“We need a white knight, and we think that person is you.”
Nearly two years ago, Dorothy Cann Hamilton was sitting in her corner office at the International Culinary Center in Soho, the cooking school formerly known as the French Culinary Institute, which she founded 30 years ago. The voice on the other end of the line was a representative from the Italian government, speaking in a tone somewhere between persuasive and desperate.
Unbeknownst to Hamilton, a clock was ticking on a yet-to-be-conceived, past-deadline USA Pavilion to represent America at the 2015 Expo Milan, a historically rich global institution formerly known as the World’s Fair. The theme, which changes with each event, was to revolve around food and energy. And Hamilton, one of America’s foremost thought leaders in the culinary world, was being asked by the hosts to court the office of the Secretary of State to get behind what would become a multisensory exhibit the size of two Manhattan blocks. “I said yes, I would do it, but I would need somebody with the best Rolodex in America.”
That person was Mitchell Davis, executive vice president of the James Beard Foundation, journalist and, as Hamilton explains over coffee, the “creative vision” behind what she describes in detail as something similar to a living organism, requiring the teamwork of hundreds of architects, food-service professionals, academics and chefs. They all came together — via conference call and during quick trips to Milan — to create an interactive exhibition that articulates a central vision: American Food 2.0.
Who cares about the World’s Fair? It was a question recently posed to me when news started trickling out about Hamilton and the USA Pavilion, which is set to debut on May 1 in the northern Italian city and run through October 31, attracting an estimated 20 million visitors. Over 145 countries will participate at festival grounds located 10 miles northwest of Milan and accessible via high-speed rail.
Since the first World’s Fair, called the Great Exhibition and held in London in 1851, Fairs (later called Expos) were largely intended to bring leaders in science, commerce and technology together in one user-friendly and convivial space. In the days before radio, television and the Internet, these exhibitions were incredibly popular, and critical for so-called captains of industry looking to exhibit, and sell, their latest technology. And for anybody who has paid the price of admission to a baseball-card convention, comic con or boat show, attending a convention of this scale can be a pretty fun way to kill an afternoon. In the 19th and 20th centuries, attendance ballooned.
Just because something is cheap doesn’t mean it’s a good deal.
Several of America’s largest food manufacturers have been shifting their retail strategy, selling less of their packaged foods in traditional grocery stores and more of those foods in dollar and discount stores, according to a recent Reuters story. Kraft, which sells Veveeta sauce, has turned its attention to the cheaper retailers. So too have General Mills and Campbell’s Soup.
“We’re in the business of feeding all American families, and that’s where consumers are going,” Tom Lopez, vice president of growth channels at Kraft, told Reuters on Thursday.
That’s mostly true. Packaged food sales have been lagging at supermarkets—sales of packaged food were flat last year, largely because of a trend in which Americans are opting for fresher alternatives at the grocery store. Dollar stores have been the rare exception—food sales at discount stores have greatly outpaced their higher priced counterparts, prompting chains like Dollar Tree to add more room for food products. General Mills’ sales at discount stores rose by nearly 10 percent last year.
But there’s a reason why large food companies are selling more of their packaged foods to America’s poor: they have figured out a way to do it at a much higher profit margin.
In order to offer the facade of affordability, manufacturers like Kraft are selling food in smaller packages. These granola bars, sauces, cereals, and prepared meals look like they cost less, but actually are far more expensive on a per ounce basis, according to Reuters.
So long as the people you’re selling to are actively deciding whether or not to stock up at a discount or buy only for the week at a sight mark-up, it’s just a value proposition. But it’s unclear whether most of the people who shop at dollar stores have that luxury. In fact, it’s doubtful. As Dollar General’s chief executive Rick Dreiling said on a recent earnings call, “the low to middle income consumer who is our core customer continues to look for ways to manage her budget.”
In other words, people go to Dollar General to save, because they have to. And according to this Reuters story, they’re buying food that looks cheaper but is ultimately costing them more.
