antibiotics and drugs applied to maximize yield in crops, and to fight against animal and plant diseases. Figure 2. Widely Used Food Additives 16 Fear and uncertainty are typically associated with the unknown. One may assume sodium chloride to be a poison when it is actually table salt. Chemicals such as zeaxanthine and lipvitellin can be found in eggs, but they are natural components. The scientific name simply gives chemicals an intimidating character. Many natural foods contain toxic elements. Coffee has such chemicals as wood alcohol—a known poison— as well as acetone. For food processors, there are limited alternatives—chance growth of toxic agents in products or add a preservative. The National Academy of Sciences surveyed the food industry in an attempt to classify “generally recognized as safe” or GRAS additives by functional effect. The result is a list of 32 categories of direct food additive functions. Figure 3 refers to a summary of the technical functions of direct food additives. They are components necessary for preparing foods of good flavor and texture that remain in such condition during the time between processing and consumption. 17 Figure 3. Classification of GRAS Substances Food contaminants are tested for safety and must be approved by the government before they are sanctioned for use by organizations. Safety is defined as a “consensus among scientists formed after they have evaluated suitable information… [known as] data secured by (1) scientific procedures and/or (2) experience based on common use” (Packard 52). Appropriate uses for food additives include: (1) to improve or maintain nutritional value; (2) to enhance quality; (3) to reduce waste; (4) to increase consumer 18 acceptance; (5) to reduce spoiling; (6) to make the food more readily available; (7) to facilitate food preparation (Packard 58). Inappropriate application of food additives consist of: (1) disguising flawed or substandard processes; (2) concealing damaged, spoiled or second-rate goods; (3) deceiving consumers; (4) functional gain at the expensive of nutritional quality; (5) substituting good manufacturing practices and procedures; (6) using amounts in excess of the minimum allowed to achieve desired effects (Packard 58). Used appropriately, food additives have a valid and meaningful place in our society. Hazards associated with applying additives to foods come hand-in-hand with hazards involved should they not be used. Unforeseen long term consequences of usage associated with the former and microbiological contaminants, food spoilage, and malnutrition with the latter. These ever-present risks are areas where continued research and regulation are necessary. Considering the major food needs of the world today—food satiety and better nutrition, while maintaining the notion of convenience—the use of science and technology hold a needed place in our diets. Food Preservatives A food preservative is defined by the FDA as: Any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration, but does not include common salts, sugar, vinegars, spices, or oils extracted from spices, substances added to food by direct exposure thereof to wood smoke, or chemicals applied for their respective insecticidal or herbicidal properties (Packard 97). 19 Preservatives generally fall into three categories: (1) to prevent bacterial or fungal growth, (2) to inhibit oxidation (which can lead to discoloration or rancidity) and (3) to inhibit natural ripening of fruits and vegetables (“Additives”). Methods such as drying, freezing, salting, fermenting, spicing or smoking are all ways to preserve food; these techniques can be performed naturally as well as in processing plants. According to the FDA, "it is almost impossible to eat food without preservatives added by manufacturers unless you eat exclusively fresh food that you cook yourself” (“Additives”). Still, preservatives tend to have a bad reputation in the food world. Often regarded with suspicion, consumers view preservatives as chemicals that should be avoided or additives injected into food at the manufacturing plant to produce food pushed beyond natural means. The several very positive benefits associated with food preservations are seldom communicated and emphasized. By utilizing preservation procedures: (1) microbes are inhibited; (2) rancidity and oxidation is prevented; (3) color is protected; (4) nutrients are retained; and (5) flavor is maintained (Packard 98). 20 Chapter Three: Processed Foods & the Consumer Changes that defined the shift in American food culture over the past century revolved around the focus on the nation’s flourishing economy and the notion of abundance. Beginning with the “Western Diet” and later refined by dieting and our snacking culture, the American lifestyle depended more and more on the convenience of processed foods. The Western Diet The industrialization of food has become the definition the Western diet. The main motive to eat for humans, like all animals, is to survive; although as we evolved we also eat to show appreciation—for a sense of belonging and as a part of family traditions. Before the rise of the manufacturing sector, people relied on their national, ethnic, regional, social, economical, environmental, and political cultures to guide them what to eat. The superabundance of affordable foods due to the rise of refined grains—most notably corn, wheat and soy—evolved consumers’ relationship with food and the eating habits of Americans (Pollan 10). Eating habits refer to a multitude of concepts including why and how people eat, the foods they choose to eat, with whom they eat and the ways people obtain, store, use and discard food (Blackman 175). When food or money is scarce, people do not have the luxury of choice; the first objective is getting enough food to meet biological needs for energy and nutrients. Interestingly, once people become more secure, they enter a 21 “nutritional transition” in which they abandon traditional plant-based diets and begin eating more meat, fat and processed foods. The “Western diet” is known as: “lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything except fruits, vegetables and whole grains” (Pollan 89). It is a diet adopted mostly in developed countries and increasingly in developing countries. It exemplifies our growing dependence on convenience and the neglect of fresh wholesome food especially compared to other countries and cultures’ eating traditions. The abundance of food available in America cultivated a culture of careless, perfunctory eating. What makes the Western Diet just so appealing? Perhaps it is our human nature to seek innovation and technology at its forefront to supplement our busy lifestyles. Or maybe the charm and allure of a Western lifestyle represented by variety, abundance, choice and convenience is what is desirable. Fundamental changes are being made to the way Americans live and eat. Originally, when mass manufacturing was introduced, the technology took the main focus; taste was not as important. Today, campaigns are being instituted to reform the future of society by focusing on childhood—when people adopt food and diet habits that are carried with us throughout our lives. Although many consumers are cognizant that healthy eating includes eating fresh and wholesome foods, it is difficult for most Americans to disassociate the memory those flavors create. A hallmark of the Western diet is food that is fast, cheap and easy to obtain and consume—many grew up surrounded by food that is now deemed “bad for 22 you.” People remember beyond just the taste, it becomes nostalgic. It reminds them of a treat or reward and transports the eater back to a fond memory. The feeling of nostalgia is difficult to escape, since so much of food relates to emotional responses. We eat when we are bored, unhappy or celebrating—food has become a vehicle to share experiences and cultivate relationships. What our mothers and caretakers fed us growing up is what shaped our taste buds. Adults have had access to processed foods since childhood; this, in turn, has influenced their tastes and eating choices. Those of us who grew up around fast food and junk food may find it more difficult to give up compared to people that grew up on fresh homemade meals. The busy, fast-paced lives of Americans leave little time to dedicate to planning and cooking meals. Harvey Levenstein author of Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet and Paradox of Plenty: A Social History of Eating in Modern America suggests that the “sheer abundance of food in America has bread a vague indifference to food, manifested in a tendency to eat and run, rather than to dine and savor” (Pollan 54). Americans spend less than a half hour a day preparing meals and a little more than an hour enjoying them (Pollan 145). In the 1970s households spent on average one hour cooking dinner, by 2008 it fell to 30 minutes, and by 2023 it is forecasted that that will plummet to five to 15 minutes (Roberts 43). 23 Dieting Culture We changed from a nation where being voluptuous was desirable into a nation of on-again, off-again dieters around the end of the 19th century. According to Clemson University sociologist Ellen Granberg, increasing prosperity meant easier access to food (“History of Dieting”). Consumers sought ways to combine the convenience of quick meals and an easy way to lose weight. Diet foods quickly followed, as did weight loss support groups like Overeaters Anonymous and Weight Watchers in the 1970s. In the 1980s, these functional foods, labeled as a new class of consumer goods, did not undergo strict governmental regulation. The appeal of a simple and easy way to abide by dietary advice and at the same time achieve optimal health was convenient and attractive. Functional foods changed the way people thought about dieting; foods became medicines. By seeing food as containers for nutrients, or substances that can cure, it encouraged manufacturers to invent more products that claim to fulfill health needs (Nestle 356). There was little awareness and concern about nutritional value of dieting techniques and methods. (“Nutrients in Processed Foods,” 146). A serious gap between attitudes and perceptions grew in regards to functional foods. Snacking Culture Furthering the notion of convenience, snacks items, such as chips, candy, “mini- meals” and other small packaged foods, gained popularity in the 1980s. Traditional snacks evolved into a new generation of portable or “on-the-go” products, they were 24 affordable and required little, if any, time or effort to prepare which was a primary reason for the surge in sales (Roberts 186). The typical snack is a single-serving packaged for convenience and meant to be easily consumed. In order to be packaged and readily available on-the-go, snack foods are at the very least, minimally processed. People are quick to purchase such items in the name of convenience. Primary research revealed that they often still consume packaged foods, 24 percent consume these foods at least two to three times a week. Snacking has colonized whole parts of our day and places in our lives—we snack in our cars, at work and any time between meals. As consumers eat fewer regular meals (such as a regular breakfast), they are compensating by eating more snacks throughout the day. 25 Chapter Four: Industry Analysis Current Snapshot In the 21 st century, the food manufacturing industry has grown to become one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the United States. According to the U.S. Trade Association, in 2006, the value of food shipments was $538 billion, an increase of 27 percent from 1997 shipments of $422 billion. And demand for processed food products tends to be less susceptible to fluctuating economic conditions than other industries (“Industry Outlook”) The most consumed food additive by Americans is sugar. The annual intake of sugar has been increasing for years and is now over 100 pounds per person. Salt comes in second at 15 pounds, followed by corn syrup at 8.4 pounds (Packard 56). New and unique varieties, recipes, and flavor combinations topped the list of claims found on some of the most successful new foods and drinks introduced from 2009 to 2010. Language like “natural,” “pure,” and “real” are increasingly appearing on product labels and suggests to consumers that these products are less processed than others (Katz). An article in the December 2011 issue of Food Technology magazine, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), found the perception of processed foods has more impact on consumer choices than whether or not the actual product has gone through a lot of processing. Research shows that consumers prefer to avoid artificial or overly processed foods. Yet, deciding what is highly processed varies by individual, creating a public relations challenge for the industry. 26 Average Consumer Spending According to the Department of Labor, during 2000 to 2007, average annual spending per person on food rose from $5,138 to $6,133. An average of $3,465 was spent on food at home and $2,668 was spent on food away from home. Consumers spent the largest portion of their food at home spending ($1,241) on the “other food” category which includes sugar, sweets, fats and oils, miscellaneous foods, nonalcoholic beverages, and prepared food (see Figure 4). Finally, total spending on food makes up about 12 percent of a household’s total average annual expenditures (“Industry Outlook”). Figure 4. Annual Food Spending at Home, 2007 Source: “Industry Outlook” 27 Distribution Processed foods are available to consumers through traditional distribution channels such as grocers, convenience stores, discount stores, variety stores, and warehouse clubs. Supermarkets continue to dominate consumer food spending with a 49percent share of sales in 2010. The drug channel posted notable gains in the food/beverage area in 2010 (Sloan). Retail food sales at warehouse clubs and supercenters has increased steadily since their introduction in the 1980’s and have taken eroded some sales share from traditional supermarkets which still sell 58 percent of all retail food. Sales in the U.S. Americans have embraced processed foods with a vengeance and now eat 31 percent more packaged food than fresh food, consuming more packaged food per person than nearly all other countries (Arnold). Selling convenience has become the food industry’s most important means of revenue—generating nearly $3.1 trillion a year with profit margins well above those in other sectors (Sloan). In line with the trend towards natural foods, sales for products without preservatives increased to $14.5 billion in 2009 (Sloan). Retail sales of organic foods rose to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997 (Dimitri and Oberholtzer). 