The Hot Pot

Food Ingredients: Poison or Panacea?

Editor In Chief — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:07:00 GMT

I’m always struck by the irony inherent in studies that challenge our collective wisdom on foods or ingredients that are considered “bad.” Today’s example: nitrates and nitrites. A couple of recent articles in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,“Nitrate in foods: harmful or healthy?” and “Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential health benefits,” swam against the current of popular opinion by suggesting dietary nitrates and nitrates, might actually be beneficial. There’s one or two others in recent memory that concur that these “evil additives” might do a body good.

I’ve always been in agreement with this blogger, who quite thoroughly backs up the position that, as food additives, nitrates/nitrites do more good that harm. And in addition to the studies mentioned, there’s also this little factoid that the arugula-eaters of the world might want to consider: According to the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the EFSA by the European Commission’s report on “Nitrates in Vegetables” in the June issue of EFSA Journal most vegetables contained from 1 to 4,800 ppm, with arugula topping the list at 4,677 ppm. Nitrates in those unspeakable processed meats like hot dogs and lunch meat are limited to 156 ppm sodium nitrite per USDA, and the consumption level is probably much lower due reactions that take place during processing and storage.

Rather than demonizing dawgs or the killer ingredient du jour, it seems we might just focus on ways to adjust the American consciousness to remember dietary moderation never killed anyone yet. And to those who eat too much arugula…you might want to slow down and relax--it’s summertime after all--and eat a hot dog every once in a while.

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Consumers Don't Care About Taste

Editor In Chief — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:56:00 GMT

That’s the conclusion of new market research from marketing firm Ipsos. The company reports that far more consumers are interested in fresh ingredients and environmentally friendly packaging than improving the taste of food. (The data say 26% of North American consumers want food companies to concentrate most on “providing fresh ingredients” and 21% want them to focus on “making the packaging more environmentally friendly,” vs. the 14% that think “improving the taste” is important. However, 24% think food companies need to concentrate on providing additional health benefits.)

(Insert sarcastic tone here.) Excellent. Our job is done. Time to fire all the industry chefs, and to increase production and distribution of Brussels sprouts and tofu in biodegradable containers. There’s plenty of fresh ingredients in the most grocery stores and apparently interest in quick, easy-to-prepare food is weak (6%). I suppose, when you’re unemployed you can afford to cook from scratch like my 50s-60s stay-at-home mom.

Far be it from me to argue, but why does the saying, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics,” keep popping into my head?

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Counting Calories by the Hundreds

Editor In Chief — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:12:00 GMT

Mintel is reporting that the numbers for the once-popular 100-calorie snack packs are tanking along with the economy. That’s not a big shock to someone who still stuffs nibbles into plastic bags for the kids’ lunches or snacktime. (Let’s see: a buck for 50 bags, 10 or 15 servings per $2 bag, vs. 8 servings prepackaged for $4…hmmm.)

I’m not sure how many of the 190 products introduced last year and 68 and counting this year, were “new” from a product development standpoint, ala Nabisco’s Oreo Crisps. But companies that merely miniaturized or even portioned out 100 calories worth of standard products aren’t offering much other than 60 seconds or so or convenience for the up charge. That tradeoff doesn’t make economic sense for many this year and the market numbers reflect that: According to a story in Adweek, dollar sales of the 100-calorie Oreo Thin Crisps, fell 30.5% $16.7 million. And that’s a product only available in the calorie-counting packaging category.

In addition to the economics, Adweek points out other factors such as taste (Big surprise: Diet food doesn’t taste as good as gooey, sugary, fatty regular food!) and that chronic overeaters would devour more calories by eating multiple packages.

Good try, though, food industry. But if the 100-calorie packs go the way of McDonalds short-lived reduced-fat McLean Deluxe, are we still going to hear that companies aren’t doing anything to address the obesity problem?

