Food Industry

1. Let’s not get over excited about ‘made from local and imported ingredients’

   Published on Friday, April 5th, 2013

   Campbell Live built its recent story on locally made versus imported food products on the premise that New Zealand is “a huge food-producing nation”. It’s true that our dairy, meat and horticulture sectors are significant exporters, but when it comes to many staple  foods we buy in supermarkets, we’re a minnow. Dare I say it, in casting New Zealand as a huge food producer, the current affairs programme was perpetuating a myth.

   The reason our supermarket foods don’t carry more foods with the label, “Product of New Zealand”, is that they don’t exist. Basically the reasons boil down to the inability to grow many ingredients, a tiny domestic market, and a lack of  investment which results in a lack of scale and an inability to meet competition from imports.

   Strange as it may sound, it is the consumer who’s in the driving seat when it comes to determining the origin of their food products through purchasing power, irrespective of what growers can produce and food companies might make.  This is aside from items that we simply  or don’t grow on a commercial scale, like one of the largest selling fruits, bananas.

   Consumers make their choices about what they buy in a supermarket, and price plays a major part on their decision making.  It’s true that brand and taste still figure very prominently in the purchasing equation, but for more and more consumers, price is the deal maker. We’ve seen this recently in Australia where local production  lost out to less expensive imports.

   The reality is that in a tiny domestic market like New Zealand, very few companies have the scale to buy ingredients and prepare foods that are price competitive with imported food products, which now more than ever have the benefit of a high New Zealand dollar.

   For a product on the supermarket shelf to be competitively priced, means that the ingredients have to be competitively priced and production has to be cost efficient.  So it is not only a question of whether an ingredient is available in New Zealand, but whether it is available on a commercial scale and at price that allows the finished product to be competitive.  This includes flour for commercial scale bread making.

   Some try to fight imports by maligning the country of origin, because they have the mistaken belief that everything grown and produced in New Zealand is safe, and everything grown elsewhere is not. More important is the guardian or brand of the food, and the reality is, regardless of whether a food item is made locally or imported, it must meet the very same strict standards of food safety.

   Likewise, some are confused  by the labelling of foods with “made from local and imported ingredients”. Often this is without any thoughts as to what those ingredients are. Take Wattie’s Baked Beans. Despite a number of attempts over many years Wattie’s has not been able to establish a local supply of navy beans.  There has been no lack of willing, it is a matter of having the right bean for local conditions. Again, take Wattie’s Spaghetti. The spaghetti pasta is actually made Hastings, but the flour is imported because there is not a viable local supply for this product.

   There are many food products that include ingredients not available in New Zealand. For instance, all our sugar and rice is imported because there are simply no local supplies.  The same with many herbs, spices and oils.  The reality is that neither home cooks or food manufacturers would use pricey gourmet olive oil, such as NZ produces, every time oil is required in a recipe.

   

2. Who’s to blame? Time to try something different

   Published on Monday, March 4th, 2013

   We all know about the world’s obesity epidemic and the serious health consequences ahead of us.  But we seem to be stuck in a blame game, rather than really committing to effective, collaborative solutions.

   Week after week books are published and media reports are issued focussing on finger pointing.  For the past six months in particular all fingers have been pointed at the food industry – in particular the “food giants” – for manipulating and addicting consumers to their products.  Prior to that – at least in New Zealand – experts have pointed to Government, for their lack of investment in preventative health and unwillingness to introduce regulatory taxes, bans and restrictions for certain foods and food marketing.  And any health-related association or sports group is now being criticised for working collaboratively with food companies because of the fear that food companies only associate with health-related associations as a fluffy PR exercise. It is not known what foundation there is for such fear, but it’s enough to make food companies throw in the towel on their numerous attempts to introduce healthier options and reformulate existing products, and just start doing exactly what they’re being accused of (if people are determined to think that anyway).

   In the meantime is the population any better off?  When the average person spends less than a second deliberating over their supermarket choices and juggles food provision for their families with all of the other priorities in our busy lives, what is all this finger pointing achieving for them?

   I would venture to say it’s doing more harm than good.  It’s causing even more confusion.  The bottom line is people have to eat and drink something to stay alive.  Dietary experts and food and nutrition guidelines largely make recommendations based on the four food groups, which actually don’t relate well to what the average person has to choose from when they’re in the supermarket or eating out these days. People also don’t have the lifestyles or incomes that enable them to grow their own foods or shop at farmers markets (wonderful as they are).  They simply buy and eat what they like/can afford/are familiar with – in that order.  So achieving the shift that motivates them to also vitally include in the purchasing mix “know is healthy for them” requires the following:

   - Unity and clarity in scientific advice from Government and academics which relates to the current food supply, not the foods which Nana had to choose from when she shopped for her family back in the 1960s.