28 Rising Segment: Organic A particular subdivision that has seen a large increase in consumer interest is the organic food market sector. Organic food is a market segment that has grown rapidly, the USDA has estimated a 20 percent per year increase through the 1990s due to increased consumer interest in healthy and all natural products (“Industry Outlook”). Although cost is the top reason for fewer organic purchases, 38 percent of consumers now prefer locally grown foods instead; 32 percent see no difference between organic and nonorganic foods (Sloan). (See Chapter Eight for further analysis.) Issues and Opportunities in the Industry The increase in commodity prices of raw materials such as grains, sugar, oil and other inputs is a result of several factors such as slowing production, growth in the demand for biofuels and livestock feed and unfavorable weather conditions that affect crop yields (“Industry Outlook”). Competition for grain has had a major impact on food processors, both from a raw materials and livestock feed perspectives (Higgins). For example, if large amounts of corn are diverted to ethanol production, processors and suppliers face higher prices and shorter supplies which, in turn, are passed down to the consumer. Worldwide concerns about the environment and sustainability are also impacting manufacturing practices by producers. Higher energy costs are also causing concern among manufacturers in the industry. According to Food Engineering, key issues for plant manufacturers include plant technology improvements and automation, 29 consolidation, energy costs and usage, consumer demand for healthier and more nutritious products, and continuous improvement programs (Higgins). Companies are increasingly looking for ways to conserve energy in manufacturing processes to reduce costs and improve efficiency. Many organizations are increasing their recycling efforts and redesigning packaging, such as thinner bottles and less cardboard in packaging to lessen the impact on the environment (“Food Processing & Packaging Machinery”). Manufacturers of consumer food and beverages with well-known brands face high public expectations to “go green” with their products. They are being driven by customers, as well as major retailers such as Wal-Mart, to produce products whose packaging meet a variety of sustainability criteria—including reduced carbon footprint, reduced use of packing materials, more efficient use of water, etc (“Food Processing & Packaging Machinery”). Food safety concerns have also slowed the industry with so many major recalls affecting consumer confidence. Increased consumer attention to diet and the nutritional aspects of the food they eat impact production as well. The quality of raw materials is also being closely examined—consumers are interested in knowing the source and origins of their food, and they are demanding higher quality goods. The refined consumer palate alongside the popularity of all natural foods has slowed the market. 30 Chapter Five: The Nutrition Label The basic nutritional label includes information such as serving size, serving per container, calories and nutrients the government believes are essential to our diets. Serving size refers to a recommended volume of food that should be consumed at a time. The nutritional information on the remainder of the label is all based upon the one individual serving. Serving size is always expressed in common measurement units such as a cup, slice or ounce. Serving per container provides a means to determining the overall nutritional value of the contents within a package. The total servings per container multiplied by the nutrient values per serving will yield the total nutrient content. Calories express the energy value of food. The caloric yield of nutrients and the body’s energy requirements are expressed as “kilocalories” in the medical community or just calorie in common usage. Calories are a measure of the energy released when the body burns any fuel including fat, protein, carbohydrates and alcohol. The actual number of calories burned depends on many factors including body mass and level of physical activity. Typically, women need a range of 1,600 to 2,000 calories a day while men generally require 1,800 to 2,400 calories daily (Ronzio). Many people do not understand how to read the current nutrition labeling on packages. Not only are they unclear as to precise serving sizes, but nutrition labels are calculated based on a 2,000 calorie diet which is certainly not deemed appropriate for most people. 31 Furthermore, consumers have difficulty reading and understanding the ingredient labels. Besides the popular vitamins and minerals such as Vitamin A, C, iron and calcium, people are unclear about the roles other ingredients play in their diets. Ingredients such as thiamine and riboflavin are a few of the minerals listed in the government’s RDA portion of the nutrition label, yet many Americans would be unable to describe the benefits of these minerals. If that is the case, how would people be able to determine whether or not an ingredient is natural versus synthetic; healthful or harmful? Buzz Words Trigger words in the food industry become marketing trends in themselves. There was the trans-fat boycott, the high fructose corn syrup debate and avoidance of additives, preservatives and food coloring. Utilizing key words that are associated with naturalness help minimize negative perceptions. For example, Heinz ketchup was reformulated, removing high fructose corn syrup from its recipe. It was even rebranded Simply Heinz. Words like simply, pure, real and natural make consumers feel confident about the healthfulness of the product they are purchasing. There are several categories of new products from “new and improved formulas”—meant to revitalize existing lines with new flavors and/or packaging—to “killers”—innovations so unprecedented that they create their own product categories. Killer products such as Kellogg’s Pop-Tarts, Oscar Mayer Lunchables and sliced Wonder Bread enjoy monopolies and grasp consumer attention until competitors come up with a copy cat product. Being the “original” in the category gives the product and brand the 32 ability to gain consumer attention and a monopoly until another company can formulate a viable competitor. The Froot Loop Syndrome Fortification allowed manufacturers to market products of questionable nutritional content as health foods. Take, for example, breakfast cereals, the original Froot Loops cereal contained no fruit or fiber and 53 percent of calories consumed are from sugar. The new Froot Loops supposedly contain the “same great taste with zinc, iron now calcium” only managed to reduce the sugar to account for 50 percent of calories and provides one gram of fiber per serving. Nevertheless, the company is allowed to market the product as a health food. The consumer relies on and believes the big headline statements on the front of the package rather than taking the time to examine the nutritional panel. Some may not bother to inspect the ingredient list or nutrition panel before buying. They see the promising label on the face of the package and assume it is a good way to incorporate health into their diets with minimal adjustment to their eating habits. Since shoppers are paying more attention to what they put into their bodies, the processed foods industry is now adopting the concept of “clean labels.” This is a broad term to describe how manufacturers are sticking to ingredients that are recognizable to consumers and marketing the products in a clear and simple manner. The focus is in highlighting words such as “all natural,” “organic,” “non-GMO,” “locally grown,” “antibiotic-free” and “free range” on the front of packages (Katz and Williams). 33 Companies are also redesigning labels to look more “homemade” by utilizing plain and simple fonts and images. On top of that, food processers are emphasizing transparency by clearly informing shoppers about what is inside the product. For example, informing customers that a lower calorie product contains artificial sweetener. Health Claims Advertisers and food producers alike have long used “healthy claims” as a tactic to attract buyers. As the popularity of wholesome foods continue to rise, whole grains topped the sought after health claim on packages in 2010, followed by high fiber, low sodium, low fat, no trans fat, low sugar, low calorie, no chemical additives, no preservatives and low cholesterol (Sloan). The FDA allows claims made through third party references, statements, symbols and descriptions (Narayan, 69). This may be a source of concern because companies can merely buy a seal of approval from an endorser. For instance, The American Heart Association’s HeartGuide Seal “certified” foods as “healthful”—for a fee (Pollan 156). Although now discontinued, the American Heart Association (AHA) was a widely recognized, trustworthy source for consumers. The seal of approval meant the product “help[s] you manage your weight,” “[helps prevent] heart disease, diabetes, cancer and GI disorders.” Looking at a box of Kellogg's Smart Start cereal, which contained the AHA seal of approval, the nutritional label lists 14 grams of sugar and 280 milligrams of sodium in a serving size of one cup. The seal on the box claims it “contains ingredients that may help lower both blood pressure and cholesterol.” Since health claim labeling is 34 unregulated, unlike the USDA’s organic labeling, health claims do not have to be proven and can be contradictory to the product’s actual ingredient. But by being displayed prominently on the front of the package, is able to capture the attention of shoppers. 35 Chapter Six: The Science of Food Originally, the creation of processed foods in the nineteenth century was meant to prevent diseases, inhibit mold growth and allow food to remain fresh longer. By the twentieth century, innovation and leaps in science and technology brought food processing numerous benefits including toxin removal, removal of pathogenic micro- organisms. For instance, the pasteurization of eggs developed in 1980 by Dr. James P. Cox and R. W. Duffy Cox. The process involved rapidly heating and holding the egg at a minimum required temperature for a specified time thereby reducing the risk of ingesting the Salmonella bacteria as well as other viruses (“Egg Products and Food Safety”). As countless man-made elements became the norm on ingredient labels, manufacturers developed functional foods in response to policy recommendations by health officials (Nestle 354). The more boundaries and limitations set up by the FDA, the more companies attempted to develop ways around the guideline, thereby furthering the gap between natural and manufactured. The potential for harm increased through health claims and synthetic ingredients and led to public confusion regarding a well rounded diet (Nestle 357). It is not enough to simply list ingredients on nutrition labels; descriptions and comments should be offered to assist in consumers making purchasing decisions. Taste People prefer foods that taste, look and smell appealing, are familiar and provide variety. These preferences are strongly influences by family and ethnic background, 36 level of education, income, age and gender. As we our food security grew, we began to eat for pleasure—to consume because it was available not because of a physical need. Food became a medium to connect with others, to form bonds and relationships; to relax or even cope emotionally (Blackman 175). Flavor is a combined sensation of the tongue and the nose, taste buds and olfactory nerves. Food flavor is the culmination of aroma, the five tastes—savory, sweet, sour, bitter and umami—and sensual reception. It is a complex mixture of chemicals combined in just the right proportion. And the emotions connected to these foods were unlike anything consumable item before. After years of research and study on consumer tastes, packaged foods had mastered the concept of great taste. Chemical additives—such as vanillin which synthesized the richness of vanilla or L-cysteine which contained the succulent taste of chicken broth—came along and made manufactured food taste good, really good (Roberts 46). Consumers were happy—they could easily incorporate their daily value of vitamins, minerals and nutrients and the eating such products were pleasurable. Taste, color, and aroma of an item all appeal to the senses and help eaters determine whether or not they want to consume an item. It is part of the allure of consumer packaged goods; each item has undergone copious amounts of testing and research. And when functional foods were first introduced in the 1980s, people were not as concerned about the long term effects (Nestle 299). As long as it tasted good people were satisfied. 37 With nearly 17,000 new food products introduced every year, consumers now rely on science, marketing, journalism and communication to help make decisions on what to eat. Ever-changing Science Examining past scientific studies, findings about the links between diet and what’s healthy have been replaced by new conclusions. First fat was the enemy, in 1973 the American Heart Association was actively encouraging the food industry to use hydrogenated vegetable oils to “modify” various products to get the saturated fats and cholesterol out of them. Consequently, consumers sought products that were labeled “low fat” and began binging on carbohydrates as a way to avoid fats. Words such as “fat” and “cholesterol” also have had negative connotations for years before scientists were even aware of the difference between good and bad fat and cholesterol. In 2006, research from the Women’s Health Initiative revealed that a low-fat diet—long believed to protect against cancer and risk of coronary heart disease—may not do so (Pollan 5). In the fall of 2006, two separate prestigious studies on omega-3 fats resulted in strikingly different conclusions. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences found little evidence that eating fish would help your heart and may even have negative effects from the traces of mercury. A Harvard study concluded that eating a couple of servings of fish a week or consuming omega-3 supplements could cut the risk of dying from a heart attack by more than a third (Pollan 5). When new information was discovered in the early 1990s the dangers of trans fats was uncovered. Before that, there was no distinction between types of fat, whether the 38 source was natural like fat from olive oil or fish, or synthetic, like fat from margarine. It wasn’t until 2004 when the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) determined that "Americans need to continue working to reduce saturated fat intake” (“Trends in Intake of Energy, Protein, Carbohydrate, Fat, and Saturated Fat”). Then carbohydrates were the enemy, and the same route was taken until the difference was established between foods with a high or low glycemic index. The glycemic index is a measure of how rapidly a food or nutrient raises the blood sugar level relative to ingestion of glucose, a simple sugar that carbohydrates break down as (Ronzio 318). Foods with a high glycemic index consist of carbohydrates that break down quickly during digestion and release glucose rapidly into the bloodstream. Carbohydrates that break down slowly and release glucose gradually into the bloodstream have a low glycemic index. This is an example of how scientific studies may uncover sound information but American consumers jump to conclusions or seek a quick cure-all solution. One week, health professionals suggest consumers load up on omega-3 fatty acids from fish such as tuna, and the next week a new study suggests that the mercury levels in tuna are high and could be detrimental to our health. Then, of course, there is sugar—a refined carbohydrate that flooded the marketplace around the same time as processed flour. Sugar naturally found in fruits and some vegetables slowly releases energy accompanied by minerals and crucial micronutrients not available in manmade form (Pollan 112). In processed food, people get the instant gratification of sugar in their systems; sugar essentially breaks down to glucose, the most basic form of a carbohydrate. The rise in interest around diet food can 39 be traced back to people’s abhorrence for sugar but inability to sacrifice sweets in their diet. Consumers are greedy—wanting to “have their cake and eat it too.” Artificial Sweeteners From this demand, scientists joined chemistry, technology and food and the birth of sugar substitutes came about. Saccharin was produced first in 1878 by Constantin Fahlberg, a chemist working on coal tar derivatives; it is 500 times as sweet as sugar (Myers 241). Aspartame was first produced in 1965 and is approximately 200 times the sweetness of table sugar (Magnuson). From saccharin to aspartame and other chemically derived forms of sugar, people were intrigued by the appeal of a zero calorie sweetener. But was it too good to be true? After further research, it was revealed that some sugar substitutes could be detrimental to our health. The FDA banned cyclamates (a type of artificial sweetener) in the 1960s due to links to bladder cancer in laboratory animals. Since then sugar substitutes have faced skepticism. In 1977, foods containing saccharin were required to carry a warning label based on results of laboratory studies involving high doses of the artificial sweetener. But in 2000, Congress enacted legislation that eliminated the label warning (Chaker, WSJ). Still, concerns about artificial sweeteners remain significant; 44 percent of consumers avoid saccharin and aspartame, 32 percent avoid sucralose, and 22 percent avoid natural sweeteners other than sugar (Hartman, 2010a). 