Healthy foods Vs unhealthy foods-A contrasting marketing landscape

Considering all the factors that have contributed to the progressive deterioration of health among people, the most important is the way food marketing environment is changing every where in the world. Food technology developments are boosting the capability of food processing industry to create foods tailor made to "trap" the consumers, with no concern about their well being. There is a qualitative transformation of the food "environment", that includes food retailing and eating places, where proportion of healthy foods to the total number of products offered to the consumers has been decreasing alarmingly resulting in more and more people sucked into the unhealthy food trap. Added to this the cost difference between healthy foods and junk foods is widening with the former some time costing more than double that of junk foods. Why is this happening? Does the market place play a part in this cost escalation vis-a-vis health foods? Or does the consumer attitude is responsible for this phenomenon? Probably this is a complex issue on which it may be difficult to arrive at a consensus. Here are some observations made by one of the study groups concerned about the deteriorating food environment that may drown this planet in agony and despair soon if some thing drastic is done to arrest the trend.

"Last December, researchers at Harvard published a paper scientifically examining a complaint common among conscientious eaters -- that healthy food is more expensive than junk. That paper, published in British Medical Journal, found that eating a healthy diet costs approximately $1.50 more per day. Today, researchers in the United Kingdom published a study in PLOS ONE that gives yet more insight into this topic: not only is healthy food more costly than unhealthy food but the price gap between them has grown significantly over a 10-year period. The researchers, led by Nicholas Jones from the University of Cambridge, used data from the UK Consumer Price Index to track the cost of 94 foods and beverages from 2002 to 2012. They also used  a technique called "nutrient profiling" to determine which foods might be considered healthy and unhealthy, based on information such as the amount of saturated fat and sugar per 100g. What they found: in 2012, 1000 kcal of "healthy" food cost approximately $12, while 1000 kcal of unhealthy food cost only $4. And while the mean price of all foods rose 35 percent over that 10-year period, the researchers found that "the price of more healthy foods was consistently greater than that of less healthy foods over the period 2002–2012, and that the absolute price gap between healthy and less healthy foods has grown over this period. "Food poverty and the rise of food banks have recently been an issue of public concern in the UK," Jones said in a statement about the research," but as well as making sure people don't go hungry it is vital that that a healthy diet is affordable."

One of the mysteries associated with the working logistics of modern food industry is how it is able to offer foods considered desirable, but not necessarily healthy, at such low prices and still make money? Mass production and bargaining muscle probably enable it to bring down production cost significantly. On the other hand insufficient demand for healthy foods make the manufacture some what less profitable making it a necessity to increase their price. Is it not paradoxical that when awareness about health and its relation to food is rising fast among people creating more and more demand for such foods in the market place, industry is unable to offer such products at prices comparable to that of junk foods? What justification industry can offer in making a whole wheat bread almost 50% costlier than white flour based bread? Technological limitation cannot be trotted out as an excuse because technology is relatively a minor component in the costing exercise. Considering these facts there is an urgent necessity for governments world over to bring in more regulations to compel the industry to manufacture more healthy foods and offer them on par with regular products now being churned out. The situation can become alarming if the present trend is allowed to continue with unhealthy foods overwhelming the portfolio of healthy foods, consumers can lay their hands on in the market place.    

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

WHY THE INHIBITION ON USE OF IRRADIATION FOR MEAT? THE IRRATIONAL POLICY

Why is that gamma irradiation is being treated as an outcast technology in spite of the enormous advantage it enjoys compared to other technologies in protecting foods from ravages of microbiological hazards? The only answer could be "ignorance'! added to this many governments have dealt a body blow to this clean process by insisting on declaration of the same on front of the label which probably makes the consumer feel uncomfortable patronizing radiation treated food products. What is perplexing is that in a country like the US where unlimited freedom is given to the industry for using genetically modified foods without any transparent declaration policy, irradiated foods need to be appropriately labeled. If Americans have a choice most of them would not touch a GM food if such label declaration was insisted upon. Recently the meat industry in that country reeling under massive product recalls from the market because of suspected contamination with pathogens made out a case to allow them at least use very small dose of radiation for just surface sterilization and unfortunately same has been denied. Here is a take on this vexed issue.

The American Meat Institute Foundation (AMI) had sought acceptance for chilled beef carcasses to be treated with low dose, low penetration electron beam irradiation to reduce disease-causing pathogens like E. coli. Late last week, FSIS finally issued its official decision on the petition: denied. Winning approval of irradiation as a processing aid would mean the treated beef would be exempt from irradiation labeling. The industry doesn't like the label requirement, because it thinks consumers misunderstand and won't accept irradiation, despite its benefit in reducing health risks. In a letter to the AMI, FSIS said it "has determined that the petition lacks sufficient detail" to warrant a new rule on irradiation as a processing aid, citing a lack of definition for the terms "low dose" or "low penetration," as well as the lack of criteria in controlling the total absorbed dose. Eighteen months ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) signaled that the meat industry's 2005 request to use low-dose irradiation as a processing aid to reduce unwanted microbes -- and not have to label the meat as irradiated -- was not getting much traction. AMI Foundation president Jim Hodges said those issues could have been worked out. "FSIS cites technical reasons for the denial of AMI's petition to treat carcass irradiation as a processing aid, when the petition simply asked FSIS to initiate the process of making a labeling policy change to encourage the use of irradiation technology," Hodges said in a statement. FSIS said the petition was being denied "without prejudice" and that AMI could submit a revised petition addressing the government's concerns. Meanwhile, chilled beef carcasses can be treated with irradiation so long as the products meet existing requirements for total absorbed dose and for labeling, FSIS stated.