   - No more contradictory, confusing, subjective and unsubstantiated messages or blanket statements which only result in people giving up and going back to what they know and like.

   - Support and endorsement from the scientific/health community when food companies make positive nutritional changes, so that there is actually a demand for healthier products from the population.

   - Dropping the blame game.  Truly collaborative implementation of solutions is the only way forward to deliver real benefits to the population.  This will involve significant compromise for all parties, who must commit to concrete actions and be held accountable to those in the long term.

   Can’t we just get on with it?

   

3. Canned foods get a thumbs-up for sound nutrition and affordability

   Published on Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

   

   Image thanks to FreeDigitalPhotos.net

   The universal call to increase the consumption of fruits, vegetables, higher fibre foods and seafood, coupled with tightening family budgets, means that a study published recently in the Journal for Nutrition and Food Sciences is highly relevant.

   The study looked at the nutritional qualities and relative cost of canned foods, and reassuringly found that canned foods provide sound nutrition at an affordable price, in a convenient format.  Specifically much-needed key nutrients, such as fibre, protein, folate, vitamin C, and vitamin A were shown to be significantly preserved in a range of canned foods.

   The nutritional findings are in line with research undertaken here in New Zealand about 10 years ago, but the latest study went an extra step by evaluating affordability on a price-per-serve basis against fresh, frozen and dried counterparts.  The affordability measures took into account preparing and cooking time, and also energy usage.

   The study looked specifically at canned beans, corn, mushrooms, peas, pumpkin, spinach, tomatoes, peaches, pears and tuna; comparing then with their fresh counterparts.

   Two examples of the findings were:

   • Tomatoes – It is nearly 60 percent more expensive to obtain dietary fibre from fresh tomatoes as from the same portion of canned tomatoes.
   • Corn – When looking at purchase price alone, fresh corn is less expensive than canned or frozen. However, when the cost of waste (most notably the cob) is factored in, as well as time to prepare, canned corn offers the same amount of dietary fibre with a 25 percent cost saving compared to fresh and the same amount of folate with a 75 percent cost saving compared to fresh.

   The NZ Nutrition Foundation (NZNF) commented on the relevance of the findings, as they come at a time when many families are struggling to put healthy food on the table because of limited budgets. It also makes the point that canned foods ensure essential nutrients are more accessible to consumers, particularly those with limited storage, preparation facilities, limited time, skill or interest in preparing fresh foods.

   I find this heartening, at a time when so many of our current foodie programmes put great emphasis on the use of fresh fruit and vegetables.  I fear this may be setting the bar too high for many kiwi families who are struggling to make ends meet.  We now know that canned foods do deliver the goods nutritionally and needn’t shy away from the limelight, in the informed kitchen.

   

4. Sugar – since when did the facts get in the way of a good story?

   Published on Monday, June 11th, 2012

   Last night’s Sunday programme on sugary soft drinks (TVNZ 10 June, 7pm) promised yet another “expose” of the type our current affairs love to hype up to get our eyeballs and ears on their screens at the right time.  Previous shows from the US and Australia clearly paved the way for our own home-grown version of another chapter in the great obesity debate.

   It was a great opportunity to show what is happening in NZ and how we as a nation are faring in these tricky times and what the food industry and health sector are doing to address a global issue.

   Not surprisingly, but no less disappointingly the piece was fairly one dimensional and single-mindedly focused on sugar and soft drinks.  What it did highlight, once again, was the limited lens through which so many people choose to examine the link between food and health, or rather food and disease as appears to be the main focus.

   While I commend Sunday for attempting to help New Zealanders think about what they choose to eat (or in this case drink), the facts do not warrant the dramatic way in which this, and many other stories are presented.

   It certainly makes for good TV to show a wheelbarrow full of sugar to represent how much we each consume annually, but this is somewhat misleading.  Likewise we each consume several Olympic-sized swimming pools of water annually, which also looks frightening.  In fact on a daily basis our median intake of sucrose when last measured in 2008/09 was just 48g.  And it’s on the decline (it was 53g in 1997).

   Also, only 5% of our energy (as measured in 2008/09) came from non-alcoholic beverages.  And just 1.4% of energy was contributed by the sucrose in all non-alcoholic beverages (only part of which is sugary soft drink).  The rest, presumably, is contributed by fat, lactose, fructose, glucose and protein (remembering this group includes all non-alcoholic beverages other than plain milk).  So are the other foods and drinks which contribute 98-99% of our energy intake unimportant?  I think not.