40 Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) On the other side of the spectrum many of the preservatives and additives that we use in today’s foods are derived from naturally occurring ingredients. Generalizing “good” or “bad” is not is not so simple. Man-made ingredients aren’t all necessarily bad or natural all good. Monosodium glutamate, or MSG, is a flavor potentiator, with over 150 million pounds a year consumed worldwide. MSG is a chemical derivative found in seaweed and can also be found in a number of other natural foods such as beet sugar. For centuries the Japanese sprinkled a dried mixture of seaweed which enhanced the flavor of dishes. During the 20 th century, a Japanese scientist discovered MSG to be the compound responsible. MSG came under scrutiny when a researcher brain lesions, obesity and stunted growth in laboratory mice. Other scientists took issue with this finding because MSG was not administered orally to the test subjects, rather it was injected. The study was criticized since animals do not react similarly to injections as oral feedings (Packard 74). An additive that is known to be a component of the human body or nature is typically assumed as safe. Circumstances at times tend to exaggerate an issue and create hysteria amongst the public. News of the MSG study broke around the same time as cyclamate, an artificial sweetener, came under attack for its potential carcinogen characteristic. Cyclamate is a completely different additive than MSG—one is synthetic and unnatural, the other a component of nature (Packard 74). This is an example of how 41 circumstances can exaggerate an issue. When one additive is scrutinized, others subsequently come under fire. Industry Mistrust Today, shoppers are becoming more and more conscious of what they consume to fuel their bodies, reading ingredient labels and avoiding harmful ingredients. They are wary of the endless studies that reveal certain chemical ingredients and are resorting to eating more “natural” food. Yet in many cases, consumers believe they are eating healthy even though they are and not familiar with certain ingredients. Some components that are simply the chemical composition have unfamiliar labels and confuse customers. Consider this breakdown of a commonly consumed food: 4-Terpineol, alanine, anethole, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, eriodictyol, eugenol, ferulic acid, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene isochlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaempferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, oleanolic acid, p-coumoric acid, p-hydroxy- benzoic acid, palmitic acid, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, tryptophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid. (Pollen, NYT) The list reads like an ingredient list of a processed product, but this is actually the antioxidants in garden-variety thyme. But by only looking at what compounds make up thyme, many “health conscious” consumers would never purchase or consume thyme. People seem to believe they are educated in what is healthy however they only absorb what they hear in the media—news about trends and new studies. 42 Consumers are constantly bombarded with new scientific studies and claims on the possible side effect of certain types of food and they are left unsure about what to believe. According to a survey conducted by the USDA, over 40 percent of consumers strongly agree with the statement “There are so many recommendations about healthy ways to eat; it’s hard to know what to believe” (Narayan 96). First health professionals declare that a certain diet can prevent diseases such as cancer, later further research is done and the original claim is proven untrue. Consumers don’t know what information to trust, so they follow the trends and buy into fad diets, such as the Master Cleanse or the Atkins Diet. 43 Chapter Seven: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulation in food production within the United States began in the late eighteenth century. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a part of the department of health and human services, is one of the oldest consumer protection agencies in the United States; it can be traced back to 1848 when chemical analyses of agricultural products were conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (“History”). During the late nineteenth century the need for laws to monitor food and drug purity became increasingly urgent as over-the-counter medical elixirs and tonics contained substances such as opium, cocaine and heroin. The call for government regulation was also made evident when Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle, exposed unsanitary working conditions in Chicago’s meatpacking industry. The public uproar spurred Congress, with the support of President Theodore Roosevelt, to enact the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act which prohibited misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs (“Food and Drug Administration”). The food and drug law was revised in 1937 when 107 people died after ingesting a supposed healing tonic. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required new drugs to be tested before entering the market and also gave the FDA authority to perform factory inspections. In 1957, an amendment to the law specified that food additives must be evaluated for safety prior to being available to consumers (Encycolpedia.org). The role of the FDA today is to protect the public health by “assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary biological products, medical devices, [the] 44 nation’s food supply, cosmetics and products that emit radiation” (“What We Do”). The agency also inspects, maintains, approves and sets standards for adequate food labeling. Through accurate science-based information the FDA regulates the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of medicines and foods to improve public health. In 1969 the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health recommended fortifying (the addition of nutrients to food at or beyond its natural state (Ronzio 282)) food that was a basic staple for groups at high risk of inadequate nutrient intake. As a public health approach, fortification was designed to overcome widespread deficiencies of certain key nutrients. The strategy made sense because nutrient deficiencies were most common among impoverished populations without sufficient income to purchase a variety of food or educated enough to make nutritious choices. As a result, the FDA raised the allowable levels of vitamins (thiamin, niacin, riboflavin and folic acid) and iron in foods with grain. During the 1970s various groups pointed at data that suggested that certain populations were deficient in one or more nutrients as the basis to propose further enrichment of products, but the FDA rejected the proposals out of fear that such a diet might lead to excessive, unbalanced and potentially harmful intake of essential nutrients (Nestle 302) During the 1980s the demand for healthier food began to emerge. The U.S. Public Health Service called for the reduction of sodium levels in processed foods by 20 percent to be achieved by 1990. This was done in the hopes that major food processors and distributors would incorporate nutritional principles and concepts into their food, marketing strategies and messages (Nestle 299). 45 In 1988 the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health concluded that: Overconsumption of certain dietary components is now a major concern for Americans. While many food factors are involved, chief among them is the disproportionate consumption of foods high in fats, often at the expense of foods high in complex carbohydrates and fiber that may be more conductive to health (Nestle 299) In order to improve the quality of American diets, the report issued a challenge to food manufacturers to create easily prepared food products that would allow consumers to effortlessly follow dietary guidelines. Officials conceded that consumers would consume junk food anyway and encouraging food companies to develop “healthier” versions would result in the lesser evil. It was an easily applicable, flexible and socially acceptable method of altering the intake of nutrients without a vast educational effort and without changing the current food patters of a population (Nestle 302). Seeing to the fact that the public was becoming more and more aware of the impact of nutrition in their diets, the recommendation was also meant to benefit the food industry by encouraging companies to proactively adapt to changing consumer tastes. By 1991 the industry had already far exceeded the goal set by the Public Health Service, producing and marketing over 5,600 reduced-fat goods. By 1996, 38 percent of new food products were devised with added nutritional purpose (Nestle 299). To the food industry and some federal officials, these products offered a pragmatic solution to the dilemma surrounding people who were interested in following dietary advice but would only do so if it did not encroach on their current habits. Food manufacturers easily fulfilled the challenge since they relied on the creation of new products to increase sales. 46 From 1989 to 1993, nutritionally enhanced food and beverages rose 4 percent to 30 percent of all sales, performing better than their unenhanced counterparts (Nestle 300). The passing of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990, acted to specify the content and format of labels on foods as well as addressed health claims on packages. It directed the FDA to consider limiting particular health claims that companies placed on food labels for marketing purposes (Nestle 250). By 1992 the FDA was searching to revise stricter rules on labeling, especially in the dietary supplement industry. The administration was faced with a lot of hurdles including backlash from only from the drug industry, as well as political forces and a Congressional deadline. The NLEA specified that if the FDA (in conjunction with the USDA) failed to meet the deadline, its proposed rules would go into effect unrevised. Added pressure fell onto the USDA which had not yet made its final rules for meat labels coherent with those of the FDA. The USDA did not want package labels to suggest that consumers should eat less meat and dairy due to their considerable fat content. Once a compromise was made and the FDA agreed to raise the allowable limit to be labeled a “low fat” product, the Bush administration accepted the amended rules. The finalized regulations allowed the FDA authorization only if health claims were supported by “published scientific evidence from well-designed studies conducted according to standard scientific procedures, evaluated with significant agreement among qualified experts” (Nestle 256). An interesting loophole in the revised food-labeling rules involved the regulation surrounding the use of the word “healthy.” Few restrictions were stipulated regarding labeling products as “healthy;” manufacturers could claim 47 candy to be “healthy” because it was low in fat and sodium content. According to the FDA “healthy” foods were “low in fat and saturated fat, limited in sodium and cholesterol and contained at least 10 percent of the recommended amount of at least one key nutrient: vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or fiber” (Nestle 256). The FDA’s ongoing struggle to maintain scientific integrity in the face of pressure from the industry, Congress and the public resulted in the loss of its credibility as an authoritative government agency. 48 Chapter Eight: Natural & Organic An emerging food business has emerged from consumers’ growing concerns and misgivings about additives and preservatives in food. It began as a revolt against the unknown in foods, as we became more aware of our carbon footprint and moved to preserve the earth and Mother Nature. The initial natural and organic movement ignited not as much from nutritional concern as from fears over the presence of pesticide residue and other chemicals in food. After scientific proof that some pesticides were carcinogenic was revealed in 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to ban aldrin and dieldrin because of evidence incriminating the chemicals as carcinogens (Packard 170). Not only does it matter if the food is fresh but where it is grown and the soil nutrient content. Natural foods originally were known as food grown “under conditions uninfluenced by man-made chemicals” (Packard 172). Implied was the assurance that these foods were free from processing—preservatives, supplements, emulsifiers, etc.— and little to no refinement. As the movement grew, this definition stretched and was applied to a variety of food. If the natural food ideology were strictly abided by, steps in processing would not be allowed—this includes sanitation steps such as washing since soap and detergents are synthetic. Now this label is so widely used that definitions vary depending on the person asked. The word “natural” on a label is so widely applied that it provides no assurance of content, safety or nutritive value. Organic foods in their strictest definition refer to the “production of crops in which the application of nutrients to the soil is restricted entirely to such organic 49 fertilizers as manure, compost, and garbage” (Packard 175). Based on ecological practices, such as biological pest management and composting, crops are produced on land that has not been affected with any prohibited substances—pesticides, fungicides, etc.—for at least three years prior to harvest. Soil fertility and crop nutrients are managed through tillage and cultivation practices, crop rotations, and cover crops, supplemented with manure and crop waste material and approved synthetic substances. Organic fruits and vegetables must be stored and shipped separate from conventionally grown produce to ensure the produce is completely free from prohibited synthetic contamination (Dimitri 14). The Industry Natural and organic foods now possess prominent shelf space in the produce and dairy aisles of most mainstream U.S. food retailers. Supermarkets, club stores, big-box stores, and other food retailers now carry a variety of natural and organic products. Supermarkets have even developed their own private-label product lines. A broader range of consumers has begun buying more varieties of organic food. According to the USDA, “the one factor that consistently influences the likelihood of a consumer buying organic products is education. Consumers with some college education were 29% more likely to purchase organic produce, while consumers who graduated college, or had post college education were 53% and 80% more likely to purchase organic vegetables than those with a high school education or less (Dettmann 457). 50 Consumers of all ages, races, and ethnic groups who have higher levels of education are more likely to buy organic products than less-educated consumers” (Dimitri 3). Organic foods are typically more expensive than conventional foods, costing at least 10 to 30 percent more (Dimitri 5). Surveys indicate mixed results about consumer response to higher priced organic food. Seventy-three percent of consumers believe organic food is too expensive confirming other studies indicating that price was a barrier to purchasing organic food (Dimitri 5). In a staggering economy, shoppers may not be willing to pay a premium for organic products. All Natural Ideals Some consumers’ distrust of packaged foods let to the adoption of a completely natural diet—eating only fresh foods in their nature-farmed state without hormones, antibiotics or other additives. Activists determined to convey their messages and views on the processed foods industry sought the Internet to begin a revolution. The decision to consume an all natural diet was such a radical idea in an industrialized America that several people began to document their journey through blogs. These blogs have become widely looked upon as catalysts for consumers to reexamine their own diets. For the average American seeking to emulate such a lifestyle, a caveat should be noted and stressed—for many bloggers’, it is his or her profession is to maintain the website and document their mission. As a result, they earn a living through advertising, sponsorships and traffic on their sites. They have time to focus on their efforts because not only is it a passion but also a means to earning a living. 