Such quixotic policies with out any rationale or justification are difficult to understand for a lay man. Probably the denial was based on the perception, mostly on wrong reasoning, that sub-standard meat would be passed on to the consumer after irradiation! Governments world over are forgetting that their primary role is to ensure food offered is safe to their citizens and quality will be the criterion the market forces will decide. Fraudulent practices that economically cheat the citizen also is a crime that need to be checked but with consumer courts springing up every where there is a remedy forum where consumers can get relief from economic frauds. The double standards in its policies vis-a-vis GM foods and Irradiated foods can make that country look silly in the eyes of others!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FAST FOOD BECOMING "FASTER"-THANK THE INTERNET!

Fast foods in many western countries are at the receiving end because of their suspected role in contributing over weight, obesity and many life style health disorders. But this industry has shown remarkable resilience in overcoming such adversities and continue to thrive. They have become all the more visible these days when the economic melt down has reduced the buying capacity of many middle class families who can afford these foods easily as they are priced low due to the large business volume generated. Besides industry continuously strives to be sensitive to consumer concerns in modifying their products removing promptly any ingredient that has safety uncertainties as per consumer perception. The industry serves a useful purpose by providing highly standardized and tasty preparations within a matter of few minutes using most modern processing technologies. Recent revelation that this industry is increasing the convenient content further shows that it is not easy to demolish them from the mind of the consumer.

"Mos Burger branches across school campuses and Taipei City (around 20 in total) have already tested out the on-line meal order service. By mid-March, the new service will be available for the fast food establishment nationwide. According to Mos Burger representatives, the new service was created to shorten the waiting period for its customers. Although the company has a call-in service for orders, customers have complained that their calls often fail to go through. The prevalence of Internet-based services caused Mos Burger to roll out their on-line ordering process, testing it in January across Taipei City branches and those located on school campuses. The results were positive, and the company predicts that by mid-March, all 180 or so Mos Burger branches will take on-line requests. The Mos Burger website has two options for on-line orders: systematic and time-based. If the customer doesn't specify a time, his food will be made within ten minutes of his order, which will be ready to be enjoyed in the restaurant or for pick up. However, if the Mos Burger restaurant is at capacity, the customer may still have to wait".

Those who patronize joints like Taco Bell, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Burger King, KFC or any other fast food serving place cannot fail to notice the quality of service and the premium on time accorded to their service. For many professional and busy people time is definitely a factor that determines their choice of eateries and these outlets fit admirably with the consumer expectation. Though the new innovation cannot be considered very novel, putting into practice the IT technology for providing faster service is some thing that does not exist till recently. Ordering of food through telephone can reduce the waiting time significantly but in a country like the US it is next to impossible to get a live human voice to listen to consumer needs. Therefore Internet is a possible practical medium that can allow the consumer to send across the order very fast and little time is lost between ordering and taking delivery of the menu items ordered. What is noteworthy is that this development is happening not in Europe nor in the US but in Taiwan in Asia! Three cheers.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ENCOURAGING CONSUMER "ATTITUDE"-GOOD "OMEN"GLOBAL FOOD TRADE

Recent clamor for including "country of origin" information on labels of processed food packs was based on the apprehension by a segment of the consumers regarding the safety of the foods originating from other countries as traceability of the supply chain is fraught with many logistical difficulties. Besides some consumers feel that the carbon foot print of products originating from far away countries could be very high while local products with minimum transportation cause lesser green house gas emission. Though these sentiments are aired by more vociferous critics, the general public does not seem to be sharing such a perception as brought out by a recent survey on the attitude of consumers to such factors in the UK.

"UK supermarket shoppers do not appear to care which country their fresh food items come from, according to research by the University of Otago. Marketing researchers from the university investigated whether the controversial "food miles" concept impacted on supermarket shoppers' food purchasing behaviour. Lead author Associate Professor John Knight said they focused on what actually leads consumers to purchase something instead of just asking consumers their opinion"."Our survey of shoppers exiting supermarkets found that country-of-origin considerations ranked extremely low among the reasons given for why they chose to buy particular fresh food items," he said.

It has been shown by many studies previously that the single most important consideration for the consumer is the price factor and if the products are offered at low cost with safety assured there may not be any reservation in buying such products, all other factors being secondary. Patriotism generally works at times of war or severe national stress, persuading people to buy local products, possibly even at a higher price. The remarkable success of Japanese products during nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies and Chinese products these days is only because of the price factor.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com