Food is central in our lives. Growing food. Finding food. Purchasing food. Eating food. It is essential to individual lives and our societal functioning, and yet, we do not plan for food and agriculture—at least not nearly enough—so argues Sasaki’s James Miner, Managing Principal.
In recent years, James has nurtured a growing personal and professional fascination with cultivating an ecosystem that supports more sustainable regional food systems. “Food planning is just starting to become part of my industry—regional planning, architecture, and design—in a way that it never has been before,” says James. Presently, the term foodshed has made its way into planning circles, referring to the 100-mile radius surrounding an urban area, outside of which food transport costs get far more expensive and quality of food declines. James is thinking in terms of foodsheds, trying to find a local model for regional food systems that can be replicated both domestically and abroad. He grapples with making quality, regional food accessible to more people than just those who can afford to peruse the organic food aisles at boutique grocery stores or at farmer’s markets in affluent neighborhoods.
Just this month, James spoke on this topic, as a panelist at the 2015 Edge Conference, held at Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA). James joined fellow panelists—Ayr Muir, CEO of Clover Food Lab; Jan Schlichtmann, Attorney and Principal at Oceanic Innovations LLC; and Aaron Niederhelman, Managing Director at the Entrepreneur Agrarian Fund—to share solutions of change for addressing the large problems with the food system, going beyond traditional pointing of fingers.
Through engagement with local and international planning work that integrates agricultural systems into regional planning, which is still all too rare today, James came to see how development without concern for food sourcing gives rise to inefficient, expensive, and unsustainable ways of getting food from farm to dining room table.
In Iowa, for example, where James led a regional planning effort, one of the most startling realizations for James was that Iowans craved access to local food in a state that abounds in agricultural riches. Eighty percent of food sold in Iowa is imported, much of it traveling 1,200 miles or more to arrive in local stores. “It was a complete contradiction to see farmland stretching endlessly in every direction while knowing that the cob of corn on your plate came from several states over,” James recounts.
On the other side of the world, in China, where low-lying agriculture land regularly abuts the soaring skyscrapers of newly constructed metropolises, there is an opportunity to be more thoughtful about integrating food production into city life. There is potential to recapture food as a central part of people’s lives. In Songzhuang, for example, where Sasaki conducted a regional planning initiative, the planners aimed to “restore ecological systems and make agriculture an important part of community and place-making—making agriculture a cultural amenity.” They did this by moving agricultural lands from the urban perimeter to the city center. “I think we’re going to see more of this. [Food infrastructure planning] is becoming more of a disruptive force in the world of planning and design,” James enthuses.
“We have agricultural production at a scale unprecedented in our history, but we have limited access to it where we actually want, need, and can afford to have it.”
The big problem, James says, is “we have agricultural production at a scale unprecedented in our history, but we have limited access to it where we actually want, need, and can afford to have it.” It’s a daunting challenge but one we ought to get ahead of. Fellow panelist, Jan Schlichtmann, passionately agrees, asserting, “if we break these connections to the environment around us we’re going to lose a tremendous amount that we really do need to connect with in order to have a future. How we treat the environment around us—the local environment, that local connection—is absolutely crucial… we are seeding our food security and nutritional security to others. I don’t think that’s a good bet.”
For James and fellow panelists, it’s clear that the gamble on food is not one they are keen on taking. Rather than leave it to chance, they advocate seizing the moment to finally move beyond identifying the many problems embedded in a system that most agree is off-kilter and in need of fixing. These are leaders drawing from different industries, bonded by a shared commitment to getting to the fixing. Together, they are finding new, constructive solutions that improve access to quality, affordable, local food on local, regional, and global scales.
About The Edge Conference: The annual conference aims to convene leaders in innovation to examine the business issues of the day—from finance, to food, to healthcare. The event is put on by The Ad Club, a trade association for the New England marketing & communications industry. This year’s conference was held on January 12, 2015. More than 300 guests attended the half-day conference, which is dedicated to exploring the brands, ideas, and people who are pushing the boundaries and disrupting the status quo; influencing the future of marketing and branding.
