Food Industry

I’m sceptical….what are you?
Published on Thursday, July 15th, 2010
New Scientist ran an interesting series of articles about denial in May this year.

It got me thinking that scepticism vs denialism is another way of describing a theme often addressed in this blog. I consider myself a sceptic – meaning that I take an objective approach to the evaluation of claims - but I also find that a bit of commonsense goes a long way. Deniers, on the other hand, have a position (or end goal) staked out in advance, and sort through the data employing “confirmation bias”. This is defined by New Scientist as “the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest”. Whether sceptics agree or disagree, we can debate the issues like grown ups. Dealing with denialism feels more like trying to rationalise with a toddler having a tantrum.

It’s easy to think of denialism as an old fashioned notion, driven by zealots such as anti-evolutionary theorists or those who believed the Earth was flat. But no – denialism is alive and well in our modern world. We’ve all heard of climate change and vaccination deniers. New Scientist provides useful perspectives on these examples, as well as deniers of the ill health effects of tobacco, the existence of AIDs and those who believe pandemics such as swine ‘flu are developed and released by pharmaceutical companies. I can add more examples to this list based on personal experience in the food and health area. Those who are convinced that:
- obesity is caused by single foods or beverages (and that this is a conspiracy of global food companies).
- anti-tobacco tactics directed to certain foods are the best option to combat obesity.
- specific approved food additives or ingredients cause illnesses ranging from autism to cancer (and that this is a conspiracy of both food companies and food safety organisations).
- there are no adverse health effects of high salt diets at a population level.
- it’s acceptable to deliberately design research studies to prove a point or handpick research results to suits their means, rather than taking a more objective view.
Your typical denier often has the public’s sympathy because they’re the “underdogs, fighting the corrupt elite”. They often occupy the moral high ground for this reason. And the media love the extreme viewpoint they offer so they have a natural public stage. Regulators, businesses and governmental organisations do not have the luxury of being able to handpick evidence to suit. They have to be objective, so they often come off looking non-committal, or at worst, defensive, when facing denialists in public.

In my digging around for material on this subject I also found this delightful quote by Richard Asher, published in The Lancet in 1959.

“It is important to realise that ideas are much easier to believe if they are comforting and that many clinical notions are accepted because they are comforting rather than because there is any evidence to support them. Just as we swallow food because we like it, not because of its nutritional content, so do we swallow ideas because we like them and not because of their rational content.”

I believe this rings especially true today and I’d love to hear some more examples of denialism that you’ve come across.
Has the world already reached Peak Health? If so, who’s to blame?
Published on Monday, May 10th, 2010

The concept of peak oil has spread into the health sector, with public health professionals now talking about peak health in the same vein. This draws important parallels between our health as humans and the health of our planet – the two, as we have known for some time, being inextricably linked.

So have we already reached peak health? Are we therefore now heading down the slippery slope away from it? If, as experts predict, today’s children will not live as long as their parents (due to increasing obesity and its ensuing chronic diseases), perhaps we are.

And if we have surpassed peak health, who or what is to blame? Having recently returned from a largely finger-pointing and teeth gnashing Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) conference in Canberra where there was much discussion on peak health, I know that many believe the blame lies with food manufacturers and marketers.

“How can they truly have the health of consumers as their main objective, when their main objective is to make a profit for their shareholders?”

That old chestnut.

In fact all organisations are constrained by financial realities, whether this involves making a profit, breaking even or maximising value for money. The ever present clamour for public sector funding to undertake health research is but one example of how money makes the world go around in the public as well as the private sector. We all need to make a living to feed and house our families, but most of us feel better in our work if we know our employer genuinely cares about us and others.

Actually what motivates businesses is far more basic than money. It’s survival.

At the NZ Food and Grocery Council’s half yearly meeting last week I was heartened by what John Doumani, General Manager for the Fonterra business in Australia and New Zealand said about how to build immortality into brands. He suggested that unless companies prioritise their objectives in order of customers first, employees second and shareholders third, they will not survive.

Looking after your customers means looking after their interests, in particular their health. Same for employees; after all, no one enjoys work for a company which puts shareholders first above all else. Ensuring customers are happy and healthy, and employees feel great about the company they work for will satisfy shareholders in the long term. Any wise and sustainable food manufacturer knows this.

Still, it seems that food manufacturers struggle to do anything right in the eyes of public health critics. Even affordable foods, developed (at great expense) by food companies to provide high levels of the nutrients commonly missing from diets in developing countries, were criticised at the PHAA conference. It left me questioning what food companies could possibly ever do right for such critics.

