Food Industry

1. 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…

   

2. 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.

   

3. 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. 

    

   

4. 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.

   

5. 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.

   

6. 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.

   

7. en•gage•ment (in-geidj-mint)

   Published on Thursday, October 28th, 2010

   n.
   1. The act of engaging or the state of being engaged.
   2. Betrothal.
   3. Something that serves to engage; a pledge.
   4. A promise or agreement to be at a particular place at a particular time.
   5. a. Employment, especially for a specified time.
   b. A specific, often limited, period of employment.
   6. A hostile encounter; a battle.
   7. The condition of being in gear.
   Synonyms: engagement, appointment, assignation, date1, rendezvous, tryst
   These nouns denote a commitment to appear at a certain time and place: a business engagement; a dental appointment; a secret assignation; a date to play tennis; a rendezvous of agents at the border; a lovers’ tryst.

   I do believe after many years of courtship and conflict, the various groups of stakeholders in the ever-expanding waistlines of New Zealanders are finally approaching engagement.  There’s not a lot of tangible evidence of productive engagement yet, but the scene is set.

   [The cynic in me is bearing in mind that using the above definition, engagement can mean both betrothal and battle...]

   Last week I attended the popular Edgar Centre for Diabetes Research and Prior Policy Centre’s Who Cares About New Zealand’s Waistline? seminar held in Wellington.

   Much of the discussion was not new – but the format was.

   As Professor Jim Mann explains here, the event was designed to portray evidence and practice from several of the key “actor groups” previously identified by the United Nations as influencing the health of populations.  The “actor groups” chosen to contribute at this event were Food Industry, Government, Civil Society Organisations, Schools & Families, Media and Workplace.

   Researchers were asked to present the case for evidence-based action in each sector and each sector was asked to respond with what has been and what could be done in New Zealand.

   I was particularly struck by the lack of hard evidence for any one intervention within each “actor group” having a major impact on obesity rates (with the exception of better town and transport planning).  Although every group demonstrated tangible evidence that they’re doing their bit – some better than others – within each area.  And no-one can deny that the combined effect of many coordinated interventions involving many different actor groups would likely be substantial, if any such research project existed to provide the hard evidence.  Presently it’s an ambitious dream, but monitoring action and research in this way on an annual basis will hopefully show progress.

   Tariana Turia impressed us all with her personal and compassionate concern for the issues.  You can read her speech here.

   Professor Grant Schofield from AUT was bold enough to admit that people don’t want to hear public health messages.  He suggested we need to re-frame the problem/issues into solutions/benefits/outcomes our audiences can relate to.  This was also backed up by sentiments expressed in the media session by Lorelei Mason and Jim Tully about what consumers want.

   Re-framing the issue is something done particularly well by the private sector.  Engaging in marketing and business tactics used successfully by the private sector are exactly what could make the difference to public sector campaigns.  In a recent inspirational TED presentation by Melinda Gates, she stated (of the need for aspirational marketing in health) “…<health agencies> assume when people need something we don’t have to make them want it”. It’s very true.

   Which brings me back to the need for real engagement between all actor groups to engage New Zealanders in the issues.  The main point I took from the research outcomes presented was that working away diligently in silos is not likely to trim our waistlines one iota.

   Well done to Professor Jim Mann and his team – who did a lot of the legwork to pull together the programme.  It was a refreshing approach.

   

8. 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.

   

9. 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?

   

10. 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!)