At the age of 15, Ava Anderson launched her own line of personal care and home-cleaning products, Ava Anderson Non-Toxic. Now 19, Ava is educating tens of thousands of American families on the issue of toxic chemicals in personal care products through her line, which now includes baby, skin, face, hair, body, scents, bugs, candles, home, sun, and pet products. This fall, Ava will be a sophomore at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, and will also actively help run her multimillion-dollar empire with 12 full-time employees. Her goal is to help force a paradigm shift on the issue of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.
3 Toxic Cosmetics You Should Replace Now
Ava Anderson: I always say that it is all about the ingredients, and I recommend using products without harmful ingredients in order to reduce your daily, weekly, yearly, and lifetime body burden of chemicals with known and suspected disease implications. Since up to 60 percent of what you put on your skin reaches your bloodstream (this increases to almost 100 percent with scalp, underarm, and groin exposure), it makes sense to use cosmetics that DO NOT add to your body burden of toxic chemicals.
Over time, you should replace all harmful personal care products, but here are three cosmetics we recommend tackling first:
1. Foundation: Foundation is a good place to start, as many women cover their whole face and neck with it daily. Liquid foundations contain many harmful chemicals, including the following, found in a major drugstore brand: propylene glycol, methylparaben, and propylparaben, all of which are considered endocrine disruptors. These are important to avoid because the endocrine system regulates ALL biological processes in the body, including development of the brain and nervous system, growth and function of the reproductive system, and metabolism and blood sugar regulation, as well as the functions of the ovaries, testes, pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN recently released a report calling endocrine disruptors a “global threat” to fertility and the environment. In 2011, another shocking study showed that methylparaben along with an endocrine disruptor widely found in food, BPA, turned healthy cells into cancer cells and rendered the breast cancer drug tamoxafin ineffective.
The same brand also contains ingredients that have the potential to be contaminated with cancer causers: PEG/PPG 10 dimethicone, PEG/PPG 18, retinyl acetate, tocopheryl acetate, laureth 7, and PEG/PPG 20 dimethicone.
Loose powders and brush-on foundations, which are applied topically, not only have the endocrine disruptors methylparaben, propylparaben, but have other ingredients of concern, too. One best seller (and many similar products) contains retinyl acetate, alumina (suspected of being neurotoxic), and other hazardous ingredients that can be inhaled.
Look for products without these ingredients. Our AvaFACE foundation, formulated with French clay, silk, and organic arrowroot powder is one such product.
2. Lipstick: According to a recent piece by The New York Times, “Millions of women and girls apply lipstick every day. And not just once: some style-conscious users touch up their color more than 20 times a day.” A recent study also found that “a wide range of brands contain as many as eight other metals, from cadmium to aluminum.” Those will never appear on a label because they are contaminants of other ingredients. Besides endocrine disruptors like propylparaben, other harmful substances in typical department store and drugstore lipsticks are as tocopheryl acetate and retinyl acetate, as well as titanium dioxide, which usually exists in nanoparticle form. Nanoparticles have been shown to cross the cell barrier and drive into organs, including the brain in humans, where they can cause long-term oxidative damage. There is no way of knowing what size particles are in your product unless the manufacturer tells you.
So, what’s the solution? Organic lipstick with as few harmful chemicals as possible.
3. Mascara: With toxic ingredients like these from a best-selling major brand of mascara, you can see why it is important to find an organic alternative that still delivers results: triethanolamine (which reacts with other ingredients in products to become carcinogenic nitrosodiethanolamine), propylene glycol, methylparaben, butylparaben, quaternium 15 and quaternium 22 (both of which release cancerous formaldehyde as they break down), and synthetic colorants that have been linked to organ-system toxicity.
I hope you will replace your conventional products, starting with these three, and opt for safer choices. If you combine the ingredients lists above, you can see how just a few products can contribute to your daily chemical body burden. There are seven parabens in just one single daily application of lipstick, foundation, and mascara and we ladies know we apply these more than once every day.
