High food prices have pushed people — and especially health-conscious people — to creative lengths lately. They’re growing their own food. They’re cooking at home. They’re shopping at farmer’s markets, co-ops, and even buying into their local farm. When they are actually in the supermarket, they’re often trading down to private label and other lower cost goods.

Given all this, it’s understandable that retailers would want to focus on value instead of health and wellness, where many products come at a premium price. Some of the more popular marketing campaigns lately include how to stretch stimulus checks and get the most bang per basket.

But consumers are as focused as ever on healthful shopping. In fact, they’re arguably more concerned than ever during these lean times, especially with medical costs being what they are in this country. Just scan the food blogs and news sites and you’ll see what I mean: service pieces on how to eat healthy on a budget, musings about the fate of organic foods, and stories galore about pricing trends.

What shoppers are starting to forget — and what retailers shouldn’t let them forget — is that good nutrition and value can go hand in hand at the supermarket. Fresh foods and meat come at a variety of price points, and resourceful consumers can use them to cook up great meals that become great leftovers. It’s also efficient to buy food that’s local and in season. Farmers markets are being promoted for this reason, but supermarkets are a good source for these things as well. Let’s also not forget about healthy private label products, which are starting to take up more and more shelf space.

As someone who’s trying to eat healthy on a (increasingly strained) budget, I can think of a few things I’d like to see more of in stores. Healthy recipe ideas would top the list, and so would weekly deals (see FreshDirect’s Healthy Mondays promotion). I’m sure retailers can think of a few more.

Very few people out there have the power to change the way millions of Americans eat. The government is one. So is Oprah. But for the thinking person, there’s Michael Pollan. And, since we like to think of ourselves as a thinking person’s blog, we were estatic when we heard one of our veteran SN reporters, Roseanne Harper, was this week able to catch the author and Berkeley professor on the phone while he was packing for vacation. They spoke for more than 20 minutes, which isn’t a surprise to us here. With her endearing West Virginia accent, Roseanne could delay the departure of Air Force One with a casual query about a cockpit dial.

SN: What’s your relationship like with the supermarket industry right now?

Pollan: I had an inquiry [recently] from the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Would I be willing to speak at one of their conventions? I don’t know if that will happen. I would be happy to engage with them. I think it’s important to engage with people you’ve been critical of, and supermarkets aren’t wedded to any particular kind of food. Look, if the consumer says, “Listen we want local food or we want grass-fed food” [supermarkets] will sell it.

SN: Your last two books, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “In Defense of Food,” certainly raised some eyebrows among consumers and food retailers alike.

Pollan: In the research, there were plenty of surprises, like discovering so much in the supermarket is made out of corn; that organic is much more industrialized than people think.

Organic milk comes from feedlots that are indistinguishable from conventional feedlots — not always, but very often…Things like that were very surprising.

SN: [laughs] Any hate mail?

Pollan: No, I haven’t had any critical letters from grocery people. I have not heard as much from industry as I had expected. I don’t think they’re reading! But other responses surprised me.[There are a] number of people who told me these books have changed their life, and how they shop, how they eat. I was flabbergasted by that! And I hear it over and over again.

SN: But the industry is listening to you, and them, in some ways. Some of what you talk about in your books is already happening.

Pollan: I’m happy to engage with them and hopefully push them in what I think is the right direction. The supermarket shopper is changing. I think if you go to farmers markets, you see a new shopper emerging and I think supermarkets have to take account of that person or he or she will abandon the supermarket. There is so much more happening than exchanging money for food.

SN: How are supermarkets keeping these customers who are demanding more?

Pollan: Some supermarkets are experimenting with allowing farmers markets in the parking lot. There is a movement in this country to reform the food system and I’ve been the beneficiary of that in many way. That movement has not had a manifesto; for a lot of people, they see my book as that manifesto… along with [others].

SN: Tell us where you see the all this animal welfare activity fitting into the overall wellness movment.

Pollan: The humane animal treatment is a real issue for me and I think increasingly it is for consumers. It’s not easy to justify on moral or ethical grounds, the way we raise animals, but I think that’s going to change. I think cage-free eggs will be the standard within a couple of years. I think sow crates will be eliminated because right now sows live in crates for most of their lives that are even too small to turn around in. The more people learn about these things, the more they want a different product.

There’s never been any doubt about the sweetness of stevia: The extract alone can be up to 300 times as powerful than regular sugar. It’s noncaloric, and that’s why, after generations, this native Paraguyan herb is of such interest right now.

What is in doubt is the reaction of federal regulators when stevia starts showing up on food ingredient lists, because the United States is one of a handful of countries that classifies stevia a dietary supplement, and therefore subject to full regulation.