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Learning About Labels

Editor In Chief — Thu, 21 May 2009 08:01:00 GMT

A popular t-shirt slogan claims: “Labels are for cans, not people.” I’m beginning to have my doubts about that can part. It doesn’t look like people are getting this whole food-labeling thing.
The current U.S. label scheme has been in effect nearly 20 years—the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), implemented standards for nutrition labeling for most foods, except meat and poultry, as well as nutrient content claims couched not just in absolute measurements, but in percent Daily Value (which replaced the 70s-era Recommended Dietary Allowances, or RDAs), and an array of FDA-approved health claims. In addition, all foods with more than one ingredient must have an ingredient declaration with the ingredients listed in descending order.
I’ll admit I have a college education, so I might have an advantage. But when we received the following question (by a consumer, and one under the age of 12, I hope): “Do Oreos have animal or pig fat?” I had to shake my head. I mean, what does the label say? But then I started looking at some surveys on labeling for a project I’m working on, and the sad fact is many people don’t understand food labels.
A paper on this topic published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2006 concluded: “Overall, consumers have mixed views on food labeling. Some find it useful for making better food choices, whereas others believe it is too complicated and should be easier to use. Although it is important for nutrition scientists to debate the best Dietary Reference Intake values to use in establishing the Daily Values for food labels, we need to be realistic about consumers’ understanding and use of the food label and of this data.”
I’m a firm believer in informed consent and consumption. But when people can’t understand the basic nutrition concepts on a label something is just not right. And I don’t think it’s the label. I think it’s the label readers.
We can start by introducing some basic effective nutrition information into the education system. I know the topic is occasionally covered, but apparently it is not actually effective. (Plus I’ve corrected some misconceptions my own kids have brought home, so it’s not always accurate, either.) On the other hand, we shouldn’t dumb it where it’s basically ineffective—the recent EU suggestion of red-yellow-green traffic-light symbols likely qualifies; at the minimum that goes back to the concept of demonization of foods.
Still, anyone who thinks understanding will automatically lead to a nation of nutrition evangelicals should remember famous another slogan: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” The same applies to green leafy vegetables.

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Bringing Back Foodservice Bites

Editor In Chief — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:45:00 GMT

The recession is taking a bite out of the foodservice industry with consumers shifting their dollars to eating at home―or at least shifting to cheaper items and skipping the extras. Chef Charlie Baggs of Charlie Baggs Inc. offers some advice on how to build the business back up.

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Casual dining vs. eating at home clash

What will get the consumer back in the restaurants spending like before? Create a value, provide convenience, good service and quality food are just the start.

The solution is right in front of our eyes: Authentic recipes with quality ingredients that are not easy to produce at home.

Customers are attempting to cook at home with a perception that it is cheaper and the quality can be elevated above restaurant quality. The current consumer is better informed that ever before. They learn from the Food Network about cooking techniques and authentic flavor combinations. Today’s market has created a new platform of customer that can shop for ingredients, cook the meal and clean up as they go. Serving in the home provides a value that the restaurant cannot compete with. A home-cooked meal fills the air with aroma, keeps the family in one place creating the bond and reduces the travel time and cost of fuel.

The problem is the consumers don’t know how to cook. So they are using piece-meal concepts or manufactured grocery products to create their own meals. While the consumer may not be able to perform basic cooking techniques they will try and learn from their mistakes.

These advantages are quite a hurdle to rise above. What is the problem?

We need to change the message that restaurant quality “rules” and is not easy to cook at home. A benefit relevant to consumers is the convenience of going out to eat. Time is money. It’s easier to clean up and takes less time to shop and get organized to cook at home.

Another approach: Product developers for foodservice have to start developing products that are better than the home-cooked meal. Keeping an eye on the grocery stores and the value-added products offered to consumers is critical to nailing the target market. Technology with prepared meals in the grocery is continuing to compete with restaurant quality.

The consumer is cooking more at home to save money and increase the perceived value. However, many are relying on manufactured products to reheat and create the home-cooked meal. It still makes it seem like they are taking care of their families. But, in fact the same manufactures are producing products for the grocery and the restaurants. Is there really a difference?

Another factor is innovation or originality. The new volcanic taco by Taco Bell is marketed to be intriguing and flavorful. It’s not something you will make at home, but may want to try out of curiosity. In addition, independent restaurants often do a better job of maintaining product integrity. They focus on a specialty product that provides quality and value and provide a neighborhood experience. This you cannot find at home. Specialized concepts with a limited menu offering that focuses on quality and value that cannot be competed with at home may be the answer.

What will bring the consumer back to the restaurant? Creating a new customer base with repeat business is critical for sustained growth and life of a restaurant concept.

-Charlie Baggs

Mining the Fat of the Land

Editor In Chief — Thu, 14 May 2009 08:02:00 GMT

Hank Cardello, a food industry marketing pro had an epiphany after a serious illness that led him to write a new industry manifesto called "Stuffed: An Insider's Look at Who's (Really) Making America Fat," where he proposes the food industry has the tools to fix the country's poor nutritional habits. He outlines several intriguing solutions and has graciously agreed to share some of his thoughts with the Hot Pot. As he puts it, "not because it (the food industry) is to blame, but because others can't fix it." Me, I'm halfway through the book and looking forward to continuing the conversation with Hank. Keep reading, and please chime in.