Brain food: 6 snacks that are good for body & mind
– – – –
Eating well doesn’t just boost your strength – the nutrients in food are also excellent fuel for the brain. US scientists have discovered that a handful of walnuts a day can help improve your memory. Adults who ate 13g of walnuts every day performed significantly better on cognitive tests than those who didn’t, and so walnuts have been added to the growing list of foods for geniuses. But what other snacks can make you smarter? Here’s a few of the foods you should eat to help strengthen your brain.
Blueberries: Researchers from Tufts University found that blueberries don’t simply improve memory – they can actually reverse memory loss. A study published in the Journal of Neuroscience found an extract of blueberries eaten every day led to a reversal of nerve cell damage in rats. After eating their daily dose of berries, the rodents learned faster, had a better short-term memory and had improved balance and co-ordination. The humble blueberry is truly a superfood for your brain cells.
Salmon: Some healthy eating devotees take a regular dose of pure fish oil but if you can’t stomach the dietary supplement, eating plenty of salmon is an excellent alternative. Salmon is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which are crucial for a healthy diet, and offers a sizeable portion of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Not only are fatty acids good for the heart, but DHA has also been found to boost neuron function in the brain.
Avocado: Avocados may be fatty, but they contain extremely healthy unsaturated fats, which help to keep brain cell membranes flexible. The monounsaturated fatty acids in avocadoes work to protect nerve cells in the brain and have been found to improve the brain’s muscle strength. The same fats lead to healthy blood flow and lower blood pressure and both of these, in turn, help the brain to function at its optimum capacity.
Whole grains: The brain is like all other bodily organs and relies on a steady flow of energy to perform at its best. Our concentration skills are linked to the brain’s supply of glucose. Whole grains with a low GI (glycaemic index) are a healthy brain food as they slowly and steadily release glucose into the bloodstream. Other carbohydrates are a more unstable source of glucose – white rice and pasta will cause energy levels to peak and then crash, leaving your brain feeling weak and exhausted.
Broccoli: Broccoli is a source of two crucial nutrients that help improve brain function. Vitamin K helps to strengthen cognitive abilities while Choline has been found to improve memory – people who eat plenty of broccoli perform better on memory tests. Broccoli also includes a sizeable serving of folic acid, which can help ward off Alzheimer’s disease. Studies suggest that a lack of folic acid could lead to depression, so eating plenty of broccoli could also keep you happy.
Dark chocolate: Who says that healthy food can’t be delicious? Cocoa can improve verbal fluency and cognitive function in elderly people, while eating a daily portion of dark chocolate has been found to improve blood flow to the brain. So don’t feel guilty about that chocolate bar – your brain will thank you.
Is soda okay for your baby? What about feeding your baby crackers and juice? Discover five foods you should never feed your baby, and why.
From 500-calorie desserts disguised as coffee drinks to greasy, salt-encrusted french fries, we adults usually know when we’re making unwise food choices. But often we don’t realize that many of the foods we routinely give babies are essentially junk food – high in calories, sugar, or salt, and low in nutrients.
Eating junk food is more damaging to babies than adults. That’s because babies don’t need many calories, but they do need lots of nutrients. It’s easy for them to fill up quickly on junk food’s empty calories, leaving no room for nutrient-rich healthy foods, says doctor and American Dietetic Association spokesperson Christine Gerbstadt. The nutrition deficit can even hinder development, she adds.
So what’s a parent to do? Start by learning which popular foods to stay away from. Here’s our list of the worst food offenders for babies.
Soda:
It seems too obvious to mention, but believe it or not, some babies are served soft drinks as early as 7 months of age, according to a survey of more than 3,000 families presented at the American Dietetic Association (ADA) conference in 2009. Whether regular or diet, soft drinks provide absolutely no nutrients. Regular soda contains a ton of sugar, which can wreak havoc on your baby’s teeth. And filling up on either type means babies eat and drink less of the nutritious food their bodies really need.
Juice:
Sure, it comes from fruit, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy. The fiber in fresh fruit is largely lost in the juicing process, and what’s left is a whole lot of sugar. “Juice is basically a waste of calories,” says pediatrician Ari Brown, co-author of Baby 411: Clear Answers and Smart Advice for Your Baby’s First Year.