   In New Zealand, our intake of sugar (and particularly sugary soft drinks) differs significantly from countries like the United States, where much of the concern about sugar intakes stems from.

   I don’t wish to trivialise the issue, as clearly the above figures are population medians, and some New Zealanders do over-consume.  I would like to propose however, that these individuals are unlikely to be over-consuming on sugary soft drinks alone, and are more likely to be part of the growing number of food-illiterate people who don’t understand what over-consumption is.

   To Professor Rush’s point, there is some evidence that we feel less satiated when we drink kilojoules, compared with when we eat them (because our stomachs empty more quickly), but I think the issue of satiation is far broader than just blaming drinks for our obesity problem.  More and more New Zealanders seem to have become so accustomed to constant grazing on food and drink, to the point that many do not recognise the feeling of satiation, let alone the feeling of hunger.

   What drives us to this?  Economic, cultural and social issues that shape the environment we live in and the choices we make.  Recently I read some research which found that most people no longer know what a calorie/kilojoule is.  Yes, sugar and sugary drinks provide kilojoules, but so does everything we eat.  In order to improve our health as a nation, individuals need a basic understanding of their own diet and how it relates to their own health; they need tools to help them make the best choices for them individually and they need to accept some individual responsibility for what they feed themselves and their families on a daily basis.

   Yes, I do provide independent nutrition advice to a range of food companies, including NZ Sugar and Coca-Cola Oceania, so you may think my opinion is biased.  As a result though, I’ve been following this issue closely and am aware of the evidence, plus lack of evidence, surrounding it.  In my experience, it’s hard to get those without a vested interest in this issue to speak up – at least in New Zealand.  My personal view is to stick to the facts, and to address all of the issues with practical solutions, rather than pinpoint one possible contributor alone.  If there was a single silver bullet to address obesity, we would have found it my now, and we’d all be an ideal BMI.

   

5. You still can’t beat f2f!

   Published on Friday, August 26th, 2011

   In this age of real-time electronic communication, it’s easy to be cynical about the time and expense involved in attending a good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting or conference.  After all, just last week I took part in a tweet chat with dietitians from all over the world from the comfort of my own sitting room, which didn’t cost me a cent.  But having just hopped off the plane from the Dietitians NZ National Conference in Nelson, I’m reminded of the value of spending quality time both networking and socialising with one’s professional colleagues.

   As a nutrition communicator I spend much of my time trawling the pages of PubMed, tapping away on the computer, laptop, iPhone or iPad, using social media and other electronic networks to share balanced, evidence-based food and nutrition information.  It was actually quite a relief to rest my thumbs for a few days and use my own voice and ears instead.  So much so that I now sound like a pack-a-day smoker!

   Together with Sarah (a colleague from the NZ Nutrition Foundation) we presented a social media workshop for dietitians at the conference, and while we were very successful in convincing New Zealand dietitians to jump onto the blogosphere, I was surprised at how much the experience reminded me that social media is only useful in-between times of face-to-face contact.  In fact when I think about it, the dietitians I interact most with via social media networks are the ones I’ve actually met in person.

   Is it a generational thing? Being someone who grew up without the internet, who can even remember what working-life was like prior to email, perhaps I’m biased?  Are you more likely to respond to questions and take part in social media discussions about professional issues when you’ve actually met the person seeking input?  I guess I’ll get my answer from your comments below…

   

6. Do tales of expensive tomatoes really protect the public interest?

   Published on Thursday, August 4th, 2011

   Media are required to walk a fine line between generating interest from their publics while ensuring they are not misrepresenting facts to do this. They also tend to target one aspect of an issue to illustrate a point with the effect that a singular aspect of a complicated issue can become the focus of everyone’s attention. The use of tomatoes as an indicator of soaring food prices is a case in point.

   Food costs are rising and hunger is a heart-breaking reality for some people. But selecting an out of season fruit to highlight the issue of food prices won’t change that. Nor does it actually help people. Where has the age-old advice to buy in season and also to use nutritionally-similar frozen and canned as an alternative gone?

   Is the price of milk yet another example of consumer expectations being formed by media to generate interest in a story that is now considered a major issue? Is the way this issue is being played out also telling people that milk should be cheaper than soft drinks?

   Because so few people actually understand the food manufacturing process, it is not well understood that milk – a high nutritional value fresh protein food – costs far more to produce (think livestock management, cool chain processing, packaging, handling and storage). And because shelf stable soft drinks are simpler and cheaper to produce, their makers are frequently chastised by suggestions they are enticing people to put soft drinks in their trolley in place of milk.