What do you think food manufacturers, and others can do to help us regain peak health?
Go First Lady!
Published on Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Well done Michelle Obama. I commend her “Let’s Move” public awareness campaign to help stem the tide of childhood obesity in the US, launched on February 9th and outlined in the NZ Herald.

A critical success factor is that this campaign appears to stem from Michelle’s own personal family learnings and experience prior to entering the White House. And now that she’s mother of the nation it makes sense to bring these learnings to her new, wider family. It’s a PR dream.

The four campaign pillars are: helping parents make better food choices, serving healthier food in school vending machines and lunch lines, making healthy food more available and affordable, and encouraging children to exercise more.

Yes, it is ambitious – but what I like is that it’s multifaceted - like obesity itself. The true causes of obesity in a population are highly complex, because they vary so much from person to person, so no single approach will ever be successful. What’s needed for prevention is a multifaceted approach across the population, to allow for this individual variation.

Within “Let’s Move” there are specific plans to work with the food industry on developing easily understood food labels, encouraging doctors to better identify and work with those children at risk, serving healthier food in schools, offering tax breaks to improve access to healthier food in specific areas, consumer education programmes providing tips and resources, and encouraging at least 60 minutes of exercise daily.

All really good common sense stuff, that’s pulled together as one campaign with one clear goal, by a powerful, talented and nurturing figurehead. As discussed on Rebecca Scritchfield’s US healthcare blog, recognition of the fact that governments alone will not solve the challenge of obesity is another critical success factor of Let’s Move. Surely it’s the sort of approach our own government should be taking? Why then abolish the progress made on making school food here healthier? Why take the view that education on its own doesn’t work, so stop marketing and producing healthy eating education and resources? Why stop programmes already working to improve access to healthier foods in communities? Why not commend food companies for the progress they’ve already voluntarily made (for example labelling foods with %DI information to help consumers plan their food and beverage intake)?

Our government seems to be focusing on exercise as a silver bullet. What do you think? Who would our Let’s Move figurehead be? Would people believe this of Bronagh?

(PS – these questions aren’t rhetorical. I’d really like to hear your views!)
What’s driving us to drink….and what are we drinking?
Published on Monday, November 30th, 2009

Recently I had the privilege of hearing one of my all time dietetic gurus, Linda Tapsell from Wollongong University, speak about how we relate to beverages. Alongside her, Claire Richards from Coca-Cola Oceania shared some fascinating insights into New Zealander’s attitudes to drinking. And Caryn Zinn expertly summarised issues on hydration in sport.

When it comes to successfully encouraging people to make healthier beverage choices, each and every speaker stressed the importance of working with individuals, rather than making broad general recommendations such as “drink water and low fat milk”.

What people expect and need from different beverages is extremely varied, which explained to me why it’s unrealistic to expect people to switch from one set of beverages (with similar attributes) to another set of beverages (with completely different attributes in the mind of the consumer).

For example, if you’re out for a good time with your mates you’re about as likely to order a glass of milk as you are to be wearing pyjamas. What you want is a beverage that’s associated with socialising, not one that’s associated with, say health and nutrition. There is a time and place for everything.

Those underlying needs associated with certain life situations don’t change, but moving to a healthier option which addresses the same underlying need within the same situation is far more likely to work. For example in the scenario described above, recommending that people order a diet soft drink if they’re watching their calorie intake, rather than a sugar containing soft drink, might actually be likely to work.

That would be fine, were it not for another shocking fact I picked up at the same seminar: New Zealanders drink mostly tap water (nothing shocking in that), but the second most widely consumed beverage in New Zealanders (ranging from 12-69 years of age) is …wait for it….beer! So in fact, most people in the above scenario will opt for a beer anyway! Diet beer anyone?

This sets my mind reeling at the calories we Kiwis must consume from alcohol. It baffles me why all dietary energy sources do not require nutrition labelling and packaged alcoholic drinks are a long overdue candidate for this.

Thanks to the NZ Nutrition Foundation and Coca-Cola Oceania for making this event possible. Linda and Caryn’s presentations should both be up on the Nutrition Foundation’s website shortly.
A seventh state of Australia – no way mate!
Published on Thursday, October 29th, 2009
We both claim to have invented the pavlova, but when it comes to everyday food are we very different from our Australian cousins? Ask any New Zealander and they’ll say yes. But most Australians, it seems, think of us as being the same.