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Why the Food Industry Must Solve the Obesity Crisis

The food industry finds itself in a unique position to drive solutions to America's overweight and obesity crisis. The old model of "sell as much of anything we can" is giving way to "it's time to take better care of our customer's health." But is it up to the food industry to lead the charge on slimming down the American consumer?

Today, two-thirds of adult Americans are overweight or obese, conditions that could ultimately lead to diabetes, stroke and heart disease. And the prognosis is not much better for our children, whom some in the medical profession believe will not live as long as their parents. A recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics reinforced this dire conclusion by reporting that almost 1 in 5, or approximately 500,000, 4-year-olds is obese. While Rome burns, are there any real solutions to this scourge?

What has been overlooked is the basic fact that there is an overabundance of calories supplied by the food industry. Since the 1950s, the number of daily calories available per person has increased by 29% from 3,100 to 3,900 calories, a jump of 800 calories more per day. Recognizing that we as consumers are increasingly inactive physically, is it any wonder that our weight and physiques continue to top out?

The food industry can - and must - step up to solve this widespread dilemma, not because it is to blame, but because others can't fix it.

Certainly, it is not the policymakers. The government track record pertaining to initiatives designed to improve consumer health and nutrition has been woefully ineffective. Since nutritional labeling on packaged goods was introduced in the early 1990s, the rate of obesity has more than doubled from 14% to over 30% of the adult population. The same holds for the Food Pyramid Guidelines. Intended to help consumers better understand nutrition and daily serving sizes, this tool has only perpetuated consumer confusion regarding what to eat and how much. And recent proposals such as taxing candy and soft drinks in a recessionary climate merely serve to enrich state coffers while depriving those least able to afford it of their favorite products.

What about consumers? Shouldn't they be responsible for their health and well-being? Certainly. But history has shown that attempts to stick with diets and exercise regiments are futile. Our Culture of Convenience demands food that is quick to heat-and-eat. More importantly, we cannot depend on ourselves to say No! to great tasting food at a great price.

That leaves the food industry to carry the ball. But what motivation does industry have to take leadership in solving this massive health time bomb? I can think of several reasons:

1. Do it to take better care of your customers. A healthier customer will continue to buy your products longer than one who succumbs to obesity-related diabetes, stroke and heart disease. It is time to retire the "more is better" model of food supply.

2. Do it to stay ahead of excessive government regulation. Proposed taxes on "sin" foods are just the beginning. A concerted effort to improve product health profiles and lower calorie contents will go a long way to diffusing a potential tsunami of punitive food regulations.

3. Do it for competitive advantage. Most companies today are simply incrementalizing their products to be (slightly) better. Innovative healthier products are a true signal to try a new product and communicate that the brand is in tune with being socially responsible.

4. Do it to improve your profits. The old mindset that healthier products cost more and diminish profit margins is obsolete. Examples are emerging of better-for-you products that augment margins and better serve their customer's well being.

Clearly, food companies have the resources, know- how to develop tasty products for every palate, and understand consumer needs. However, this prowess has yet to be fully unleashed on America's high calorie consumption habits. It is not enough to simply squeeze out a few calories, fat grams or granules of salt. This sleepwalking approach only reflects a retrofitting of outdated product portfolios and patching them up to live another day. Most old icon brands were not designed for today's lifestyle and dietary needs. It is time to start from scratch.

Companies must approach food product design from the ground up to meet the NEW healthy criteria that the consumer is now demanding. The Millennial generation, the largest consumers of beverages, snacks and fast foods, are more acutely aware of the impact food has on their health. They also respect and support corporations that act in a socially conscious manner. By continuing to throw "your father's Oldsmobile" products at them, food companies are on a path to lose their most important customers of the future.

Next Month: "Designing Foods for Health, Profits and Competitive Advantage"

-Hank Cardello

Hank Cardello is the CEO of 27ºNorth, an advisory firm that identifies profit and market opportunities tied to healthier eating, and the author of "Stuffed: An Insider's Look at Who's (Really) Making America Fat." He has served as an executive with Coca-Cola, General Mills and Cadbury-Schweppes, and today acts as Chairman of the Global Obesity Business Forum sponsored by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Eating Spam a Lot?

Editor In Chief — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:03:44 GMT

Spam and canned Dinty Moore stew are hot sellers in the sputtering economy according to a recent article in the Washington Post. The Post attributes this to the rise of value shoppers and quotes John Greening, an advertising industry veteran and associate professor at NorthwesternUniversity as saying “People are willing to settle for value-oriented products. It doesn't have to be the best; it just has to be the best for the value of the money.”