51 These writers also put forward nutritional advice but few are registered nutritionists or dietitians, for the most part these are mothers, health conscious eaters, and food advocates. On her blog “100 Days of Real Food,” Lisa Leake from North Carolina documented her family’s journey of cutting out processed foods and refined ingredients on a budget of $125 a week. After reading Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food,” the Leakes decided to change the way they were eating. Lisa gives advice on how readers can follow in her family’s footsteps and take their own 10 day pledge. Her blog became so popular that national press outlets such as Yahoo!, Parent & Child magazine, Eating Well magazine and Prevention magazine wrote features on the blog. Lisa dishes out recipes and her tips but she is not a health professional. The disclaimer on her site reads: Lisa Leake is not a trained dietician, nutritionist, chef, or medical professional. The information on this blog is based on facts, research, and personal experiences. This information is not intended to diagnose, prevent, treat or cure any disease. Never dismiss any advice your health physician gives. The author shall in no event be held liable for any loss or other damages including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or any other damages (100DaysofRealFood.com). Despite these advancements, the truth is that most Americans claim they have no time to focus on homemade or healthful choices. Primary research revealed that 16 percent of those surveyed strongly agree while 43 percent agree that convenience and packaged foods are necessary for the busy lives we lead today. On top of that, much of the food we have become accustomed to aren’t typical items cooked at home—cereal, crackers, chocolate, etc. 52 Those surveyed (65 percent0 also noted that they would be more likely to purchase organic products if they were not so expensive. But farming procedures and processes to ensure organic certification are costly. Farming Processes The idea of untreated harvests raises concerns of crops attacked by livestock and insects. Crop disasters of the early 20 th century demonstrate the types of hurdles organic farmers must face. A byproduct of rapid market growth has been periodic shortages of organic products due to the inability of organic farms to supply enough products to keep pace with demand (Dimitri 1). Farmers have not converted farmland rapidly enough to meet existing market demand. Those that opt to convert to organic production must farm the land in accordance with a certified approved plan for three years before its yield can be sold as organic. Because elevated potential for losses are more extensive and organic fertilizers cost 50 to 100 times more than inorganic ones, considerably higher food prices are expected for organic produce (Packard 176). It takes a larger investment to raise an organic harvest. Without use of pesticides and chemicals, organic farms’ survival depends on a low weed and infestation rate. It would be unlikely that organic farming would be able to provide enough produce for the country yet alone the world. A De-industrialized Nation To date only one country has de-industrialized its food products. Cuba made refashioned around a more sustainable model following the fall of the Soviet Union. 53 Before the early ‘90s, Moscow supplied fertilizers, pesticides and other grains and crops that Cubans no longer grew themselves in exchange for sugar and citrus. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought a halt to all trading and, in turn, Cuba’s farming sector collapsed. Food prices soared and its economy began to crumble. Deprived of industrial inputs, Cubans had no choice but to de-industrialize their food model, making it less chemically dependent and far more focused on food for local consumption. Massive state-run farms were broken down into cooperatives, and thousands of factory workers were relocated to work on farms (Roberts 308). Although Cuba and other parts of the world are able to depend on locally sourced foods, the United States is a more advanced food economy that is superseded by national and global supply chains. It is estimated that the average American communities produce a mere five percent of the food its citizens consume; the rest being shipped nationally or internationally for consumption (Roberts 308). Much of the farming is commercially focused and operates with a social agenda. In response to this, many American cities are adopting the urban agriculture movement. Restaurants are cultivating produce from their own backyard gardens, community farms and farmers markets are gaining popularity. The regulatory environment is scrambling to keep pace with these changes. The USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) and the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) are intended to assure consumers that the organic foods they purchase are produced, processed, and certified to be consistent with national organic standards. The labeling requirements apply to raw, fresh products, and processed products that contain organic agricultural ingredients. Products can be labeled organic in four ways: (1) 100 54 percent organic, (2) organic; (3) made with organic ingredients; or (4) claim that the product has some organic ingredients (see Figure 5). Each level of organic has a label that communicates the percentage of organic ingredients it is comprised of. This allows consumers to clearly and easily distinguish between the varying types of organic products. Figure 5. USDA Organic Labeling 55 Natural and Organic Processing As the natural and organic foods have evolved into their own industry, more and more new companies have sprouted to join the market. Businesses such as Kashi, Anne’s Homegrown, Newman’s Own and Amy’s Kitchen – among others, have gained so much popularity that they are now widely available at most major retailers nationwide. Most people fail to understand that these all natural and organic food companies still undergo a processing step to mass produce their products. They may use wholesome ingredients and minimize artificial flavors and additives but they still use stabilizers and preservatives of some sort. Take Kashi, a natural health foods brand whose products are “minimally processed and free of highly refined sugars, artificial additives and preservatives,” for example (About Kashi Company). The top five ingredients in its (Figure 6) “Country Cheddar” flavor TLC brand of crackers consists of “unbleached wheat flour, expeller pressed canola oil, cheddar cheese powder, natural flavor and Kashi seven whole grains & sesame” (Kashi.com). Sounds alright at first but how natural is cheddar cheese powder? Compared to other similar products, the Kashi TLC crackers are the lesser evil. It is a better option, but it is not free from processing. The brand’s positive positioning focuses on Kashi’s passion and commitment to improving the health of people and the planet. The focus on local communities shows consumers that the company is focused on other goals besides profit. They also emphasize their charitable giving, adding more goodwill influence to their brand name. 56 All Natural, Always Safe? In any discussion of healthy food trends, it is important to note that there are inherent dangers in natural food; certain foods have naturally occurring toxins. Just because a food grows naturally does not mean that it is essentially healthy or “good for you.” Cinnamon contains a hallucinogen; horseradish root has toxins can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, disorientation, abdominal pain and weakness. Studies have also found overcooked food to contain carcinogens. None of these items are labeled “unhealthy.” 57 Figure 6. Kashi TLC Cheddar Crackers & Nutritional Facts Source: Kashi 58 Chapter Nine: Primary Research —Survey In a survey conducted during November 2011 to January 2012, consumers were asked about their grocery shopping habits. The study also explored shoppers’ opinions on the current natural and organic food trend and whether or not the lifestyle fit with their everyday lives. A total of 118 respondents partook in the survey, for analysis purposes, respondents ages 18 to 26 were the primary audience as they are the generation that is beginning to make shopping decisions for themselves. They are also the target audience for the natural food movement and are more likely to change their eating habits accordingly. Respondents typically shopped at (see Figure 7) supermarkets (59 percent) followed by specialty grocery stores (25 percent) and membership warehouses (9 percent), respectively. Figure 7. What type of markets do you shop at most often? Source: Qualtrics 59 The trend towards natural and fresh foods did impact respondents (77 percent considered themselves health conscious), many of whom examine ingredient lists (62 percent), nutritional labeling (88 percent) and the health claims (49 percent) on packages prior to purchasing (see Figure 8). Figure 8. Do you look at nutrition labels, ingredients lists or health claims? Source: Qualtrics Although shoppers are looking at labeling, it can be said that many of them are still unsure what certain elements of labeling mean. It is not enough to simply list ingredients on nutrition labels; descriptions and comments should be offered to assist in consumers making purchasing decisions. When asked whether consumers would eat a product containing ascorbic acid, monosodium glutamate or sorbic acid, 50 percent of respondents answered they did not know. Ascorbic acid is commonly known as vitamin C, but is typically listed by its chemical name on ingredient lists; monosodium glutamate is known by its acronym MSG, and sorbic acid is a food preservative. Keywords ranked by respondents to describe food that is “good for you” is first and foremost “fresh,” followed by “all natural,” “organic,” “functional foods” and “local,” respectively (see Figure 9). 60 Figure 9. How would you define food that is "good for you?" Source: Qualtrics Consumers are also willing to pay more for foods they deemed “good for you” (see Figure 10)—opting to allocate more for organic foods (59 percent), local foods (43 percent) and foods fortified with vitamins and minerals (22 percent); although 20 percent of consumers are still unwilling to pay for such food products. Figure 10. Are you willing to pay more for food that is "good for you?" Source: Qualtrics Although shoppers are looking at labeling, it can be said that many of them are still unsure what certain elements of labeling mean. When asked whether consumers 61 would eat a product containing ascorbic acid, monosodium glutamate or sorbic acid, 50 percent of respondents answered they did not know. Ascorbic acid is commonly known as vitamin C, but is typically listed by its chemical name on ingredient lists; monosodium glutamate is known by its acronym MSG, and sorbic acid is a food preservative. When asked to list what foods participants considered “processed,” interestingly, 23 percent of respondents answered with product brand names such as “Lean Cuisine,” “Hot Pockets,” “Cap’n Crunch cereal,” “Oreos,” and “Cup of Noodles.” Participants were asked how often they still consume packaged foods—the highest response was two to three times a week (24 percent) followed by two to three times a month (23 percent), once a week (21 percent), daily (13 percent), less than once a month (12 percent), once a month (6 percent) and never (1 percent) (see Figure 11). Figure 11. How often do you eat packaged foods? Source: Qualtrics 62 The likelihood of consumers cutting out processed foods from their diet ranges— with no apparent popular response. The most common response cited was “somewhat likely” (22 percent) (see Figure 12). Figure 12. How likely are you to consider cutting processed foods from your diet? Source: Qualtrics An overwhelming 81 percent of those surveyed believe that “unhealthy” food is acceptable in moderation. This is commonly repeated in the food industry—that everything consumed “in moderation” is fine. Yet the problem is “moderation” is not a form of measurement. One’s measurement of “moderation” can be considered too much or too little by another. 63 Chapter Ten: Food Movements Many of today's most healthful eating trends bear a strong resemblance to earlier years—focus on nearby farms offering nutritious, peak-of-season produce; slow-cooked dinners that foster leisurely family meals; an emphasis on meatless dishes and minimally processed foods. With America’s rising concerns over healthy living and the long term effects of food on the body, the industry of pre-packaged and processed manufactured foods is searching for ways to convey to consumers the positives while battling a malevolent image. The Foodie Revolution Dramatic differences in food preferences, eating styles, and attitudes/behaviors between the nation’s 100 million adults over age 50 and the 74 million Generation Y ages 16–33 will force food companies to more directly target flavors, foods, and food messages to different generations. Two-thirds (67 percent) of consumers consider themselves knowledgeable and interested in food (Tanner, 2010a). Young adults ages 25–34 are by far the most likely to be foodies/foodie cooks; those ages 18–24 are the most likely to be true gourmets (Sloan). In 2010, 39 percent of consumers, up 9 percent in one year, cited chemicals in foods as the most important food safety issue today (Sloan). The “foodie” identity is defined as an “upscale urban consumer who sees food as a hobby and as a vehicle for socializing and fun” (Roberts 42). Consumers believe limiting processed foods is among the most important components of healthy eating, right behind consuming vegetables and fruits (Sloan). 64 Consumers are shifting away from obtaining the necessary nutrients via fortified foods and turning toward products that are naturally high in vitamins and minerals. Half (50 percent) of consumers deliberately avoid preservatives, 49 percent avoid MSG, 47 percent artificial flavors, 44 percent colors/dyes, 43 percent growth hormones, and 29 percent genetically modified organisms (Sloan). The number of shoppers who say a no additive/preservative claim is very important rose 10 percent over the past two years (Sloan). Predictions for future trends suggest that consumers are seeking customization and choice. Instead of the once popular “homestyle” meals, “bistro” and “fine dining” approaches mixed with farm fresh ingredients. Bringing the restaurant home is more economical than going to dine out so expect to see more restaurant-style gourmet and decadent mixes on store shelves. Another burgeoning trend surrounds people seeking fresher, locally grown produce. Programs such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) support community farmers and give consumers the ability to pledge support by sharing the risks and benefits of food production (Condo). Locals get the benefit of knowing they are helping sustain the neighborhood’s economy. On top of that fresher produce is known to a nutritional advantage over produce grown on “factory farms.” Most produce cultivated in the U.S. is picked four to five days before arriving on supermarket shelves and travels over 1,500 miles, according to Local Harvest, a nonprofit agricultural research group. USDA researchers have found that up to half of the nutrients can be lost if produce is not handled properly during transport (Condo). 