Sure, it comes from fruit, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy. The fiber in fresh fruit is largely lost in the juicing process, and what’s left is a whole lot of sugar. “Juice is basically a waste of calories,” says pediatrician Ari Brown, co-author of Baby 411: Clear Answers and Smart Advice for Your Baby’s First Year.
Using certain types of juice – specifically apple and pear – to sweeten your baby’s food isn’t a good idea either, says nutritionist Leanne Cooper, author of What Do I Feed My Baby: A Step-by-Step Guide to Solids. The sugars in these juices can speed up the food’s passage through the digestive tract. “When food passes too quickly, the body doesn’t have time to absorb all those lovely nutrients,” says Cooper. It can also lead to diarrhea in some babies.
What about advertisers’ claims that juice provides babies with necessary vitamin C? Don’t be fooled. “Babies can easily get their vitamin C from one small serving of fruit,” says Brown. What should your baby drink instead? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that babies younger than 6 months drink nothing but breast milk or formula. Babies 6 to 12 months old can have small amounts of water, but breast milk or formula should still be their main beverage. (Find out more about when babies can drink water.) After the first birthday, cow’s milk is recommended.
Crackers:
They make convenient snacks once your baby can bite and chew, but it won’t take many to satisfy your little one’s appetite, leaving no room for nutrient-rich foods. Also, just as eating sweet things can help babies develop a sweet tooth, eating salty things can give them a “salty tooth.” The survey presented at the 2009 ADA conference found that nearly three-quarters of toddlers and preschoolers get more than the recommended daily amount of sodium.
The ever-popular fish-shaped crackers fall into this category. “What a waste of calories in a snack,” says Brown. “Fruit slices are a much better choice.” And if you’re looking for an instant grab-and-go snack, low-sugar cereals have more nutritional value than crackers, she says.
Processed meals:
People define processed foods in different ways, but in general, the more the food is modified from what was originally caught, raised, or grown – and the longer the list of ingredients – the more processed the food. With heavy processing, foods often lose significant nutritional value and gain unhealthy additives.
“The more processed the food, the more nutritional value tends to go down, and the more the sugar, salt, and fat content goes up,” says Kate Geagan, dietitian and author of Go Green, Get Lean.
The worst processed foods parents serve up are the ones not specifically meant for babies, such as canned pasta, says dietitian Eileen Behan, author of The Baby Food Bible. “They often contain way too much sodium.” You’re better off boiling up some noodles and topping them with a few crushed tomatoes.
Gelatin desserts:
“You’d be surprised at how many people think a gelatin dessert is a wholesome food for babies,” says Gerbstadt. Why the misconception? Many people think gelatin contains protein, perhaps because it’s made from processed animal bones and cartilage. But it doesn’t, says Gerbstadt – at least, not in any significant amount. “What the baby ends up eating is nearly all sugar, artificial color, and artificial flavor, and a trace amount of gelatin to make it wiggly,” she says.
True, gelatin is easy to swallow, but then again, so is Gerbstadt’s own idea of a healthy dessert: a baked, mashed apple with a sprinkle of cinnamon. “It’s naturally sweet and has good fiber, vitamins, and a yummy, smooth texture,” she says. “That’s what I’d opt for.”
Below you’ll find links to instructions for preparing some of the kinds of greasy, meaty food people like to eat at their Super Bowl parties, but in much healthier format. Pick one, cook it, and bring it, and people will be glad you’re there.
Here’s a good, straightforward way to make ‘em, and some blue cheese dressing for them, instead of ordering them from a pizza delivery joint like a scrub.
The fun part is the part where all the other dudes at the party bicker with you over whether your chili recipe is more authentic or purist or has more fire alarms in it than theirs. Actually, no, that’s the terrible part. The fun part is eating some good-ass chili.