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, but I’m wondering—with apologies to the good folks at Hormel and the citizens of Hawaii—if that’s exactly why Spam sales have gone up. There’s another concurrent trend, that might heat up the canned-meat industry, stockpiling. Apparently some folks are hunkering down for the next big cataclysm, economic or otherwise. What better to store in your bunker than a year’s supply of canned meat? Heck, I even keep a few cans of meat-like products around for some undefined, nebulous emergency. We even occasionally eat the stuff—my husband cooked up some spicy hash brown and Spam concoction that was a big hit on a recent camping trip—but mostly I recycle them periodically by donating unexpired can to the latest neighborhood food drive.

Not that that’s a bad thing; after all, sales are sales. But can you imagine the ads based on this premise, starring a grizzled camo-clad, arms-totin’ survivalist with a pyramid of Spam cans in the background? (Note to Hormel’s ad agency: There will be no charge for that idea.)

–Lynn A. Kuntz

Food Science World According to Tharp

Editor In Chief — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:32:48 GMT

Food science is a funny thing. On one level, it can be a kind of common sense, practical, user-friendly discipline. After all it’s only food, and everyone that masters elementary cooking practices “kitchen chemistry.” However, the underlying scientific principles can be quite complex.

Last week I ran across a past article from Main Line Today spotlighting Bruce Tharp, ice cream expert extraordinaire—and one of those people science nerds like me love to converse with. In it, he explained to the lay audience the complexity of just one food product, ice cream: “You tell people you’re teaching for three days about ice cream,” he says, “and they say, ‘Three days? What takes three days about it?’ Well, ice cream is one of the most complicated creations—foods—in the history of mankind. Milk is a complicated biological fluid. There are thousands of compounds—what they are, how they behave and how they maintain their properties when you add flavorings. Then you freeze it, which adds complications.”

That holds true for many different foods with their diverse chemistry. I felt the same way when I was in the baking industry—and often wished I had nothing more complex than a sugar-sweetened powdered drink mix to formulate. Baking’s challenges include physical and chemical interactions during mixing (Have we pinpointed exactly how gluten works yet?), fermenting and/or leavening in some cases, handling, baking, cooling and shelf life. Some of the ingredients subject to the vagaries of Mother Nature and Father Chemistry vary in composition from lot to lot. And the expectation is that, not only can you get everything to work together in the first place, you can reproduce the results every single time.

Hats off to Dr. Tharp for the reminder of the complexity of our technical world and deftly combining the practical and the scientific in the world of ice cream. And hats off to Main Line Today for affording the general public a reality-based glimpse of our world.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Pathogen Crackdown Probable (Peppers and Peanuts and Pistachios—Oh My!)

Editor In Chief — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:21:33 GMT

A recent 10-state report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report says progress in foodborne illness prevention has reached a plateau and that Salmonella continues to show least improvement over the past three years. The report says foodborne pathogens—Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Listeria, Escherichia coli O157, Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia—did not change significantly during this time frame, vs. significant declines in the incidence of some foodborne infections before 2004.

“This year’s report confirms a very important concern, especially with two high-profile Salmonella outbreaks in the last year,’’ said Robert Tauxe, M.D., M.P.H, deputy director of CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, referring to last summer’s Mexican produce contamination and last winter’s peanut debacle. “We recognize that we have reached a plateau in the prevention of foodborne disease and there must be new efforts to develop and evaluate food safety practices from the farm to the table. The foodborne division at CDC is planning to increase the capacity of several health departments so that outbreaks can be better detected and investigated.”

Add that together with the lightening-quick response over the latest Salmonella scare in pistachios, and you can expect some changes in how the government deals with food safety.

While there’s talk of upping FDA inspections, going from 0% to 0.00001%, or whatever is practical, is probably not going to make a big dent in the foodborne-illness numbers. However, the threat of more enforcement and the specter of costly recalls that damage not just the bottom line, but the reputation of entire segments of the industry, just might.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

More Food as Art

Editor In Chief — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:10:31 GMT

Again, I’m going to take a little side trip away from processed food and celebrate the season and my slice of Slavic heritage with a few more-traditional “food as art” examples.

In a number of Eastern European countries, around Easter, hard-boiled eggs were traditionally colored with natural plant dyes: onion skins for an orangy brown color and beets for a dark red, for example. Intricate designs were scratched into them after dyeing or were painted on with melted wax before soaking in dye. I’ve tried it, but my pathetic attempts didn’t quite match up to these example of Lithuanian Easter eggs, Polish Easter eggs, Croatian Easter eggs, Ukrainian Easter eggs (Pysanky), and still more and more Pysanky. Plus, here’s an interesting artistic variation from Slovenia.