Two small companies are already clearing new territory: Blue California and Wisdom Natural Brands have have “self-affirmed” their stevia-based sweeteners as GRAS - Generally Recognized as Safe. That’s a designation usually granted only by agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA — through the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act — allows stevia to be sold legally in the United States, but only as a dietary supplement. It’s already in plenty of drinks, teas and other items, labeled as “dietary supplements.” What everyone wants now is for the FDA to loosen up a little and simply allow stevia to be called a “sweetener” like high fructose corn syrup, or sugar.

Blue California and Wisdom Natural Brands (makers of the SweetLeaf brand pictured left) are pushing the envelope for another reason. They’re facing big-time competition. Coke and Cargill, who have been jointly investigating the herb’s properties, this week set up a large staffed display in New York City touting Truvia, the brand-name sweetener developed by their stevia research. Consumers visiting the display areas receive background information and history on stevia, its safety properties and even get to taste some.

No matter what happens, watch for the FDA to start moving quickly on getting stevia’s status as GRAS approved in a more timely manner. Not only are bigger companies pushing for it, consumers who’ve tasted the new sweeteners will likely be joining the chorus of those demanding a new, all-natural sugar alternative.

In a poll conducted last year by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, 58% of consumers said it’s important to them that supermarkets stock humanely labeled food. That’s a lot of consumers who are — or would like to be — compassionate carnivores. Retailers like Safeway and Whole Foods, both of which recently updated their animal welfare guidelines, have tuned in to the trend. Same with many restaurants, including fast-casual chain Chipotle, whose sales have gone gangbusters since they started selling humanely raised meat from Bell & Evans, Niman Ranch and others.

Many supermarkets have started selling cage-free eggs, free-range chicken and beef, and other selections that make a specific humane treatment claim. Some have also begun sourcing meats verified by humane advocacy organizations, like the American Humane Association’s “American Humane Certified” label.

Acknowledging this popularity, the WSPA recently ranked the top 25 supermarket chains on their availability of humanely labeled foods. Whole Foods came out on top, nearly doubling the score of the runner-up company, Wegmans Food Markets. Also scoring high were Harris Teeter, Kroger, and — in a bit of vindication for its recent seafood snub from Greenpeace — Publix.

The WSPA based its rankings not only on the number of humanely labeled foods carried, but the integrity of the labels: How many aspects of animal care were covered? Were the standards verified by a third party? Cage free, free range and grass fed labels were dubbed “A Good Start;” pasture raised and USDA organic were classified as “Even Better;” and third-party certifications were “The Best.”

This sort of system could be helpful for consumers, but more than anything it highlights just how fractious and confusing such labeling is. Consumers are prepared to pay a premium for animal welfare, but how do they choose between pasture raised, free range and Certified Humane? Can they even parse their values in such a fashion?

This is definitely something for supermarkets to ponder. In the meantime, they need to back everything up with transparent marketing and education.

For supermarket executives, health and wellness is synonymous with employee benefits. To wit:

-Safeway president and CEO Steven Burd has made health care one of his signature issues. He’s even talking about a plan to use elements of the chain’s consumer-oriented FoodFlex system in the company employee health plan by 2009.

“If someone wants to opt in to demonstrate a nutritious lifestyle, I think we’ll be the first company to grant premium reductions for that,” he said.

-After years of criticism, Wal-Mart has been busy trying to improve the way it insures its 1.4 million U.S. associates. On February 7th, the mega-retailer launched a multi-faceted campaign called “Better Health Care Together.” The announcement includes four “common sense” principles for achieving a new American health care system by 2012, one of which is the ability for consumers to take more responsibility and control over their own health care.

There are other examples out there, and as one of the highest expenses in any company’s operating budget, you can bet there will be more. Just this week, Hannaford Bros. signed on with RedBrick Health, a health services company that is spearheading a new area of employee healthcare called Consumer-Owned Health.

Under the Hannaford program, 2,000 company associates who are already enrolled in a health plan will receive augmented support from RedBrick as a way of transitioning them to to take a more active role n their health (read: preventative measures). In this role, RedBrick Health guides employees through plan selection, consolidates multiple sources of health plan data, provides uniform reporting. It’s expected that this kind of third-party intervention will save Hannaford big bucks down the road.

This is the next generation of health care, and the supermarket industry — with its army of unskilled, hourly wage earners — is among the first to glimpse it; likewise, companies have the chance to shape policy that’s still in not set in stone. Time to get to it.

In what the tabloids might call an “A-Salt,” or perhaps a “Shakedown,” several cities in England have begun dispensing new five-hole saltshakers to area restaurants in the hopes of reducing people’s sodium consumption. The current widely used model has 17 holes in it, so if you go strictly by the math, patrons could end up shaking out a third of what they normally do.

Officials there certainly think it’s a breakthrough. The Food Standards Agency — a watchdog group established by the government — has nominated the new saltshakers for a “Food Champions Award.”