65 Celebrity Advocates & Activists Current estimates suggest 17 percent of American children and teens are overweight and obese—triple the rate of a generation ago, according to the Center for Disease Control ("Childhood Overweight and Obesity"). In the hopes of raising a future generation of American children who eat healthier and exercised more, First Lady Michelle Obama took on childhood obesity as a platform to promoting healthy choices, getting active and educating families on how to lead wholesome lifestyle. In February 2010, she launched the Let’s Move! campaign, a comprehensive initiative dedicated to solving the problem of obesity within a generation. The First Lady’s campaign has already spread the word and provoked change among Americans and brought to light the importance of a developing the habit of eating a healthy diet and staying active during childhood. A key component of the movement is to emphasize healthy lunches in school cafeterias—one of the core influences of eating in youth. School cafeteria food is typically a source of unhealthy food options because fresh foods are expensive, run the risk of quickly going bad and require an increase in cooking time, preparation and labor. The campaign has been so influential that Michelle Obama was recently named the eighth most powerful person in the food industry for 2012 (Andrews). It is probable that the First Lady’s campaign will impact legislation and how much the government will allot to school lunch programs. Changes by producers and manufacturers will also be expected as society’s attention is centered on this debate. 66 Another movement Jamie Oliver, a well known English chef, restaurateur, television personality and food activist, is educating Americans about the importance of fresh food through his campaign against the use of processed foods in national schools. In his Emmy award winning series “Jamie’s Food Revolution,” he taught a community how simple and easy cooking one’s own food can be, even inspiring kids to begin growing their own produce. Oliver points to the loss of cooking skills at home and the availability of processed foods at every turn to blame for America’s obesity problem (“About us”). His campaign was centered around the tag line “keep it simple” with wholesome recognizable ingredients. His charitable foundation of the same name has even pioneered a global petition against obesity that has garnered the support of major Hollywood celebrities such as Jennifer Aniston, Elton John and Gwyneth Paltrow. The increased attention to reforming the American diet and developing healthy habits during childhood amplify the need for food processors to make changes. Activists have also been quick to blame the processed foods industry and its products available rather than questioning the consumer’s decision to purchase and consume such a product. Education is the key to understanding proper ways to fuel the body and form healthy eating habits. 67 Chapter Eleven: Reforming With Consumer Tastes The ever-changing tastes of consumers fuel organizations’ research efforts for new products. Proactive efforts also earn goodwill amongst critics and consumers. By applying forward thinking practices and recognizing improvement in the frontlines of food production, companies can prepare for changing consumer trends. New Products The increasing interest in natural and organic foods spurs companies to develop innovation and new products. Food companies must bring out a constant stream of new products to keep sales up and revenues high. Those revenues are reinvested into new product research and development purposes. New products are intended to revitalize existing lines. When a product is first introduced, sales initially climb but eventually flatten out and enter a gradual decline (Roberts 41). The ongoing cycle proves both an opportunity and a weakness; it is a challenge to constantly search for “new and improved” to stay afloat of competition, industry trends and consumer tastes. Companies spend millions on research and development efforts searching for new products to appeal to consumers. For example, in 2003, Dreyer’s spent five years and a reported $100 million to bring the concept Dreyer’s Slow Churned Light with half the fat content—restructuring the molecular structure to still maintain the same mouthfeel of full fat ice cream (Roberts 40). 68 Brand Obstacles Organizations that have a long running history and monumental brand names face a challenge with emerging businesses focused solely on the natural and organic trend. Large companies utilize multi-brand strategies to establish consumer opinions that are untarnished from the relation to the mother brand. For example, General Mills’ organic line of products is under the Cascadian Farm brand name to compete with solely organic brands such as Newman’s Own Organics. There is no obvious relationship between General Mills and Cascadian Farms on the packaging nor the organic brand’s website. Since traditional consumer companies are commonly associated with the processing of food, it becomes difficult for consumers to see them as “good for you” brands. To counter that effect, companies can create a separate brand identity whose goals and messages are focused on healthy living, community and grassroots efforts. Building a new brand extension can facilitate new product acceptance, and if done well can improve the parent brand’s image. Doing so attracts new customers and allows them to understand the messaging of the brand without feeling confused by any opinions they have towards the parent brand. Possible weaknesses of this method could be that consumers feel overwhelmed or frustrated or event cheated if they believe the parent brand is attempting to deceive them. This in turn can harm the reputation of the parent brand and its other extensions. A closer look at many healthy brands shows that they have become subsidiaries of giant food conglomerates. Odwalla, Inc. is an American food product company that sells fruit juice, smoothies, and food bars. It was founded in Santa Cruz, California in 1980 by 69 Greg Steltenpohl, Gerry Percy, and Bonnie Bassett (“Odwalla, Inc.”). After its IPO in 1997, it was purchased by the Coca-Cola Company in 2001 (McClam). Most consumers are not aware Odwalla is a subsidiary of Coca-Cola. The press center web page for Coca-Cola does represent the Odwalla brand, but a look at Odwalla’s website shows no link to its parent company. Odwalla continues with its emphasis on the community and fresh and wholesome products. It employs grassroots efforts in its marketing and communication strategy. Keeping the two organizations as separate identities allows Odwalla to keep its focus as a responsible, green and wholesome business and its relation to Coca-Cola allows it to reach more consumers through robust larger distribution channels and more robust promotional efforts. But it does run the risk of alienating some consumers by not being completely straightforward and transparent. Phasing Out Unpopular Ingredients The food industry faced with bad publicity from recalls and other related hazards, consumer alarm and the trend towards natural and organic foods began to rethink product lines like any business and began to conform to customer demands. Movements to rehabilitate the image of “unhealthy” ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup or the soda industry have sprouted to defend their products. After high fructose corn syrup was associated with obesity, concerned consumers demanded numerous food companies to phase out the ingredient. As a result, the Corn Refiners’ Association banded together to launch a campaign to combat “press reports [that] oversimplify issues by attempting to single out specific ingredients” (High Fructose 70 Corn Syrup Myths”). The battle is still ongoing and unlikely to end soon. This example proves how reputation precedes facts. Both sides have scientific studies to back their claims, leaving consumers unsure what to believe. There still is a large need to study and research improved methods of processing and enhancing the nutritional value of foods as well as a need to evaluate the toxins in additives that are used to maximize outputs. Food refinement does not necessarily equate the loss of nutrients. Processing functions such as cleaning, grinding, extraction or cooking act to remove or eliminate naturally occurring toxic substances. For instance, the soybean must undergo a refining process to reduce its toxicity and enhance nutritional value. Food is complex—it is never just built up of one simple vitamin or nutrient. And beyond that each person digests and burns food fuel differently. Some populations metabolize sugar or fat faster than others, some can digest lactose. For example, a study by Itan Yuval, PhD found that 90 to 100 percent of East Asians are found to have lactose intolerance while only 5 to 15 percent people from the U.K. suffer from the sensitivity (see Figure 13). The same food product can have vastly different effects on each individual. An input of 100 calories may yield more or less energy depending on genetic makeup. Studies can be taken out of context because of other variables in the body, cultural background as well as geographic region. The challenge to be the authority on what is the “healthiest” becomes a source of confusion. Even health professionals have opposing views and cannot agree on dietary guidelines. 71 Figure 13. Lactose Intolerance by Ethnicity/Geographic Region 72 Chapter Twelve: Consumer Outlook Need for Convenience Americans recognize that there is indeed a need for processed foods because they offer convenience, cost-effective snacking, meal solutions and sometimes even safety. After price and convenience, products with “cleaner labels” are more likely to be purchased. Clean labels are one that contains natural ingredients as well as an overall shorter ingredient list (“Cleaning Up Your Label”). In the eyes of consumers, clean labels reduce the perceived degree of processing even if the product is manufactured in the same way. Young women are the key target audience since they are the most concerned with processed foods and health, an important factor to consider when developing new products. Adding nutrients to food can encourage people to perceive it as healthy. Nutrition specialists would rather consumers eat foods naturally containing the vitamins and nutrients that are added through processing. For example, omega-3 fortified peanut butter has 100mg of the fatty acid in a two tablespoon serving, but a 3.5oz portion of salmon or tuna contains 1,500mg of omega-3. Enhanced foods aren’t always as impressive as the label suggests, according to Marion Nestle, author and professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “Processing destroys nutrients and the more processing there is, the more destruction you get. Fortification adds back some nutrients, so overall you’re better off with a processed fortified food than a processed unfortified one. But a whole food is always going to be superior” (Reistad- Long). 73 The year’s most successful food and beverage innovations deftly capitalized on consumers’ quest for “at-home” and “from-home” meal and snack solutions that provide a mixture of nutrition, convenience, and indulgence. Top selling new products in the convenience channel are representative of efforts to drive purchase behavior across categories by adding unique value-added to existing industry products, in other words product extensions. This can be completed by stimulating purchase behavior highlighting necessity with value-oriented programs touting cost-effective ways to enjoy indulgences without “breaking the budget” or jeopardizing the waistline (“2009 New Product Pacesetters”). Varying Opinions on Highly Processed Each consumer also has varying opinions on what they consider highly processed and minimally processed. A survey conducted by HealthFocus International asked 5,000 shoppers how they define processed foods, the factors they consider when determining whether a food or beverage is processed or unprocessed and which brands do the best job of communicating less processed, healthy and “clean labels.” Findings suggest the “perception of processed has more impact on a shopper’s opinion than does the actual processing that the product undergoes” (Katz). Each consumer also has a different connotation on what a processed product is. In the study, primary shoppers were asked to examine their own pantries and rate what they perceived as being the most and least processed. One mother considered Newman’s Own pasta sauce as one of the most processed foods in her household, while Nabisco 74 Triscuit crackers were one of the least. Even though the pasta sauce is simple and contains a simple ingredient list, the crackers had an even simpler ingredient list with only had three ingredients. Another shopper believed Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers were the most processed and felt that Lay’s Classic potato chips were least processed. Like the previous example, she interpreted the simple ingredient statement as an indicator of the degree of processing (Katz). Shoppers’ assessment of products revealed diverse opinions—their views on whether an item was processed or not were influenced by healthfulness, product purity and clarity of information on the package. Most consumers believed that a low calorie product was less processed than its standard counterpart. Organic goods were also considered less processed than regular products. Although most of these products are manufactured in a similar manner—low calorie items likely involve manmade ingredients as substitutes while organic labels refer to how the product was grown and cultivated not how the raw ingredient was incorporated into the final product. It is due to labeling that these items are viewed as being less processed. Consumers Reading Labels Along similar lines, consumers look at different areas of nutritional labeling to when making decisions on whether or not to purchase or eat a product. Some may look to the ingredients—are they recognizable and understandable? Others may judge on the number of calories a food product contains. 75 Primary research found that people valued calorie and ingredients differently when deciding to purchase a product (see Figure 14). Those surveyed were asked to rank in importance from 1 to 8 (one being most important, eight being the least). Responses were quite varied; respondents believed that both calorie content and the ingredients in a food product held different levels of importance. Some were quite mindful of these criteria while others ranked it relatively low in contributing to their purchase decisions. Figure 14. Criteria to purchase a product - Calorie Content v. Ingredients (Series represent importance ranking) Examine the nutritional facts and ingredient list for Fiber One Chewy Bars (see Figure 15). A consumer concerned about caloric intake would deem this product as a healthy option due to its relatively low (90) calories. On the other hand a different consumer judging on the criteria of the ingredients would conclude that this product is highly processed with components that are difficult to understand. 