Wesołych świąt! Next week, back to more-prosaic topics...

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Weird Science

Editor In Chief — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:07:10 GMT

It seems fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the Alar apple scare, that we look at several current instances of purported killer foods question their merit.

For those of you too young to remember, as my favorite group of skeptics, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) put it in a recent press release commemorating the event and its release of a new publication, “The Great Apple Scare: Alar 20 Years Later”: “a combination of environmentalists, public interest lawyers, publicists, and members of the news media foisted a bogus health scare on the American public—the fear that apples being sprayed with Alar were exposing children to a cancer-causing chemical.” Memories of Meryl Streep wringing her hands over the tragic consequences of what apparently would be the result of consuming approximately 5,000 gallons of apple juice per day still moves me—to laughter. However, the apple growers who lost an estimated $100 million probably don’t see the humor.

Which leads me to scratch my head about two research items reported on in early March: The study relating beta-carotene consumption in cigarette smokers to cancer appears to be flawed, and acrylamide might cause heart disease—if it’s eaten in the form of 160 grams of potato chips a day.

In the former, a German scientist claims research widely publicized that concluded smokers who supplemented their diets with beta-carotene and other carotenoids had a greater chance of lung cancer was based on “invalid methodology, questionable statistical evaluations, and speculative explanations” as one news report said.

The “chemical” acrylamide forms naturally when heating foods that contain asparagine and reducing sugars. Animal studies have linked acrylamide and cancer, but most epidemiological studies have not. (One study does indicate a potential association between reproductive cancers in postmenopausal women.) The new study observed increases in acrylamide-hemoglobin adducts (acrylamide biomarkers) in all the study subjects, as well as increases in compounds with strong links to inflammation, a condition linked to heart disease. Without the actual study at hand, that sounds like there could be missing links—most notably anything else consumed in the daily 5 ½ servings of chips.

Crying “bad science” is often used to disparage opposing theories. And thoroughly vetting any science is often an onerous task, not for the fainthearted—or the scientifically uneducated. So while the industry could be directing its efforts toward clear and present dangers, like Salmonella-tainted food, hypotheses make headlines and influence policy without proof. I’m no expert, but that just sounds weird to me.

Originally published in the April 2009 issue of Food Product Design magazine.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Food as Art

Editor In Chief — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:12:05 GMT

With reports surfacing that food purchases are lagging in a number of areas, it might behoove us to find alternate uses for our foods. Or, as Monty Python would say: “And now for something completely different.”

Since many chefs consider food an art, why not real art? Does anyone remember the calendars sent out by the company formerly known as Warner Jenkinson with landscapes featuring ice cream Alps and actual waves of grain? Well, here are similar scenes by photographer Carl Warner. Or, if you’re a carnivore, Meatscapes by Nicolas Lampert. Or perhaps, you’re into more traditional work, like Picasso by way of peas by Ju Duoqi, or the Mona Lasagna by Prudence Emma Staite?

Have fun, and a safe and sane April Fools’ Day.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Selling Affordable Luxuries

Editor In Chief — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:13:14 GMT

The struggling economy has left us all thinking, “How do we not just keep afloat, but succeed in this difficult business climate?” So companies need to puzzle out which products are going to appeal to cash-strapped consumers.

While McDonalds has succeeded with cheap eats, concentrating on the value proposition, other companies propose looking at more hedonistic approaches. When asked “How is the global recession affecting your customers?” in an interview for the 2009 World Retail Congress Vittorio Radice, chief executive of major Italian retail chain La Rinascente says that although they are reluctant to spend for high ticket items, they are willing to spend on lower ticket luxury. That’s why market research firm The Nielsen Co. calls the candy business “recession-proof.” Many consumers are willing to invest in a dollar or two of chocolately Nirvana, vs., say, a case of $250-a-bottle Cristal. A treat is good, excess, not so much.

While that’s good news for the confectionary business, it could be tough to translate into other segments. After all, there’s a chemical explanation for the feel-good effects of chocolate, and some of the candy craving is linked to the security of nostalgia. There may be other approaches. Perhaps, for example, marketers of a high-end mustard might convince the formerly flush populace that, if you must eat hamburger every night, a dab of their elixir might make it all bearable. The trick is to figure out where to convince folks that a little money can buy happiness.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Warning on Salt…or the Salt Warning?

Editor In Chief — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:42:29 GMT

The CDC is cautioning the American public that nearly 70% consume too much sodium and should drop consumption levels down to1,500 mg of sodium per day. Why? Because national data shows 69.2% of the adult population are people with high blood pressure, blacks, or middle-aged (more than 40 years old) and older adults. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that adults generally should consume less than 2,300 mg of sodium per day. The CDC estimates average U.S. intake of sodium is close to 3,500 mg per day.