Bag o’ shredded cheese, bag o’ chips, paper plate, microwave, right? Nah. Have some fun with your Super™ Bowl® nachos! These have some shredded chicken and other fun stuff on them, like actual real food for grownups and not sad bachelor chow.
This is just a criminally under-appreciated foodstuff. It’s hearty and beery and bacony and satisfying, and when it’s available people eat it compulsively. Bring a bag of chips, too.
Yes, with their gross-lookin’ heads! These are great finger food: Fiery hot and crunchy and compulsively eatable. Also, unlike chili or wings, there’s no chance anybody else was already planning on bringing these.
This is a little more ambitious. You can do it! And everyone will love you for it. These are lightly breaded and lightly fried and amazing, and they come with instructions for whipping up some stuff for dipping them into.
Whether its the proven harmful effects on our health and ecosystems or the lack of regulatory oversight, there are just too many reasons to not stop using Pesticides.
1) Pesticides don’t solve pest problems. If they did, we wouldn’t repeatedly use them, now would we? Americans use more than a billion pounds of pesticides each year to combat pests on farm crops, in homes, places of business, schools, parks, hospitals, and other public places. YUCK! Instead, it would be wise to change the conditions that make pests thrive.
2) Pesticides are hazardous to our health. Imagine, some people don’t believe this! According to the Environmental Protection Agency (who regularly sleeps with all of the pharmaceutical companies), adverse effects of pesticide exposure range from mild symptoms of dizziness and nausea to serious, long-term neurological, developmental, and reproductive disorders.
For instance, Glyphosate, better known as Roundup, damages genes and causes birth defects. And it’s the most widely used herbicide in the United States; we use almost 200 million pounds a year.
3) Pesticides cause special problems for children. Let’s remember that for their size, children drink more water and eat more food and than adults, and both of these can be (and often are) contaminated with pesticides. Their play increases their potential exposure. Imagine, for instance, your child playing on turf or on a grassy lawn or park treated with pesticides.
4) Pesticides contaminate our food. Even after peeling and washing fruits and veggies, about 60 percent of our produce still contains more than one pesticide, says the USDA.
5) Pesticides are particularly hazardous for farmers, farm workers, and people who live near them. There are no comprehensive systems for keeping track of the number and type of pesticide illnesses in the U.S., but research shows that farmers and farmworkers face risks of acute poisoning and long-term illness. Because agricultural pesticides account for over 75 percent of total U.S. pesticide use, farmers and farmworkers are often exposed to large amounts of pesticides. The EPA has estimated that between 10 and 20 thousand pesticide-related illnesses occur among farmers and farmworkers every year, but the agency believes that these large numbers are actually serious underestimates.
Mothers, meanwhile, who live near farms and are exposed to insecticides are more likely to have children with ADHD.
6) Pesticides are dangerous to pets. Pesticide poisoning of pets is common. For example, in 1990 the American Association of Poison Control Centers received over 11,000 calls regarding pesticide-poisoned pets. Only antifreeze causes more pet poisoning deaths than rodent control pesticides and organophosphate insecticides.
Exposure to herbicide-treated lawns and gardens increases the risk of bladder cancer by four to seven times in Scottish Terriers, according to a study by Purdue University veterinary researchers. Since when do canines get cancer?
7) Pesticides contaminate our water. According to a national study, 90 percent of our nation’s urban streams are contaminated with pesticides.
8) Pesticides are not good for fish and birds. When pesticides contaminate water they can be particularly toxic to fish. In addition to fish, other marine or freshwater animals are endangered by pesticide contamination. A pesticide’s capacity to harm fish and aquatic animals is largely a function of its (1) toxicity, (2) exposure time, (3) dose rate, and (4) persistence in the environment.
It is clear that some chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. Routine environmental use of neonicotinoids, for instance, perpetuates the propensity for runoff, groundwater infiltration, and the cumulative and largely irreversible damage to invertebrates, all of which raise significant environmental concerns.