   The commentators who see a good story idea with some opportunity to link it to an issue of public good, often don’t present the full picture, and as a result the public’s interest isn’t served because attention to one aspect ignores potentially bigger issues. Perhaps they think people are too simple to understand a more complicated analysis of society?

   Now a new dimension has emerged, with media commentators offering their own personal opinion on subjects others have had to spend years studying at university. A weekly food product analysis in a certain weekend paper is a case in point. While it offers some interesting observations on what’s in foods, and clearly scrutiny of food composition is important, the naivety of some of the comments would embarrass a new food technology graduate. And certainly frustrate most nutritionists.

   Surely for this and other examples, there should be some level of accuracy and expert input to ensure a better degree of accuracy and perspective? That, to my mind would serve the public good a whole lot better.

   Even Shortland Street has medical experts advising them on accuracy and we all know this is fictitious in the extreme. Credibility and impact of the media can only be eroded over time if these sorts of issues are not addressed. Then they really will be unable to protect and defend the interest of the public they represent.

   

7. When is a healthy recipe not a healthy recipe?

   Published on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

   It has become the fashion for most, if not all, of our lifestyle magazines to present what they call “healthy recipes”.  This is a development that concerns me, not for the fact they are promoting healthy food, but because such recipes are generally devoid of any nutritional reference points.

   Perhaps there is an increasing demand by some for healthy, affordable meal ideas.  The unparalleled success of the Healthy Food Guide magazine would certainly indicate this. 

   As a result, everyone seems to have jumped on the bandwagon with ideas for “healthy” snacks, “healthy” pantry items and “healthy” meal ideas.  The problem is that most of these recipes do not stack up when put against real nutrition criteria, such as energy (kilojoule) content, fat content, sugar content, fibre content and salt content.  Healthy Food Guide pride themselves (rightly) on their rigorous nutritional criteria for recipes and as such, when they say “healthy”, they really do mean healthy.

   Some recent examples of other so-called “healthy” meals include anything vegetarian or gluten free, or anything our nana might have made.  While the use of a range of vegetables in vegetarian recipes is to be applauded, sadly when they are swimming in cream, oil or high fat cheeses their health benefits are somewhat offset.  One particular recent example of “healthy” has been a vegetable stack on a mashed potato base with parmesan wafers.  When analysed it was found to provide more than 75% of the daily energy requirement and more than 100% of the daily requirements of fat, saturated fat and sodium in just one serve.  The recommended serve size was also very large. 

   While there are regulations around using claims such as “low fat” on food labels, there are no such regulations covering the promotional headlines often seen on the covers of magazines.  Usually analysis of the supposedly “low fat” recipes reveals the promotional headline is outrageously misleading.

   Just as frustrating can be the use of terms such as “diet foods” – inferring healthy – but actually meaning for people (rightly or wrongly) trying to avoid particular food components such as gluten and lactose.  The recipes might be devoid of lactose or gluten, but they can make up for it with lashings of fat and sugar.

   I suspect that some of references to “healthy foods” are intended to mimick Healthy Food Guide magazine. However I suspect the success of that magazine is due not just to its strict nutrition criteria for recipes.  It’s also due to its “best friend” approach to its readership, in providing helpful, supportive ideas, while ensuring the information it provides is factually correct.   Contrast this with the claims of a recent article in a popular magazine, headlined “why sugar is making you old”.  It quotes a “celebrity dermatologist’s” theory about how sugar consumption affects the elasticity of the skin.  Any objective analysis of the published research in this field would find the evidence for such claims to be shaky, at best. 

   I have discussed this “healthy recipe” trend with other dietitians. They agree there’s a role for Dietitians NZ to provide some guidance on this, so watch this space for more information. 

    

   

8. Food Week dishes up popular cooking tips

   Published on Friday, May 13th, 2011

   There’s only 2 more days to go in the inaugural New Zealand Nutrition Foundation Food Week!

   Having completed 16 radio interviews and five interactive celebrity cooking demos with audiences of hundreds, and with 600 “likes” on the Food Week Facebook page, Sarah Hanrahan from the Nutrition Foundation is justifiably satisfied with progress so far.

   The approach of Just Cook – promoting positive, no stress cooking, with basic, inexpensive pantry essentials and just talking about food in a positive light has been received well by people so far.  “It’s so much more practical and well received than telling people what not to do”, said Sarah when we spoke to her today.

   With rising food prices and cost of living increasing, many families struggle to manage on an average New Zealand wage (as shown by Campbell Live reporter Tristram Clayton’s reality check in living on a budget), Just Cook, and its message “Just get in the kitchen and cook!” shows it’s absolutely still possible to make healthy, tasty meals in the home without breaking the budget.