What the CDC is basically saying is that everyone in these groups is a salt-sensitive hypertensive. Except, as I understand it, that’s not really true. (Warning: I’m neither a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. However, I highly suspect I am a salt-sensitive hypertensive.) According to research (Hypertension. 1996;27:481-490.), salt sensitivity was found in 51% of the hypertensive population (73% of African-American hypertensive patients) and 26% of those individuals with normal blood pressure. Without knowing the prevalence of U.S. hypertension, I can say with some confidence that those figures mean that the 70% figure is probably way high. If you’re a 50-year-old, overweight African-American hypertensive with a genetic predisposition to sodium-affected blood pressure, chances are good they have your number. However, according to Darwin R. Labarthe, M.D., Ph.D., director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, “Reducing sodium intake can prevent or delay increases in blood pressure for everyone.’’

I get it. People eat too many salty fries, ham sandwiches, ramen noodles, pickles and pretzels. Salt is unhealthy for some of us. My bad. Still, I hate to see “authorities” throwing around artificially high numbers just to scare people.

Meanwhile, the industry is working hard to come up with ingredients and formulations that lower sodium and still taste good, since the majority of sodium is reported to come from processed foods and foodservice. But people still crave salt—including the people who shouldn’t have it—and it’s an easy fix for flavor-challenged food, whether processed or not. While common-sense public-health strategies make sense, inflating the dangers is likely to create unwarranted effects. So, will salt shakers go the way of the ashtray? Will we be reduced to sneaking those little packets out of our purses to surreptitiously sprinkle salt on our foods when no one is looking?

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Fruit That Goes Crunch

Editor In Chief — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:20:29 GMT

A number of small companies have started to open up a new healthy snack food category over the last couple of years: freeze-dried fruit crisps. It has crept in under my personal shopping and professional radar, although I’m not sure why. It’s a great, tasty idea that certainly addresses today’s nutritional needs--and one that gives us crunch junkies a healthy fix.

I had noticed and bought a package of Sensible Foods, LLC, “Cherry Berry” in the fruit section of my local grocery a couple of months back and subsequently received a press release and samples from another company, Crispy Green, Inc. that was debuting a new Crispy Bananas product. (And I notice Gerber has a product geared for toddlers.) All I have to say is that my ten-year-old daughter passed on the candy, and we are now warring over who gets the last package of freeze-dried bananas—her or mom. Being in short supply in Illinois, I see no need to inform the others in my family of their existence. I’ve discovered there’s also freeze-dried sweet corn, freeze-dried edamame and—on my personal must “find” list—freeze-dried potato crisps.

Look at research that says 86% of moms report that nutrition is the No. 1 factor when purchasing food for their children. I’m a bit surprised these products haven’t hit the big time, especially in vending machines with their notorious dependence on nutritionally challenged snacks. Freeze-drying and barrier packaging doesn’t come cheap, so they are a bit pricey considering the current economic climate. But the nutritional benefits are undisputable, and anything that wows both the candy-loving 10-year old and her potato-chip addicted mom has got to be a winner.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Dream Jobs

Editor In Chief — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:59:51 GMT

In these days of right-sizing, hiring freezes and salary adjustments, sometimes we can’t help but dream a little about career what ifs. And more than a few of us are still puzzling over what we want to be when we grow up. Some interesting observations were sent on that very topic by our friend Keena D. Lykins, a public relations senior account supervisor at Rhea + Kaiser Marketing Communications. (Although working in public relations for nearly 10 years, she mentioned her first job was serving breakfast to early birds at Aunt Mary’s diner in Brookville, OH, and claims that she can still carry a full cup of coffee without spilling a drop.)

—Lynn A. Kuntz

An interesting conversion arose at work this week: the dream job vs. the dream job phenomenon.

We discussed how our dream jobs and our escapist jobs are often opposite ends of the same spectrum. For example, for me, my “dream” job would be to oversee communications for a global food company. I’ve managed a client’s global consumer media relations program before and found it to be challenging, exhilarating and exhausting. And downright fun. The dream job would enable me to meet lots of new people, keep a pulse on global trends and still be a foodie.

On the other hand, after one of “those” days (you know the type, nothing goes right, it all goes south at the same time and at 10 p.m. you still have a dozen emails waiting responses), my escapist job is to wait tables in a diner in a small Southern town on the coast or in the Keys.