76 Figure 15. Fiber One Chewy Bar Nutrition Facts Source: Fiber One 77 Chapter Thirteen: Educating a Confused Public The cacophony of news from the nutritional world adds to the confusion about diet and health among consumers. Messages are so convoluted and contradictory, ingredients deemed safe 20 years ago are now carcinogens, and components that were considered dangerous are now beneficial. Consumers need the proper knowledge to make educated decisions about how they are fueling their bodies. They need the proper knowledge to make educated decisions about how they are fueling their bodies. According to a global Nielsen poll of over 25,000 consumers in 56 countries, 59 percent of participants were confused by nutritional labeling (Scott-Thomas). Food companies have an opportunity to help consumers seeking healthful foods by providing easy-to-understand nutritional information on packaging. Bad Reputation in the Industry Consumers often feel frustrated when they receive conflicting nutritional information. According to Adam Drewowski, Ph.D., a nutrition professor at the University of Washington, fortified foods tend to be less filling and contain higher calorie content than whole foods and consumers may end up eating more throughout the day. Since people assume their nutritional need have been met, they tend to make poorer choices for the rest of their meals (Reistad-Long). Consumers end up believing that the products hold superior health benefits when they may not (Nestle 364). They may end up believing they are eating more healthfully than they truly are. 78 Confusing Recommendations A popular phrase used in the food and dieting industry, “in moderation,” yet this expression is not a measurable serving size. One person’s moderation may be another’s scarcity or excess, each person’s interpretation of moderation is different. Some may believe that junk food once a day is not a lot; another may consider unhealthy food once a month acceptable. The definition is just too vague and cannot be used as a diet recommendation. Ultimately, who should be the source on what exactly our nutritional goals should be—the government, medical professionals or should we each be left to decide what our bodies need in terms of nutrition? The government and nutritional professionals can only give us guidelines and suggestions—not standards. There is no power to enforce and deliberately change the eating habits of people unless they themselves want to adjust too. Recalls The recent influx of recalls concerning the contamination of fresh produce has brought to light the benefits of processing. People under appreciate the numerous benefits that come along with processing such as pasteurization—removal of microbial pathogens—toxin removal, the prevention of perishable foods, and the ability to transport goods over longer distances. Many enthusiasts that advocate eating food as close to its natural state as possible overlook the numerous perils of all raw produce such as bacteria and contamination. A glimpse into the list of FDA items show the fruit and vegetables items are endless. Issues 79 such as Salmonella, Listeria, Escherichia coli (E. coli), parasites, pathogenic bacteria, viruses, among others show the perils of a completely natural diet. Utilizing the timeliness of a recall to leverage the benefits of the processing method can improve the reputation of the industry. Clearly detailing the steps of sanitation and explaining the reason for each process will help consumers better understand why the step is necessary. Dietary Guidelines Every year the USDA publishes Dietary Guidelines for Americans that summarizes and synthesizes knowledge about nutrients and food components into a set of recommendations for healthy eating for the public. Although the document is easily available for download for free on the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion website, it is questionable how many Americans actually read it and abide by the advice. Along those lines, suggestions given are not easy to incorporate into our everyday lives. Take for example one of the key recommendations: Reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among persons who are 51 and older and those of any age who are African American or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. The 1,500 mg recommendation applies to about half of the U.S. population, including children, and the majority of adults (Dietary Guidelines 21). Most Americans probably are not aware of their daily sodium intake, not to mention specific milligram measurement. Realistically, Americans are not seeking out nutritional information; it needs to be pushed out to them in an easily digestible manner. 80 Government Input The federal government continues to suggest ways to stay fit and healthy, giving Americans targets such as calorie intake, serving size and recommended diets. Yet the information dispersed is so general and does not take into consideration age, physical activity, weight, genetics, cultural norms, etc. How is it feasible that practically every American requires the same food and diet regime? Nowhere is this confusion more prevalent than in the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA). The RDA applies to nutrients the government considers necessary for overall good health. Established by the National Academy of Science/National Research Council, the RDA is meant to simplify meaningful labeling information on packaged foods. However, not all vitamins and minerals are included in the RDA because nutritional labeling only list those well established by science such as vitamin C, protein and iron. The RDA is meant as a guide to good nutrition and does not take into account individual dietary needs. The USDA first created a food pyramid to represent the daily recommended servings of each food group—carbohydrates, vegetables, fruits, meats, diary and oil. It was adopted after the World Health Organization (WHO) published guidelines to prevent chronic diseases including obesity, dental decay and coronary risks. The original divided food into six groups and ranked them with the most essential group as the foundation and less crucial ones above in the form of a pyramid (see Figure 16). In 2005 the USDA reformed the pyramid, this time with vertical colored wedges to represent each food group. The new pyramid was renamed “MyPyramid” (see Figure 17). Then in 2011, the 81 nutrition guide was completely redone and renamed “MyPlate.” This time food groups were displayed on a dish, representing a meal and the fats & oil category was eliminated (see Figure 18). MyPlate is divided into sections of approximately 30 percent grains, 30 percent vegetables, 20 percent fruits and 20 percent protein, accompanied by a smaller circle representing a cup of dairy. Figure 16. Food Pyramid, 1992 Source: Google 82 Figure 17. MyPyramid, 2005 Source: Google Figure 18. MyPlate, 2011 Source: ChooseMyPlate.gov 83 Chapter Fourteen: Recommendations Ultimately, no authority can provide concrete rules on healthy eating. Each person’s metabolic and genetic build makes our bodies require different vitamins and nutrients. Communication efforts for the industry should thus be focused on educating the consumer to give them the tools to make the best purchase decisions when it comes to their diet. By conveying the benefits of technology and how it can fit within the constricts of a busy “on-the-go” lifestyle, organizations have the opportunity to improve their public image. Full Disclosure Labeling It is in the interest of large food manufacturing companies to be a step ahead— searching for signs of emerging food trends and spend the time and capital to formulating their product to conform to the trend without jeopardizing the integrity and flavor of the original product. What consumers want is information so they can make diet choices appropriate to their tastes, lifestyle and personal preferences. There is a definite place in the American lifestyles for processed foods. However, processed foods should be appropriately labeled with what has been removed, added and how—similar to allergy warnings that disclose information to consumers. Warnings on packaging do not necessarily deter shoppers from purchasing an item. One only needs to look at cigarette consumption to understand the limitations of package warnings. 84 In this day and age, people respect transparency and full disclosure of processing procedure will earn the company goodwill, improving their public image. To gain some insight into this intriguing manufacturer-consumer dynamic, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), conducted a study exploring the perceptions of consumers and food manufacturers regarding safety, innovation, performance and sustainability issues. The survey found that 98 percent of food manufacturers express confidence in their performance related to product safety, yet a full 70 percent of consumers do not think fresh food manufacturers conduct thorough testing before introducing new products to the market. More than 75 percent of consumers surveyed feel that processed food manufacturers are not making better products today than five years ago (Albinson). Because of growing consumer awareness of food safety issues, forward-thinking food manufacturers have an opportunity to gain competitive advantage by promoting supply chain transparency and best practices. The UL study also found that food manufacturers agree that consumers are becoming more empowered. They value positive consumer claims on product quality and safety more than government endorsements (Albinson). Adapting and Evolving To give consumers more nutritional information and to educate them on how to make healthy food choices, the FDA should revamp labeling procedures. Possible changes include revised serving sizes, increased importance on calorie count and less emphasis on daily percentages. 85 In January 2010, trade groups that represent U.S. food and beverage manufacturers announced a new plan to change the way their food packages reveal nutrition information. “Nutrition Keys” is a proposed industry-standard labeling system that will be displayed on the front of food and beverage products. It emphasizes easy-to- read black and white icons revealing nutritional content including calories, saturated fat, sodium and sugars, as well as a yet to be determined list of “nutrients to encourage.” Food manufacturers said they hoped the new labels could guide consumers to make healthy, informed choices. The new labels are expected to appear on approximately 70 percent of food products by next year (Gingerich). Another front-of-package nutrition labeling campaign is “Facts Up Front” by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI). Both campaigns are an effort to increase consumer awareness and educate them on nutritional labeling. By moving information from the side or the back panel to the front of packages and utilizing icons to demonstrate more clearly to consumers and help them make informed decisions (Lukovitz, Food). Although not everyone is convinced that the new system will be effective, in a June 2011 article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, authors Kelly D. Brownell of Yale University and Jeffrey P. Koplan of Emory University argued that the U.S. food and beverage industry “lacks a science-based, easily understood way to show consumers whether foods have a high, medium or low amount of a particular nutrient” (Lukovitz, Food). The FDA should enact a system to better safeguard against abuse of the classification structure. This will also protect consumer confidence. For instance, in the 86 United States, neither the FDA nor the USDA has strict rules for employing the “natural” phrase in labeling. For a product to be called natural, it must be: Free of artificial or synthetic ingredients or additives, including color, flavor or any ingredient “not normally expected.” Hence, lemonade flavored with beet juice cannot be called natural. In addition, any food enhanced with caramel, paprika or color (consider bright orange cheese) cannot be called natural (Houchins). The term “natural” adds a premium to food products and makes them appear fresher, minimally processed, and safer. Without precaution applied uniformly to foods labeled "natural," companies can exploit consumer taste preferences for profit. Another option is to enlist the services of an independent third party. Some grocers are using NuVal’s nutritional rating system, developed by nutrition and medical experts (see Figure 19). The NuVal System scores food on a scale of 1-100, the higher the NuVal score, the better the nutrition. Each value considers 30-plus nutrients and nutrition factors the good—protein, calcium and vitamins—and the not-so-good such as sugar, sodium and cholesterol (NuVal.com). At King Soopers supermarkets in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have already adopted the system, displaying NuVal scores on the shelves, right next to the prices. Other supermarkets are employing the services of Guiding Star, a similar system of rating foods that is based on awarding stars. 87 Figure 19. NuVal Rating System Source: Price Chopper In October 2011, the Institute of Medicine released two reports recommending that the federal government develop a nutrition rating system that would appear on the front of food packages. The institute concluded that a point system be developed and that calories, saturated and trans fats, sugar and sodium amounts be displayed on the front of food packages (Ellis). It is unrealistic to think that people are going to replace chips and other processed foods with fruits and vegetables all the time. Likewise, it is equally unrealistic to expect 88 Americans to completely abandon some or their unhealthy choices. At least with a rating system consumers could replace one lower scoring snack for a more nutritious higher one. And by using third-party medical professionals to analyze foods, ensures consumer confidence that the results are trustworthy. Policy reform can begin by customizing health recommendations for citizens. Since it is unrealistic to include a specific nutrition label for every category of consumer, packages can utilize technological advances to create a specific food profile for every shopper. Coding methods such as bar codes or QR codes provide a compact method to deliver information. Supermarkets can set up stations much like price checkers and allow customers to “look up” nutritional information prior to purchasing a product. Similarly, shoppers could check the information on their smartphones using mobile applications and/or mobile web pages. Each solution could be enacted by the government or a third party that is free from influence by corporate sponsors. Brand Partnerships Alleviating the issue of mistrust is a hurdle for the industry. Brand endorsement partnerships or strategic collaborations can help to leverage a good reputation. For example, Progresso Soup’s light variety is endorsed by Weight Watchers. It is mutually beneficial for both parties because those familiar with the Weight Watchers program will be confident purchasing the soup, and consumers who typically buy Progresso will be exposed to the Weight Watchers brand. 89 Customizing Nutritional Information From grocery lists to nutritional information, shoppers have begun to rely on their smartphones as more than just a communication tool, especially for those consumers ages 18 to 25. According to the survey conducted of 118 respondents, 55 percent of consumers ages 18 to 26, use their cell phone while grocery shopping. Young adults are comfortable relying on their smartphones to give them shopping advice. An abundance of smartphone apps have become available to assist shoppers with everything from grocery lists to checking nutrition facts. But how trustworthy and accurate are these apps that give nutritional advice? According to its developer/marketer, Honest Label Foods, LLC, the "Honest Label Foods Scanner" lets users (including those on restricted or specialized diets) select ingredients they want to avoid, which are flagged by a warning system. It also lets the user customize calorie and other nutrient parameters based on their own needs, rather than the serving size used on the product label (daily values can be viewed in a simple bar chart format) (Lukovitz, App). The “Honest Label Foods Scanner” operates when the user scans the barcode of an item, the app (which works on both iOS and Android mobile devices) instantly generates an easy-to-read digital readout or "label" (Lukovitz, App). For retailers as well as manufacturers, it would be a wise investment to implement QR codes on packages as well as product displays. This is a method to implement customized nutritional advice to consumers. Scanning the QR codes with a smartphone can lead users to an interactive mobile-optimized webpage where they can input 90 information such as height, weight, sex, physical activity, body size, medical conditions and other information to create a more personal nutritional guide. This way information can be tailored to the each specific audience and encourage engagement among users. Nutritional recommendations can be made based on shopping habits and items scanned. Interconnectivity can be further utilized by including rich content such as recipes, reviews and video demonstrations. It should be noted that keeping this platform independent and free from misleading content, such as advertising, will aid consumer acceptance and trust. Incorporating objective third party rating systems such as NuVal generate consumer confidence in a new program. Organizations should still keep in mind useful strategies in implementing a QR code program such as employing formats that are easily read by any QR reading program; highlighting a call to action to encourage consumers to utilize their smartphone while shopping. The benefits of being proactive regarding consumer wants also assist in repairing the reputation of the processed foods industry. Doing so may open the door for many to see the benefits rather than the detractions of food processing. 