But does rationing like this really work? Throwing salt on fries (or “chips”, in this case) isn’t an exact science, so people could be just as happy with less. Critics, however, say diners will pour on the salt no matter how many shakes it takes. To draw a parallel with something that’s more familiar to consumers on this side of the pond, look at portion-control products. Over the past couple years, there’s been an explosion of 100-calorie packs in everything from chips to ice cream. These are supposed to put a consumption cap on rich foods, but some sources say they’re actually doing the opposite. A recent study from the Journal of Consumer Research showed people ate 46.1 grams of potato chips from portion-control bags, and only 23.5 from large bags.

Undoubtedly, though, there are those who will stick to the smaller-size regimen. Just like there will always be those who choose fresh produce and low-fat offerings, and those who opt for the candy aisle. Supermarkets shouldn’t force consumers into fewer shakes or smaller portions. Rather, they should continue to offer a variety of healthy products, then let the shopper choose.

I don’t want to date myself by making the well-worn reference to President George Bush the Elder and his opinion of broccoli. So, I’ll just say this: Put plenty of broccoli in your Fourth of July salads…. Heck, put broccoli in everything, especially if you’re a guy.

A new study out purportedly demonstrates just how this cruciferous vegetable fights cancer — a compound called isothiocyanate is believed to activate both genes that fight cancer, and shut off those that promote tumor growth. The dual action makes broccoli and its cousins — brussel sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, rocket or arugula, watercress and horse radish, among others — twice as powerful in fighting cancer.

For the British study, 24 men with a high risk for prostate cancer were split into two groups. Half of them ate four extra servings of broccoli a week, while the others ate peas. Tissue samples taken during the year-long study showed that men who ate broccoli showed hundreds of changes in genes known to play a role in fighting cancer.

What makes broccoli king is that it contains a particularly powerful type of isothiocyanate called sulforaphane. It really seems to kick the butt-cells of prostate cancer.

Anyway, this is just another conclusion supporting Mom’s admonition to “Eat your vegetables.” In the words of one of the researchers here, now we’re learning why we should be eating them. Hear that, George?

Food safety is often overlooked in all the talk about health and wellness. But let’s face it, if the food makes you sick, who cares about antioxidant content? The point becomes moot, as they say.

Tomatoes are a great source of Vitamin A, beta carotene, lutein and lycopene. Currently they’re also the source of a major problem for government regulators, public health investigators, farmers and retailers. Daily news conferences hosted by top officials at the Food and Drug Administration announce that they’re not any closer to pinpointing the source of the salmonella outbreak first reported nearly three months ago. Meanwhile hundreds of people have become ill, and tomato fields not cleared by the agency have turned into a rotten red mess.

The lead story in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal notes that tomatoes are the No. 2 seller in the supermarket produce department, behind bagged salads. A study conducted for our magazine, SN Whole Health, by Avero Research, indicates that a notable percentage of consumers will swear off all products associated with a recall, even if they’re not directly involved.

In this case, the FDA stresses that only red round, Roma, and plum varieties are suspect. But many consumers don’t hear that, or are too skeptical. So, the cherry, heirloom, on-vine and grape tomatoes go unsold too. If you’ve been in a produce department lately, you know this hurts retailers, who build big, proud displays of these summertime favorites.

I don’t think we’ll discover the cause of the salmonella outbreak. Officials have admitted as much, noting the tomato production process is extremely diversified and hard to trace. What I do hope is that retailers erect big signs saying their product comes from approved vendors, so that doubt is erased and consumers buy tomatoes. Then we can get back to talking about the benefits of lycopene.

Shoppers have said they want to see more sustainable packaging, but are they willing to make the necessary adjustments? According to yesterday’s New York Times, Wal-Mart and Costco customers aren’t too happy with the stores’ new gallon milk jugs, which are rectangular shaped to allow for more efficient shipping. They’re claiming the new design makes for a terrible pour, dousing much more than just a bowl of corn flakes.

In response, the stores, as well as the manufacturer of the new jugs, say there is a right way to pour — it’s just a little different from what people are used to. Instead of lifting and tipping, try resting the jug on a countertop and then tilting it. Or, as one dairy owner advised, give it a “rock-and-tip”.

Wal-Mart and Costco are trying to teach proper technique to their customers through in-store demonstrations. That’s a smart move, and it shows these retailers really are committed to the adoption of sustainable practices. Wal-Mart in particular has been on a roll lately. Just today, the Bentonville retailer announced plans to include more locally sourced produce in its stores.

Looking at the bigger picture, though, this milk jug issue holds an important lesson to retailers moving further and further into green marketing. Consumers are demanding eco-friendly products and practices from the stores they shop, but they’re often unaware of what that entails. That’s where the retailer needs to come in and tell customers what’s different, why, and what they need to do.

Because it’s not that people don’t want to make sacrifices or change their lifestyles a bit. They just want to know the right way to pour.