Slinging hash or pulling beers in a tourist trap would let me meet lots of new people, keep a pulse on global events (especially in the Keys) and still be a foodie (diner food tends to be really, really good or really, really not).

I know I’m not alone in this. A former newspaper editor of mine used to say she was going to restock shelves overnight at Kroger. Meanwhile, my current boss has been known to wax poetic about life as a Wal-Mart greeter.

Not surprisingly, my newspaper editor was extremely organized, planned everything to the last detail and could find story notes on anything in less than a minute. She would’ve been a great shelf stocker. And my current boss is probably the friendliest, most outgoing person I know. He’d make an excellent greeter.

Because the three of us are former reporters and editors, I’m not sure if this link between dream jobs and escapist jobs is another trait that writers share or if it’s fairly common experience.

Does Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, dream of running a small, used bookstore in upstate New York?

After a long day, does Michael Tattersfield, president and CEO of Caribou Coffee (which gave away free decaf coffee Jan. 30 in response to the Starbucks cost-cutting decision to not brew decaf in the afternoons), dream of switching lives with Juan Valdez?

What about you...is your dream job vs. your escapist job opposite ends of the same spectrum or are they not even in the same realm?

—Keena D. Lykins

The Quality Imperative

Editor In Chief — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:33:02 GMT

You don’t really hear much about W. Edwards Deming anymore. Sure, he shuffled off this mortal coil some 15 years ago, but the American auto industry has yet to recover from his enormous positive impact on its Japanese competitors. You do remember Deming, the man whose philosophy was that business success centered on quality?

Two concurrent incidents got me thinking about him today: the start of our efforts here at Food Product Design to put together April’s supplement on “Controlling Costs, Maintaining Quality,” and Peanut Corporation of America’s Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter debacle. (Which, if what I’m reading is true, might be called “Controlling Costs, Destroying Businesses and Lives.”)

As for the former, the concept is that people are now trending toward spending their shrinking dollars more wisely—they may be questioning the value of a $4 cup of coffee, but aren’t up for a cup of Postum or a toasted acorn brew. Conventional wisdom says that, while consumers are searching for bargains, they’re not looking for soup made with old boots. So, our objective is to search for options that will save manufacturers money without compromising quality. Deming had a few thoughts on that topic, by the way, and I don’t think any of them included selling substandard or worse product. Examples to follow.

I don’t profess to be a Deming expert—far from it—but the man must be spinning in his grave fast enough to supply power to the Eastern Seaboard if he’s tuned into the celestial newscasts about the peanut company in question.

While PCA’s owner and plant manager pleaded the fifth at the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the Salmonella outbreak, the panel released e-mails that indicated the owner was just concerned about the cost and delays, rather than the contamination problem itself, which appears to be have been ongoing for several years. (“We need to discuss this. The time lapse, beside the cost is costing us huge $$$$$ and causing obviously a huge lapse in time from the time we pick up peanuts until the time we can invoice.”) The FDA inspection report reads like a food industry “don’t” list.

Which brings us back to Deming. Among his writings, he left some advice for business success in the form of his famous “14 Points for Management.” Several key points (Nos. 3 through 5 on the list), which would apply to peanuts as well as widgets, include:

Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.
End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

Skeptical? I know it’s not really the theory du jour these days, but ask Toyota how that all worked out for them.

-Lynn A. Kuntz

(from the March print issue of Food Product Design)

Another Peanut Butter Victim

Editor In Chief — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:00:12 GMT

The PCA peanut butter Salmonella-contamination debacle might claim another victim: third-party auditing. Last week while watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, I heard the words “muckraking” and “food” in the same sentence, and a mention of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” It was a reference to the New York Times article “Food Problems Elude Private Inspectors,” and the paper (as well as Maddow) implied something underhanded is going on: “auditors are also usually paid by the food plants they inspect, which some experts said could deter them from cracking down...” That strikes me as quite unfair.

While dishonesty surely exists in the world (which I understand also is occasionally practiced by government employees at various levels), no one I know ever considered an AIB audit a piece of cake.

Now, let’s say hypothetically, you’re in charge of plant QA. No matter whether your plant is squeaky clean or not so much, you’re not going to let your plant flunk this audit. Picture cleaning the house before the in-laws come to visit—you’re not leaving the dirty dishes in the sink, whether it’s a single teaspoon or all of last night’s dishes. And, as one of the supporting documents for the Times story said: “An audit is more likely to uncover bad practices. If someone does an illegal act, they are more likely to hide it, making detection in an audit much less likely.” And this was from a company in the business of third party audits.

The bottom line is, if you can’t trust your suppliers, complete dependence on a third-party audit is not going to ensure they follow the straight and narrow.