91 Chapter Fifteen: Conclusion With conservative purchase behaviors expected to persist and inflation predicted to escalate, companies must invest in understanding what is driving and inhibiting key consumers. Because of new discoveries and changing science, people interpreted changes in information as big companies withholding the truth. Mistrust grew among the public and the industry earned a self-serving reputation. It did not help that study after study suggest that packaged foods labeled as “healthy” or “better for you” were found to have elements that countered those claims. We live in a fast paced world where people expect to get what they want at the drop of a hat; patience is no longer a common virtue. Many of today’s younger generations don’t know how to prepare a meal from scratch. Around half of the meals Americans consume are not at home. The connotation of processed foods is extremely negative. Through the reform and re-education, organizations must communicate best interest of consumers first and stay transparent. Consumers realize that living completely without the convenience of packaged foods is unrealistic. The ultimate goal of wisely fueling our bodies is to live long and to get into paramount shape. Theoretically, this idea makes sense—we aim to be perfect in every sense, but consider our mental health. It is impossible to solely eat the healthiest foods because as humans eating is a source of pleasure. We crave food that appeals to our senses. In the end is it more important to be in fit mental or physical health? 92 No one purposely feasts on food that makes him or her sick. But in a struggling economy, are people willing to pay premium prices for the organic label? Is allowing bad nutrition as bad or worse? The government can only dispense guidelines on how Americans should have a balanced intake of vitamins, minerals and nutrients. Hard fast rules are difficult to apply to a population so vast and diverse—various cultural, environmental and genetic factors make each individual require an alternate set of eating and dieting rules since each person has a different body image goal. Much of our food supply is processed, which is not necessarily a negative aspect. Various processing methods protect consumers from food borne illnesses and provide year-round supply of nutritious foods. The lack of understanding of the word “processed”—whether it is the pasteurization of milk, fortification of cereal or prewashing of fruits and vegetables. What the public should understand is that food with added nutrients does not replace fruits and vegetables that naturally contain vital vitamins and minerals. Processed foods were created to supplement fresh food in the name of convenience and Americans’ ever-busy lifestyles. It is not meant to replace food groups or be the sole source of nutrition in people’s diets. No one can force consumers to make wise eating decisions, the government and health professionals can only educate people on how to make wise choices. These efforts in educating consumers on the role of processed foods will help mold healthier eating habits now and to pass down to future generations. 93 The role of public relations, especially important in times of crisis and reputation skepticism, can act to ease communication efforts with key audiences, preventing worsening crisis situations. Recommendations and full disclosure of possible effects should be made known to consumers. That way each user can decide for him or herself whether or not to eat the item and whether or not the effects of the food are beneficial to their lifestyle. Each person may find a different need in the same packaged product. One user may consume an energy bar for the calories, another for the vitamins and minerals, and yet another in lieu of a meal. In order to regain lost trust, companies need to embrace transparency and emphasize the positive aspects of convenience foods. Remind consumers of the time and effort saved with such products. As well as be proactive on educating people on the steps taken to process a good. A campaign to educate is the best way to improve the reputation of the industry. It is the duty of communicators to publicize the facts, and since discoveries in science are always changing and fact is never certain, health claims must be cautiously made. 94 Bibliography “2009 New Product Pacesetters: Innovating Growth in Recessionary Times.” Publication. Chicago: Information Resources, 2010. Times & Trends. Symphony IRI Group, Mar. 2010. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. <http://www.symphonyiri.com/portals/0/articlePdfs/T_Tpercent20Marchpercent2 02010percent20NPP.pdf>. "A History of American Agriculture: Agricultural Trade & Development." Growing A Nation: The Story of American Agriculture. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/ag_trade.htm>. "About Us | Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution (US)." Web. 18 Dec. 2011. <http://www.jamieoliver.com/us/foundation/jamies-food-revolution/about>. "Additives." SustainableTable.org. Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/additives/>. Albinson, Tim. "UL Study Reveals Food Safety Is Top of Mind for Manufacturers and Consumers." 2Sustain.com. 2Sustain, 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://2sustain.com/2012/02/ul-study-reveals-food-safety-is-top-of-mind-for- manufacturers-and-consumers.html>. Andrews, Coleman. "America's 50 Most Powerful People in Food for 2012 | The Daily Meal." The Daily Meal, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 19 Jan. 2012. <http://www.thedailymeal.com/50-most-powerful-food-folk-america>. Arnold, Greg. "Natural Health Research Institute » Study Finds Processed Foods Affect Mental Health." NHRI | Natural Health Research Institute. Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/nhri/?p=2958>. Borris, Hayley, Hendrick Brunke,, and Marcia Kreith,. "Commodity Profile: Avocados." Agricultural Issues Center University of California, Davis, Feb. 2006. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://aic.ucdavis.edu/profiles/Avocados-2006.pdf>. Chaker, Anne Marie. "Bracing for the Fake Sugar Rush." The Wall Street Journal. 4 Jan. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB100014240529702034623045771385210 22594412- lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email>. "Childhood Overweight and Obesity." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/>. 95 Coventry, Martha. "Super-sizing America: Obesity Becomes An Epidemic."WhatsCookingAmerica.net. University of Minnesota, Winter 2004. Web. 19 Jan. 2012. <http://whatscookingamerica.net/HealthBeauty/SuperSizingAmerica.htm>. Dettman, Rachael L., and Carolyn Dimitri. "Organic Consumers: A Demographic Portrayal of Organic Vegetable Consumption within the United States." United States Department of Agriculture, Mar. 2007. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/7899/1/cp070030.pdf>. Dimitri, Carolyn, and Lydia Oberholtzer Oberholtzer. "Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers." United States Department of Agriculture, Sept. 2009. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib58/eib58.pdf>. "Eating More; Enjoying Less." Pew Research Center Publications. Pew Research Center, 19 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://pewresearch.org/pubs/309/eating-more- enjoying-less>. Ettlinger, Steve. Twinkie, Deconstructed: My Journey to Discover How the Ingredients Found in Processed Foods Are Grown, Mined (yes, Mined), and Manipulated into What America Eats. New York, NY: Hudson Street, 2007. Print. "Food and Drug Administration." Food and Drug Administration. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005. Web. 15 Dec. 2011. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Food_and_Drug_Administration.aspx>. "Evaluating Pesticides for Carcinogenic Potential." Pesticides: Health and Safety. US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/cancerfs.htm>. "Fiber One Bars." Fiber One Bars 90 Calorie Chocolate Caramel & Pretzel. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.fiberone.com/products/bars/90-calorie-chocolate-caramel- and-pretzel>. "Food Processing Market Research Reports: Food Processing Industry Analysis." Market Research. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.marketresearch.com/Food-Beverage- c84/Food-c167/Food-Processing-c492/>. "Food Processing & Packaging Machinery: Industry Assessment." Trade.gov. International Trade Administration, Feb. 2009. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://trade.gov/static/doc_Assess_FoodProcessingPkg_Equip.asp>. 96 "Frozen Foods during the 1950s and 60s." The Wessels Living History Farm, the Story of Agricultural Innovation. Web. 19 Jan. 2012. <http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_15.html>. Fuglie, Keith O., Paul W. Heisey, John L. King, Kelly Day-Rubenstein, David Schimmelpfennig, and Sun Ling Wang. "Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide: Executive Summary." USDA Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Dec. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib90/>. Gingerich, Jon. "The Politics behind America's Food Labeling System." ODwyerPR.com. O'Dwyer PR, Mar. 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. <http://www.odwyerpr.com/magazine/0301the-politics-behind-americas-food- labeling-system.htm>. Higgins, Kevin. "State of Food Manufacturing, The Quest for Continuous Improvement."Food Engineering. 2 Sept. 2006. Web. 13 Jan. 2012. <http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/state-of-food-manufacturing-br- the-quest-for-continuous-improvement>. "High Fructose Corn Syrup Myths." SweetSurprise.com. Corn Refiners' Association. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://www.sweetsurprise.com/myths-and-facts/top-hfcs- myths>. "History." U S Food and Drug Administration, 29 July 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/default.htm>. "History of Dieting: From 19th Century Low-carbs to Obesity Soap, Diet History Shows Yen for Fast Fix." Toledo Blade. 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://www.toledoblade.com/Culture/2011/01/31/History-of-dieting-From-19th- century-low-carbs-to-obesity-soap-diet-history-shows-yen-for-fast-fix.html>. "How It Works | NuVal." NuVal LLC. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nuval.com/How>. IFIC. 2010. Food & heath survey. International Food Information Council, Washington, D.C. Institute of Food Technologists. IS THERE A DEFINITION FOR NATURAL FOODS? Annual Meeting and Food Expo. Institute of Food Technologists, 30 June 2008. Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <http://www.am-fe.ift.org/cms/?pid=1000744>. 97 "Kashi : Our Food : TLC Crackers, Country Cheddar." Kashi. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.kashi.com/products/tlc_crackers_country_cheddar>. Katz, Barbara, and Lu Ann Williams. "Cleaning Up Processed Foods." Food Technology Magazine. Institute of Food Technologists, Dec. 2011, Vol 65, No 12. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. <www.ift.org/food-technology/past- issues/2011/december/features/cleaning-up-processed-foods.aspx>. "Lactose Intolerance by Ethnicity and Region - Milk - ProCon.org." ProCon.org. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. <http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=661>. Leake, Lisa. "About « 100 Days of Real Food." 100 Days of Real Food. Web. 23 Sept. 2011. <http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/about/>. Lukovitz, Karlene. "App Offers Alternative To Reading Food Labels 09/26/2011." MediaPost – News and Conferences for Media, Marketing and Online Advertising Professionals. Marketing Daily, 23 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/159229/>. Lukovitz, Karlene. "Food Industry Redubs FOP Labeling System 09/23/2011." MediaPost. Marketing Daily, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2012. <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/159114/>. Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J et al (2007). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies." Critical Reviews in Toxicology McClam, Erin. "Advanced Search | Seattle Times Newspaper." The Seattle Times. The Associated Press, 31 Oct. 2001. Web. 22 Jan. 2012. <http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20011031>. Myers, Rusty L.; Myers, Richard L. (2007). The 100 most important chemical compounds: a reference guide. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press Narayan, Susan. Nutrition: A Key to Good Health. Detroit: Gale Group/Thomson Learning, 2002. Print. Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2002. Print. Nutrients in Processed Foods. Acton, MA: Publishing Sciences Group, 1974. Print. "NuVal Nutritional Scoring System." PriceChopper.com. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www2.pricechopper.com/nuval/>. 98 "Odwalla, Inc. Company Profile - Yahoo! Finance." Industry Center - Odwalla. Yahoo! Finance. Web. 22 Jan. 2012. <http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/46/46046.html>. "Organic Labeling and Marketing Information." United States Department of Agriculture. Web. 7 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&a cct=nopgeninfo>. Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: an Eater's Manifesto. New York: Penguin, 2008. Print. Reistad-Long, Sara. "Fortified Foods: How Healthy Are They?" WSJ.com. Wall Street Journal. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124267976477131801.html>. Roberts, Paul. The End of Food. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print. Ronzio, Robert A. The Encyclopedia of Nutrition and Good Health. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2003. Print. Scott-Thomas, Caroline. "Simple Nutrition Information Could Be ‘powerful Marketing Tool’, Says Nielsen." FoodNavigator-USA.com. 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Market/Simple-nutrition-information- could-be-powerful-marketing-tool-says-Nielsen>. Sloan, A. Elizabeth. "Top 10 Food Trends." Food Technology Magazine. Institute of Food Technologists, Apr. 2011, Vol 65, No 4. Web. 08 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2011/april/features/food- trends.aspx?page=viewall>. Tanner, R. 2010a. Today’s specialty food consumer. Specialty Food Magazine 40(8): C2- C16. "Trends in Intake of Energy, Protein, Carbohydrate, Fat, and Saturated Fat— United States, 1971–2000." Media Relations. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6 Feb. 2004. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/media/mmwrnews/n040206.htm>. "What We Do." U S Food and Drug Administration. U.S Department of Health & Human Services. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/default.htm>. U.S. Department of Commerce Industry Report. Rep. International Trade Administration, June 2008. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://ita.doc.gov/td/ocg/outlook10_food.pdf>.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Nostalgia: more than just the flavor of the week: a critical look at the movement of nostalgic food from "trend" to "mainstream"