A new colleague of mine, freshly off the plane from Oz and now working as a dietitian in New Zealand, has been blown away by the differences. Having worked in trans-Tasman roles for years based in Sydney, she admits it’s taken a move to NZ to see the extent of the differences between our two countries. Refreshingly , she’s also now saying of her Aussie colleagues : “They just don’t get it!”

So what are some obvious differences?
- We know what’s in season and, what’s more, we often get quite excited about seasonal food changes. Apparently most Australians are less aware of their food’s seasonality.
- We eat spuds, while rice is more of a staple in Australia.
- We drink tea. In Australia it’s more likely to be coffee and maybe iced tea.
- While Mediterranean foods are certainly available here, they’re not really as main stream as Australia. It’s more common to find a New Zealander describing ricotta as “posh cottage cheese”, but not so the Australians.
- Awareness of the Glycaemic Index of foods. In Australia, food manufacturers pay for most low GI foods to bear the “approved low GI” symbol from the GI Foundation of Australia. It’s as common as the Heart Foundation tick is here. New Zealanders don’t really understand what all the low GI fuss is all about. This is surprising in a way, since we have a higher rate of diabetes than they do in Australia – especially in our minority population groups.
- Most New Zealanders will have tried food prepared in a traditional Māori way, such as a boil-up or hāngī. I’m not sure how many Australians would have tried traditional Aboriginal food.
I’d love to hear about other food differences anyone out there has observed between us and our large “West Island”. Please add a comment to the blog to share.

As with any country, our food is a key part of what makes us distinctive as a culture. To know us is to eat with us. Our food culture has perplexed many trans-Tasman food marketers. Those who acknowledge, even embrace, those differences are likely to be more successful at making a meaningful connection with ‘us kiwis’.
If only it were that simple!
Published on Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Lately, having done a small amount of work with McDonald’s NZ, I’ve been pondering the place of takeaway foods in our diet. Like them or loathe them, they’re here to stay.

A recent evaluation of the zoning strategy employed by authorities in Los Angeles, banning new fast food establishments in order to address the excessive obesity problem in South Los Angeles, indicates that strategies like this are unlikely to achieve their goals. The main reasons for this failure are outlined at the end of this posting.

There is an assumption both in the US and NZ that so-called “toxic food environments” exist, in which poor and minority neighbourhoods are overrun with fast-food chains, causing higher obesity rates.

While the majority of fast food may not be nutrient dense, it is conceivably less obesogenic than food eaten at full-service, sit-down restaurants in the US. This is because it is less calorie-dense, due to greater portion control and a shorter “food exposure time”. In American sit-down restaurants the serving sizes were found to be 2-4 times greater than recommended, and in this environment people are more likely to also order dessert and be topped up with free sugary drinks throughout their stay.

There are some big differences between the US and NZ. Most obviously, our much maligned intake of soft drinks does not come anywhere near the gallons consumed per capita in the US – especially by teenagers and young adults.

I propose that the great kiwi institution of fish and chips – still the country’s most eaten takeaway, is probably more obesogenic than many fast food chains. A piece of battered fish and standard scoop of chips from one of these places is enough to feed my whole family – for several days sometimes!

But most importantly, as the L.A. study illustrates, we just have too much food around us all the time. Establishments providing meals are only one small part of a food environment where it’s possible to indulge our taste buds ceaselessly if we so desire. In my opinion it’s this constant nibbling (or scoffing) that’s by far the biggest problem – even more so than what’s being eaten.

Findings of the L.A. zoning evaluation study:

1.    Upon analysis there were actually fewer fast food outlets in South LA per capita than in other parts of L.A.
2.    There was a much higher density of small grocery stores (I guess similar to our dairies) in South L.A. compared to other parts of L.A., and a lower density of large supermarkets.
3.    Discretionary calorie intake, higher in South L.A. than other parts of L.A., was mainly from foods and beverages widely sold in non-food establishments as well (eg, vending machines, car washes, bookstores, laundromats, offices, etc).
4.    The proportion of the population having the recommended number of fruit and vegetable servings per day, or getting the recommended amount of exercise was no different in South L.A. compared with other parts of L.A.
5.    People in South L.A. were more likely to walk or take public transport to do food shopping, while this is unreported in other parts of L.A.
When is nasty truly nasty?
Published on Monday, July 20th, 2009

The word nasty is a strong one that tends to elicit an involuntary feeling of discomfort in most of us – and people do say that your gut reaction is the most important. According to one dictionary “nasty” means:

1.    Very ugly, or unpleasant to see, taste, smell, etc.
2.    Morally bad or improper.
3.    Harmful; painful; severe.
4.    Causing difficulty or danger.
5.    Angry or threatening.