—Lynn A. Kuntz

Putting the “Oh Yeah” Back in Organics

Editor In Chief — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:52:06 GMT

Along with automobiles and Starbucks coffee, the organic industry is taking a hit from the sputtering economy. To drum up support, The Organic Institute recently launched its "Organic. It's Worth It" campaign targeted to families with young children at home, particularly new mothers, as the Organic Trade Association considers them the “primary gateway” to buying organic.

The internet-based marketing campaign is said to accommodate “a variety of topics of concern to families who might be open to choosing organic. Among these are organic’s connections to healthy kids, nutritious meals, food people trust, clean water and a healthy future.”

As a consumer, I’ve not considered organic a top purchase priority. If it’s cost-competitive with conventional products, I’m all for it as a value-added; sometimes it's worth a few extra pennies here and there. But even with the recent news that organic farming delivers healthier food, (...but exactly how much healthier?) I’m not entirely convinced that, for me, it’s enough of a bonus to pay historical organic prices in the current economy. If the product offers a quality or other advantage, I'm in. I buy organic, aseptic milk for packed lunches, but the aseptic package is driving my purchase, not the organic. If I see an organic frozen meal I crave, I'll buy it—unless the same exact conventional product is beckoning me with lower prices on the next shelf.

Maybe because I'm am "old" vs. new mom, but some of The Organic Institute’s propositions just aren’t resonating with me. Frankly, I don’t “trust” my food. If it was up to the food, I’m assuming those screaming vegetables brutally torn from the leafy arms of the mother plants would prefer to kill rather than be killed. Mostly, I trust that various people and companies—organic as well as nonorganic—who supply food do their darnedest to try not to poison their customers—with one or two recent, glaring exceptions. And I’ve yet to hear of a pathogen that decided it wasn’t going to infest a food merely because it was organic.

Maybe I'm just not the target, but I think the Organic Institute needs a more convincing argument backed by hard data. The organic industry may be taking a page out of Apple Computer's "get 'em hooked while they're young" strategy, but Apple hasn't taken over the computer market, and the most-cited reason is price. On the other hand, Apple has its die-hard proponents, as does organic. But I think the long-term goal is to grow share, not just mantain it. To do that, they need to convince the skeptics who don't see the value proposition. As for health and safety, I see logical arguments on both sides, but no volume of definitive data that pushes us to the side of the fence where the grass really is greener.

I think that organic is a great idea—clean living, clean earth, and all those really splendid effects. I’m all for it, especiallyin terms of the youngest consumers, and I hope the organic industry can thrive as a mainstream mainstay and not a luxury. As my vet once told me about canine supplements: It won’t hurt, and it might actually help.

-Lynn A. Kuntz

Beverages Take a Sugar Rush Away From HFCS

Editor In Chief — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:52:43 GMT

Reports of certain segments of the beverage industry’s return to sugar are surfacing this month. Today I saw that Snapple, Pepsi and Mountain Dew have plans to use sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup in their products: Snapple as part of the relaunch of the flagging brand and new all-natural label, and Pepsi and Mountain Dew sodas for a limited time starting in April.

Apparently the marketers decided to cater to consumers who buy into “Big Corn” conspiracies and killer ingredient of the month fears. (Read some of the comments on blogs like this one about Snapple, if you want a sampling of current consumer thinking.)

Part of Snapple’s schtick, is that the sugar version contains 40 less calories than the HFCS version. Implied is that using sugar means less calories; but I’d hazard a guess that (assuming sugar use is still slightly more expensive) formulators cut the sweetener level down to save money and to put out a product that is less cloyingly sweet. But in reading some of the news items, comments and blogs, you’re left with the impression that sugar provides less calories.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t drink a lot of sugar- or HFCS-sweetened beverages―high-intensity sweeteners are my friends as are unsweetened fizzy waters. With my lack of exercise and potato-chip addiction, I know I don’t need the calories.

I do find it rather humorous that refined white sugar is the new “natural food.” I haven’t seen irrefutable evidence that, calorie for calorie, HFCS makes you fatter than anything else. But I’m one of those people who oddly think a balanced diet and sufficient exercise is by far the best way to maintain a healthy weight, especially since I’m the poster child for the opposite effect.

But with soda sales down and the economy forcing people to rethink their food or beverage expenditures, companies are looking for a point of differentiation. Some people actually like the taste of a particular sweetener, although most probably can’t actually tell the difference. It will be interesting to see if consumers embrace the new formulations, or if we’re just seeing the latest reincarnation of “New Coke.”

–Lynn A. Kuntz