   Research shows the biggest barriers to cooking at home are time, money and knowledge. Just Cook provides practical tips on how to address these barriers, such as knowing where to add a tin of beans or a cup of oats or to make meals go further for a fraction of the cost, adding good nutrition without compromising taste. The Food List  – a handy list of pantry, fridge and freezer foods to keep on hand at all times – is a great guide of kitchen essentials that can help those shopping on a budget prioritise what’s needed. And the Just Cook interactive kitchen houses easy, affordable, tried and tested recipes that cater to any combination of ingredients commonly held in NZ pantries.

   The programme also has a schools component for year 10 pupils which will be followed and evaluated in the coming weeks. Students are challenged to produce a recipe on a budget to feed a family of five, using items in the pantry list and a few extra dollars.

   As I write this, Sarah is just packing up from the final celebrity chef cooking demo in Britomart, where Masterchef finalist Nadia Lim cooked up a storm from the Food List in the fabulous kitchen provided by Fisher & Paykel. 

   You can access the celebrity chef recipes here, proof that some of our top foodies have great ideas for inexpensive food!

   We welcome any of your favourite recipe ideas or comments for making meals go further on a budget – please post these in the comments section below.

   

9. Our food is cheap – but don’t expect us to accept it

   Published on Friday, May 6th, 2011

   A recurring theme for the balance of this (election) year will, I suspect, be food prices, particularly with the soaring price of petrol.  Despite our deep grumbles about prices, we bow to the oil barons, and attempt to revert to some cost saving measures.

   Our food producers are not afforded the same luxury. Our protests here have more vigour and sting.  Take the ongoing issue of the price of milk. There is a target we can see and touch.

   A staunch defender of the indigenous food industry, veteran agricultural reporter Jon Morgan wrote in the Dominion Post this week that when it comes to food pricing “some self-styled Kiwi mums, backed by the usual self-promoting suspects of the Green Party, talkback radio hosts and TV presenters have Fonterra in their sights”.

   His column, headed: Not letting the facts get in the way of a good story, drew on the evidence of Massey University professor of pastoral farming Jacqueline Rowarth, the theme being food is cheap – when adjusted for inflation, that is.

   Unfortunately food is not an intellectual exercise.  Even if we accept the evidence of Professor Rowarth that all Kiwis over 18 years spend $5 a day on impulse buys versus $10 a day on supermarket shopping – and that wage increases have outstripped food price rises – the pain at checkout is undiminished.

   While facts – and their constant repetition – may over time have some influence on how we view food prices, no amount of communication is going to change the fact that our spending priorities have been re-ordered.  As important as food is, we now have infinitely more spending options than our parents, or even our older siblings, and we are determined to exercise them.  This is our birthright, so we should not expect our attitudes to food prices to change anytime soon.

   

10. Understanding food

    Published on Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

    We all need food to survive, but in an age where you can shop for it 24/7, heat and eat it and get it without leaving your car, have we lost our understanding of food?

    Having a basic understanding of the components of food and knowing what to expect when specific foods are prepared in different ways shouldn’t just be the realm of food technologists.  There was a time when most household cooks understood the food they purchased and cooked.  One view is that now we don’t really have household cooks,  we have household shoppers and household “food assemblers”.  According to Richard Dennis of the Australian Institute on Checkpoint, most of us don’t have a meal plan in mind when we visit the supermarket.  He describes convenience as “the enemy of good planning”.

    How have we ended up like this?  Food was once plentiful and, in most cases, cheap, we were fit and healthy, there was no such thing as global warming, and we just got busy doing other things.

    But the halcyon days are no more.  Food is expensive, it takes a lot of resource to produce in the quantities we need, and our population has an obesity and diabetes problem.  For all these reasons we simply cannot afford to carry on in the same fashion.  Throwing away food is hurting us more than just by leaving us with feelings of guilt.  Fresh fruit and vegetables have risen more than 12% in price over the last year, and are, apparently, the items most often thrown out.  According to Dennis this is partly because we don’t plan our meals well, but also because what we think is fresh often isn’t, so starts to deteriorate sooner than expected.

    This lack of connection with food is causing some authorities to question having “best before” dates on labels.  But surely the answer is to just engage a bit more with the foods we choose to buy?

    Examples include: knowing that yoghurt or cottage cheese that’s past its best before date is going to be OK as long as it tastes and smells OK; knowing how to cook something to preserve it for a bit longer; and storing foods appropriately to help extend their life (eg, apples in the fridge, potatoes in the dark, etc).

    Another key thing is to learn how to plan meals ahead, so that we go to the supermarket prepared and just buy what we need.  It won’t only save money but it will be good for our waistlines and ultimately, the planet.