So when a UK Supermarket decided to include Aspartame in its list of “nasties” as part of a marketing campaign it’s no surprise that Ajinomoto, the proud manufacturer of this well known sweetener, was more than a little insulted. They decided to take legal action, the outcome of which shows just how “judgemental” our interpretation of such words can be - even when there is clear evidence to the contrary - proving that gut reaction does indeed triumph over logic.

Despite aspartame being proven completely safe in more tests and studies than most other food ingredients added together, the High Court judge found in favour of the supermarket chain.

The Judge’s ruling stated that describing aspartame free foods as “containing no hidden nasties” did not mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy, it was simply trying to convey the message “if you the consumer think that aspartame may be bad for you, or unpleasant to taste or consume, then this product is for you”.

It effectively says that despite the facts, if someone thinks aspartame may be bad for them, their false belief should be supported and encouraged. Surely this defies logic?

Sadly some people automatically equate “natural” with “nice” and “manufactured” with “nasty”. Before the manufacture of things like antibiotics and vaccines people died ‘naturally’, albeit horribly, in their millions.

There are also just as many natural nasties as there are goodies out there in foods, which can even have fatal effects. Here are just a few toxins, naturally present in fruit and vegetables: amygdalin, ipomeamarone, furocoumarins, glycoalkaloids and oxalic acid. Not to mention the whole range of food poisoning bacteria, also quite natural. And what about those natural food ingredients that contribute to overweight and chronic disease, which again is ultimately fatal? No manufactured “nasties” there.

Unfortunately despite the delicate nuances of the ruling, the general message to consumers is that aspartame is nasty. This once again reinforces misconceptions based on emotion rather than reason. I say challenge the nasty name callers with scientific facts and allow consumers the freedom to make their own informed choices.
“Just because it’s not in the targets doesn’t mean it’s not important”
Published on Friday, May 8th, 2009

As soon as I heard the Health Minister had announced the revised list of health targets, which exclude nutrition and obesity, I felt a blog coming on. Especially since it kind of slipped in quietly, with the media otherwise occupied with shootings and ‘flu.

While Tony Ryall argues that work in the areas dropped from the previous health targets is still important, I can only assume it’s not quite important enough to be a targeted priority.

The way we eat affects our health as a nation enormously – and in more ways than just our physical health. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. What seems to be up for debate is where the responsibility lies for what and how people eat.

When Tony Ryall says that DHBs should not be held accountable for ensuring people eat their fruits and veggies, I tend to agree with him. When public health experts say that people need a supportive environment to make healthy choices, I also agree with them. Surely as a community we all need to play a part in creating a supportive environment, including the DHBs. While the teams of experts within DHBs are doing a great job, they can’t achieve this on their own.

Most major food manufacturers and marketers are voluntarily taking significant steps to improve the nutritional compositition of their products and are playing their part in recommending responsible dietary consumption. Having said that, some food manufacturers and retailers could definitely focus more on improving the nutritional content of their offerings. For example, my local café serves very indulgent meals to its regular customers and it’s hard to find a menu item that doesn’t provide more fat/salt and/or sugar than what is desirable on a regular basis.

But people vote with their stomach when it comes to food choice, and those prioritising their physical health over everything else are sadly few and far between. Making fruit and vegetables available, tasty, accessible, desirable, easy to prepare and affordable is the real task at hand, and no one should expect DHBs alone to be held accountable for this – just because they have to pick up the bill for obesity. We all need to be accountable, but the Minister’s announcement may not help to underscore the importance of this.
Why should foodies participate in the on-line space?
Published on Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

A blog is just one of the many forms of social media that is having a profound influence on consumers’ attitudes, knowledge and ultimately consumption habits. The more traditional mediums remain just as relevant and important but you ignore the on-line space and the new breed of influencers communicating within this space at your peril.

Given the newness of this space to the business world and the rapid development of new social media platforms, the knowledge and skill level of people participating is wide and varied. As qualified scientists, nutritionists and food industry experts we often find it challenging to accept the opinions of the new breed of influencers who are moving into this space. But there is no question; their opinions are influential.

It’s therefore even more important to jump in and get involved. The on-line social media universe is really only in its adolescence and we know how difficult teenagers can be to understand. But when they do grow up into more mature adults the real benefits become apparent.