PDF

Effective Messaging in the LASIK Industry

PDF

The missing link: the role of organizational culture in technology change management communication

PDF

The food truck phenomenon: A successful blend of PR and social media

PDF

The food trends that will never go out of style: a modern take on how food and hospitality are shaping society

PDF

Selling the world: an exploration of the past, present and future of destination marketing

PDF

Wake up PR practitioners, the Lovemark is here to stay: an analysis of the Lovemark theory with a discussion of the future of brands

PDF

Reinventing the wrapper, not the Whopper: the ""greenwashing"" PR behind fast food chains' niche healthy menus

PDF

Crisis communication for tourism destinations in the new media environment

PDF

Whole foods market -- a communication plan to engage the German market

PDF

Digital discourse in the fashion industry

PDF

A new power: how celebrities can use social media to influence social movements

PDF

Case study on Chinese heavy industry companies' community relations in U.S.: a comparison between corporate effort and media representation

PDF

Public engagement, media relations and the future of the PR industry

PDF

Babies without borders: exploring perceptions of international adoption

PDF

A critical look at organic farming and positioning of organic products in the American market

PDF

An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

PDF

Branding luxury: finding a balance between exclusivity and the inclusivity of a digital world

PDF

The impact of social media on the diabetes industry

PDF

The evolution of sustainability: a public relations and business argument

Asset Metadata

Creator Wan, Samantha (author)

Core Title Evolution in the processed foods industry: exploring the impact of the health foods movement

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 04/23/2012

Defense Date 04/02/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag natural,OAI-PMH Harvest,organic,packaged foods,processed foods

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Floto, Jennifer D. (committee chair), Lynch, Brenda (committee member), Thorson , Kjerstin (committee member)

Creator Email samantkw@usc.edu,swan1122@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-8789

Unique identifier UC11289532

Identifier usctheses-c3-8789 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WanSamanth-627-0.pdf

Dmrecord 8789

Document Type Thesis

Rights Wan, Samantha

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA