Refresh

Well, congratulations to Whole Foods Market again for turning what could be interpreted by consumers as a big inconvenience into a Happening. I’m talking about the company’s plan to phase out plastic bags from all its stores and — this is pure genius — to do it by Earth Day 2008.

Perfect.

We’re truly impressed that WFM continues to demonstrate a deep willingness to change, and in this case, lead. We’re also in total awe of their marketing department and its ability to connect all the dots. Public awareness of plastic bags and plastic water bottles has grown tremendously over the past year, and the idea of taking this step and banning plastic from a store was an idea ripe for the picking (And it’s still a hot issue. We’ll have two bag-related stories in our next issue of SN Whole Health coming out in February).

But again, John Mackey and company have beaten conventional retailers to the tree. As a result, they get all the publicity, their reputation as a progressive, ethical retailer is reinforced and, well, they get to start saving big bucks by eliminating this line item from their annual budget.

This type of “message marketing” (my term) is yet another wake-up call to mainstream retailers. Health and wellness is an ideal vehicle for such initiatives because it makes people feel good. Let’s face it. It’s a lot easier to convince shoppers to sacrifice convenience when you tell them it’s for the sake of the environment.

This isn’t the first time WFM has trumped the conventional industry. Remember lobsters? The chain announced it was phasing out live sales in June 2006 because the whole process of catching them and getting them to the stores amounted to animal cruelty.

Here’s something I bet you did not remember: The month before, Safeway said it was phasing out its live lobster tanks. Why? Because… “business was in decline” (their words).

Same idea, different message. Who do you think got the press?

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval this week of food from cloned animals drew a storm of reaction from the food industry and beyond. It would appear that the closer the issue gets to the consumer level, the more likely there will be outright opposition or — at the very least — caution and heavily qualified approval. We’ve provided a rundown of several that you should find interesting:

Retailers: Although the Food Marketing Institute stated last year that retailers trust the FDA’s ability to determine what’s safe, some retailers said they flat-out refuse to sell cloned meat or milk. Kroger said as much in an LA Times story, as did Whole Foods in a statement earlier this month.

Government: The U.S. Department of Agriculture supports the FDA’s report, but asks that suppliers uphold a voluntary moratorium to keep cloned animals off the market for right now. Then there’s Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who forwarded an amendment in this year’s farm bill to delay the FDA’s cloning decision. She said the FDA acted “recklessly.”

Industry Organizations: The Organic Trade Association again emphasized that cloned animals will not make their way into organic products. Meanwhile, the American Meat Institute said it will review the issue further, and the National Milk Producers Federation voiced its support for the USDA’s call for moratorium.

Watchdog Groups: The Center for Science in the Public Interest is satisfied with the safety of cloned animals, but believes ethical and environmental implications are still a question mark. The Center for Food Safety, on the other hand, believes the FDA has opened “Pandora’s Box.”

Consumers in Pennsylvania will still be able to examine containers of milk to see if it was produced without artificial growth hormones.

In what one consumer advocate called “a complete backdown,” the state’s department of agriculture issued revised rules this week concerning on-pack mentions of hormones in milk. The old rule, issued last October and to take effect Feb. 1, banned any statements from appearing on cartons or jugs. Officials argued consumers could be led to believe hormones were bad.

Why is this case important? It was the first time a state had pursued such a policy, and would set a precedent. Opponents quickly voiced their concerns, characterizing the debate as a “right to know” issue which, in turn, attracted the interest of average shoppers. They caught the ear of Gov. Ed Rendell, who ordered a review of the proposed standards (read: Fix this!).

If anything, the new regulations bring Pennsylvania in line with other states’ policies. Labels can still highlight the absence of recombinant bovine growth hormone, manufactured by Monsanto and approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994. However, such assertions must now be accompanied by a disclaimer stating there is no difference between milk from rBGH-treated cows and rBGH-free cows. It basically amounts to little more than a pain in the asterisk.

Dairy is one of the gateway categories to health and wellness. Retailers should be extremely wary of any measures that cloud the transparency essential to the vitality and success of the entire whole health movement. When you look at it in those terms, Pennsylvania is making the right decision.

This afternoon the Food and Drug Administration gave its official approval of food coming from cloned animals and their offspring. In its final report, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, the agency stated that it had taken all moral, religious and scientific factors into account, and concluded that food from cloned animals is just as safe as food coming from ordinary animals.

There are currently 600 or so cloned animals in the United States, and officials note it may be several years before milk or meat from cloned animals even is ready for the consumer market. Because they’re so expensive to produce, most of them right now are only used for breeding purposes.

“Many farmers and ranchers are already using other assisted reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, embryo transplant, and in-vitro fertilization to produce superior animals,” said Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs with the USDA, which supported the FDA in its announcement. “Cloning is another breeding technology that has evolved and has now been demonstrated to be safe.”

Let’s see how consumers demonstrate their support.

Last week saw two very different answers to a question that’s on the minds of many retailers and consumers: What to do about all those plastic bags?

For New York City, the answer is recycling. The city council there passed a resolution requiring supermarkets 5,000 square feet or more in size, or with five or more locations in the city, to provide in-store recycling bins for plastic bags.

China on the other hand — not exactly renowned for its environmental stewardship — imposed a ban on ultra-thin plastic bags and a fee on all other varieties. The state department there urged citizens to instead use cloth sacks and baskets to carry groceries.

The benefit of recycling is that it allows retailers to continue using low-price plastic bags. But critics argue it won’t keep most consumers from continuing to trash the bags they use (also, plastic never gets fully recycled). A total banning seems to address the problem at its root, but some groups say that just shifts the burden — often to paper bags, which require tons of petroleum to produce.

Last March, San Francisco imposed a plastic bag ban for all large-scale supermarkets and drug stores, at the same time giving these retailers the option to use compost-friendly bags or bags made from recycled paper. Environmental groups lauded this decision, but others say the shift to the more expensive biodegradable bags amounts to an unfair hidden tax on consumers.

Retail advocates like the California Grocers Association believe San Francisco missed the boat by failing to address consumer behavior.

“It’s about attacking the problem at its root,” said Tim James, local government relations manager with the CGA. “Just by banning a certain type of bag, you don’t necessarily change bag-use behavior.”

Many would argue, however, that behavior isn’t the issue. It’s cutting down on the 84 billion plastic bags that Americans use every year, and the 12 million barrels of oil used to produce them.

This is a lively, ongoing debate, and we’d love to hear your side of it. Should retailers have to recycle plastic bags, or ban them outright? Or should they institute usage fees? Let us know what you think.

Are higher gas prices hurting sales of health and wellness items? Let’s face it, higher pump costs are hurting everything. A new survey of some 26,000 consumers by The Nielsen Company in December found that half of them have reduced spending to compensate for the higher price of gasoline.

Measures they’ve taken include more shopping at supercenter formats, using more coupons and buying less expensive grocery brands, as indicated by the chart below.

“Manufacturers and retailers need to be alert to the fact that consumers are looking to save by altering where they shop, how they shop and what products and brands they buy,” said Todd Hale, senior vice president of Consumer Shopping & Insights for Nielsen Consumer Panel Services. “Value, convenience and competitive pricing will be more important than ever in the year ahead.”

The three criteria Hale mentions are not the first that come to mind when thinking about wellness, particularly organics. So, you have to wonder what kind of impact a recession (are we allowed to say that word yet?) is going to have on wellness category growth.

There is one good note sounded in the Nielsen survey. Forty-one percent of the consumers polled also said they planned to eat out less, and 39% said they plan to stay home more often. Supermarkets with flexible whole-health pricing strategies will hopefully be able to do something with those numbers.

Some operators, like Sunflower Farmers Market in Boulder, Colo., already position themselves as the affordable alternative to premium wellness prices. Mike Gilliland, Sunflower’s founder and CEO, noted as much recently, when he announced an infusion of $30 million in equity financing from private investors to expand the 13-store chain.

“There is tremendous demand for an alternative to the high price format that has predominated in natural foods for so many years,” he said.

Sunflower’s motto also fits in with the times: “Serious Food… Silly Prices.”

Higher gas prices likely would have less of an impact if the economy were stronger. Unfortunately, the one-two combination here makes it even less likely consumers are springing for higher-priced organics and wellness products. If anything, the current state of the economy will likely accelerate the growth of retailers like Gilliland, who emphasize the value segment of the natural and organic categories.

It seems everyone is getting into carbon offsets these days: Banks, colleges, restaurant chains, airlines — and supermarkets, to name a few. Even cultural institutions like the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl have joined in. Many claim to be “carbon neutral,” which means all emissions created by the entity have been met with an equal dose of earth-friendliness. And then there are some, like the Fiji bottled water company, that say they’re carbon negative. According to Fiji, this means implementing business practices and projects that will trap more greenhouse gases than the company pumps out.

It’s hard to argue with a goal that helps the environment. But as carbon-offset programs become more popular, there arises a concurrent opportunity to misrepresent claims. Part of the problem is the actual offsetting doesn’t get done in a company parking lot. Oftentimes it’s planting trees in South America, or subsidizing wind turbines hundreds of miles away. It’s something customers don’t see and that companies themselves cannot easily monitor. The actual business of administering offsets is outsourced to third-party firms.

The Federal Trade Commission is worried enough about the volume of carbon-free programs and the way the system currently works that it’s holding a series of fact-finding meetings. FTC rules on green marketing haven’t been updated in more than 15 years, and part of the strategy here is to warn businesses the agency is looking for abuses, and intends to follow the issue.

Retailers like Whole Food Market, which announced in 2006 the purchase of enough wind credits to offset 100% of the electricity use in all its stores, are right in the middle of the movement. Some retailers have even offered gift cards that bestow offsets upon the receiver. As both a participant in the practice, and a merchandiser of it, it’s important to note that retailers assume a double risk if their carbon offset programs are found to be less-than sterling.

In cases like these, it’s wise not just to follow where the wind blows. Study the organizations that sell credits and be sure they uphold their part of the agreement.

Advocates for water conservation have adapted a term being used by their carbon-reduction cohorts for a new campaign that invites Amerricans to measure their water “footprint.”

A new website, www.h2oconserve.org includes an H2O calculator that allows visitors to determine just how much water they’re using (which turns out to be, on average, just under 1,200 gallons a day).

After that cold splash of realization, consumers are invited to learn some tips for reducing water consumption and guided to sources of additional information.

One thing retailers should note is that a companion news release called on other organizations and government institutions to encourage consumption of public water supplies, rather than H2O sold in plastic bottles. So, it appears this anti-bottled water campaign is continuing. The organizations behind h2oconserve.org — Food & Water Watch, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future and Grace — even sent us a reusable water bottle. It’ll replace the paper cups we get every morning from the water cooler.

If they haven’t already, supermarkets might want to review their bottled water sales and consider adding a selection of alternative containers, along with some educational literature promoting consumer choice, and see how the idea floats.

The spinach scare of 2006 and rash of meat recalls from this past year have made retailers anxious for a fresh start. That’s why many are making improved food safety their top resolution this new year.

Of the many areas that food safety addresses, it appears traceability leads the list in 2008. On the produce front, there’s the Produce Traceability Initiative, holding its first meeting tomorrow in Atlanta. Comprised of more than 30 companies throughout the food industry — including Wal-Mart, Safeway, Food Lion, Schnuck Markets and HEB — the group looks to create traceability standards that will apply across the supply chain. Right now inefficiency runs rampant, often with each step in the process — from producer to distributor to retailers and stores — utilizing different tracing technologies.

This means a grower might tag a carton of tomatoes with its own scanning code, which then gets sent on to a distributor who can’t read or store that information because they use an entirely different system. The result: a negation of all traceback efforts, and a huge waste of money.

“Companies think they have traceability solved, but they only have it solved within their own four walls,” said Gary Fleming, VP of industry technology and standards for the Produce Marketing Association. “Right now, we’re all over the board.”

The meat category is an even more complex maze of tracing systems — everything from electronic ear tags to DNA cataloging. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is pushing its National Animal Identification System, which involves electronic tracking tags; earlier this year Michigan became the first state to make parts of the program mandatory. But the meat industry has resisted the idea, mainly out of cost concerns.

Although produce is definitely ahead of the curve, it’ll take time to resolve traceability for all fresh food categories. Hopefully we’ll see this resolution at the top of retailer’s lists next year, as well.

Dessert is a subject we love to write about because it’s not something you typically get to discuss in the wellness business, unless it’s about portions and fat and similar topics that take all the fun out of eating it in the first place.

Luckily, there’s a trend currently working its way through in-store bakery cases across the country that satisfies both dessert fanatics and calorie-counters. It’s basically a miniature version of popular desserts crammed into what can best be described as shot glasses. They were spotted just before the holidays being introduced in the upscale King’s Super Market chain in New Jersey. The Duo Mousse Shots are available in four varieties: Chocolate, Coffee, Crème Caramel and Raspberry Lemon.

At least two casual service restaurant chains, Chili’s Grill & Bar and T.G.I. Friday’s, have offered them since the fall. Chili’s calls them Sweet Shots, with names like Seven Layers of Chocolate, Strawberry Wave Cheesecake and Dutch Apple Caramel Cheesecake. Friday’s put them on their revamped menu as Mini Dessert Shots (pictured), in Rocky Road, Chocolate Raspberry, Peanut Butter Cup, Chocolate Chip Mint and Orange Cream.

Chefs who responded to the National Restaurant Association’s annual “What’s Hot & What’s Not” survey named bite-sized desserts the hottest of the 194 items ranked, with more than 83% calling it “hot.” This could be a real neat way to get wellness shoppers to visit the ISB for more than artisan bread and gluten-free cookies. These spoon-size items are real desserts with portion control built in. Retailers can develop a whole bunch of fun flavor profiles, and offer them bundled — either themselves or with family fresh meals.

Who says dessert has to be served last in the whole health movement?