9) Pesticide “Health & Safety Testing” is conducted by chemical companies. As we mention in Vanishing of the Bees, this is a bad case of the fox guarding the hen house. The Environmental Protection Agency does not conduct independent studies. They rely on the chemical companies to do due diligence. And my oh my, what a surprise that they find all the poisons relatively safe. Well, be certain that doesn’t mean a thang!
10) Pesticides just have too many secrets. Where are pesticides used? When? How much? What’s in them? We almost never have good answers to these questions. But we do know many persist in the environment and that they synergize when combined. And inactive ingredients are really not inactive at all.
Restaurants are hopping on the better-for-you wagon. But will customers pay up for higher quality?
People want better food and companies want Chipotle-like growth. But wanting something better and wanting to pay for something better are two very different things. Or are they?
A full 88 percent of consumers say they’re willing to pay a premium to some degree for foods with healthy attributes, according to Nielsen’s online poll of 30,000 people in 60 countries.
Interestingly, readiness to shell out declines with age. Consumers under 20 and millennials 21 to 34 years old are most inclined to pay more.
“While age often dictates a need for foods that contain certain health attributes, it is the youngest consumers who are most willing to back up their sentiments with their wallets,” said Susan Dunn, Nielsen’s executive vice president of global professional services, in a release. “As Millennials’ purchasing power increases, manufacturers and retailers that make the effort to understand and connect with this generation’s needs increase their odds of success.”
Nielsen did find a gap between people saying a healthy characteristic is very important and being very willing to pay more for it. The exception to this was organic food.
Respondents also ranked a wide range of health attributes as very important to not important in their buying decisions. Food with all natural ingredients and those without GMOs ranked as very important to the highest portion of people at about 43 percent each of respondents. The absence of artificial colors and flavors followed closely as did foods made of veggies and fruits.
A willingness to shell out for this high-quality food is good news for restaurants and consumer-packaged foods that have been revamping items and investing in new revenue streams, like organics, to appeal to today’s customer.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, in particular, has grown at a swift pace by stressing its food integrity and convincing customers that sustainable food is worth the extra money. It is working toward having a GMO-free menu, a goal it’s largely met.
“Any restaurant operator with half a brain who has watched Chipotle’s success is thinking, ‘How can I get some of that success?” said Bob Derrington, a restaurant analyst at Wunderlich Securities.
Meanwhile, General Mills announced last year its flagship original Cheerios product would drop GMOs from its ingredient list.
Whole Foods Market also highlighted this transparency through its commitment in 2013 to require brands it carries to show whether they contain genetically modified organisms.
Meanwhile, Panera Bread has committed to a range of animal welfare reforms and moves aimed at improving the food in its supply chain. It said it aims for its entire pork supply to be antibiotic-free and sourced from farms where pregnant pigs roam freely in group housing. It’s also worked at eliminating artificial colors, sweeteners, flavors and preservatives from its food.
“The consumer in the end is looking not only for the great food and initiatives that we’ve been talking about but also transparency,” said Blaine E. Hurst, Panera’s executive vice president of technology and transformation, in a phone interview last month.
Companies looking to mine as much as possible out of the health-conscious consumer would be smart to look beyond just North America.
About eight in 10 people surveyed in Europe and North America said they would be willing to pay a premium for healthy food. This number ticked as high as 94 percent for Latin America, 93 percent for Asia-Pacific and 92 percent for Africa/Middle East.
According to a National Chicken Council report released Friday, 1.25 billion wings will be consumed during Super Bowl XLIX.
The average wholesale price of chicken wings is $1.71 per pound, up from $1.35 per pound at the same time last year, according to the Daily Northeast Broiler/Fryer Report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Marketing Service. Wing prices hit a record high $2.11 per pound in January 2013.
If 1.25 billion wings were put end-to-end, assuming an average length of 3.5 inches, they would stretch to and from CenturyLink Field in Seattle to Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass., almost 28 times, the Chicken Council said. The wings also would circle the Grand Canyon 120 times.
It’s enough wings to put 572 on every seat in all 32 NFL stadiums and they weigh about 5,955 times more than the Seahawks and Patriots entire 52-man rosters combined, the council said.