There are also some new rules for interaction and for most people the best way to start out is simply to explore, participate, listen and learn. I heard someone recently liken the rise of social media networks to the advent of the motor car. When cars were new we all used to dress up and enjoy the journey, regardless of the destination. Now that they’re an everyday necessity we see them as a means to an end. So now’s the time to be enjoying your journey with social media – and you will be pleasantly surprised at what you discover.

There are endless numbers of food-lovers blogs out there. Some of the health and nutrition related ones we monitor regularly are listed on the blogroll to the right of the page, and some good local information sites can be found amongst the links. Please feel free to post your own favourites in the comments box. We’re especially keen to know more about other nutrition and health blog sites from within New Zealand.
The ideal front-of-pack labelling scheme – yeah right
Published on Thursday, March 5th, 2009

In the great obesity debate front of pack nutrition labelling is often hailed as is the bold new hope to guide consumers towards healthier food options. The “traffic light” concept is the one most of us would be familiar with but actually there are a host of different options.

Recent research* amongst food companies in New Zealand indicates that manufacturers are not keen on the adoption of a standardised front of pack nutrition labelling system and would only do so if it was mandatory.

The preferred (though not universally preferred) option is “percent dietary intake” labelling, with many companies having already adopted it. The same system is being adopted by our Aussie counterparts and a quick scan of any supermarket will show you that it is relatively common. As a system, this option regards single foods as part of an overall diet, letting people select foods and beverages according to their own individual intake. By contrast the traffic light system is thought to rather inflexibly label foods as good or bad.

A criticism of the traffic light and other similar schemes such as ‘Pick the Tick’ is that they are interpretive schemes, which do place a nutritional value judgment on individual foods and beverages, without a total diet approach. In fact one of the pitfalls of the traffic light system is that if people only ate foods with green labels they would run the risk of not meeting their daily requirements for some nutrients – possibly protein, calcium and iron in particular.

If a traffic light system is made mandatory it will be impossible to apply it in the same way across all of the food and beverage offerings available in our supermarkets. It is likely that it would need to be complicatedly calibrated by sector (as with the current Pick the Tick scheme), which often leads to confusion and complaint. For example how would you compare the nutritional value of a sausage with the nutritional value of peanut butter?

The research, undertaken last year on behalf of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), canvassed the views of 16 major New Zealand food companies (including one retail chain) about front of pack nutrition labelling. The research report is publicly available on the NZFSA website. The people interviewed represented 17 separate categories within the diverse food and beverage industry. These are all people who know their products and their consumers very well, and by trial and error over the years as well as through experience, they know what encourages people to buy products, and what doesn’t.

Consumer research undertaken in Europe last year where versions of traffic light labelling have been in place for a while, shows that consumers are confused about traffic light labelling. They know what green means, but not what red means, mistakenly thinking these products should be avoided completely. In comparison, they understand better the concept of “guideline daily amounts” – the equivalent of our “percent dietary intake” labels.

Manufacturers in New Zealand are not just pushing back on traffic light labelling for the sake of it. They agree with health authorities that New Zealanders should eat more healthfully and they want their customers to eat well. The research also found that our major food and beverage manufacturers are actually doing incredible amounts of work behind the scenes to make foods healthier without consumers knowing about it. The last thing they want is for consumers to know the food is getting healthier, because then people wont buy it! It seems an odd sort of logic, but years of experience has proven this to be true.

Food and beverage manufacturers have been developing and marketing healthier products for some time now, but sadly consumers often don’t flock to buy these products. More often than not, it is the brave new healthier product that sits on supermarket shelves and is eventually de-listed – leaving the manufacturing company with another expensive product development and marketing “experience” to add to the stockpile.

Common sense, and any market research will tell you - price and taste remain the main determinants of any consumer food and beverage choice. Only a small proportion of the population will buy products with health as their primary motivator. As a dietitian married to a doctor, our weekly family shopping is probably more motivated by health than most’s, but I have to say we don’t buy healthy foods unless they are likely to taste good, be accepted by the kids and are not likely to be thrown in the bin at the end of the week. Occasionally I do buy a treat, and when I do I want the real thing, not a “healthified” version.

The Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) for Australia and New Zealand has drafted a set of policy guidelines on front of pack labelling for the Ministerial Council to consider in May 2009. The draft guidelines are currently open for public consultation with comment due by 24th March. I would urge all to make comment if you have views on this matter.

* Declaration of interest: I was part of the research team for the NZFSA research referred to in this article.
A special thanks goes out to the many Foodtalk readers who took part in this research.