Changing perceptions about fast food restaurants-How long the new trend will last?

Fast foods and junk foods are almost synonymous and both of them are set to decline their influence on American consumers in the coming years, if a perceptible trend noticed  among younger population regarding their food preferences is any indication. Hamburgers, Hot Dogs, French Fries are all iconic in the landscape of the "eating out" consumers but there appears to be a fatigue developing among the people regarding the desirability of consuming them if they have to avoid life style diseases like CVD, Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Obesity etc. Constant exposure of the younger generation consumers to the "cause and effect" of junk food eating, emergence of organic foods as a major player in the market and greater awareness about the health advantages of fruits and vegetables seem to be persuading them to shun junk foods and fast foods. California where the "vegetable" revolution is taking shape a number of chain restaurants are attempting to offer stiff challenges to the well established fast food giants by attracting more and more clients offering them tasty foods based on vegetables stressing that they are great in quality and safety though the health advantages are not over sold. Here is a commentary on this development which may be a fore runner of what will happen eventually around the world in the coming years. 

"America's interest in locally sourced and healthy foods has spurred a boom in farmers markets and farm-to-table restaurants and has expanded organic produce at the supermarket. Now, a number of upstart chains trying to tap that interest are taking aim at traditional fast food by moving leafy greens and fruits to the center of the plate.
These rapidly expanding restaurants want to revolutionize the fast-food industry, bringing healthy fare to the masses who typically don't shop at Whole Foods. At the same time, they are stealing customers from stalwarts such as McDonald's.The most bankable word in food service is fresh.- Restaurant consultant Aaron Allen These chains, several based in California, see a juicy opportunity in the Golden State, with its bounty of health-obsessed diners interested in the latest food fads. Such chains make up just a tiny fraction of the $200-billion fast-food industry in the United States. But analysts predict this sector will boom as health-conscious consumers ditch the burger and fries in favor of quickly prepared healthy meals. "The most bankable word in food service is fresh," said restaurant consultant Aaron Allen. Many are rethinking the fast-food experience beyond food. At some, you'll find real china replacing paper dishes and foam cups for in-house eating. There are cushy chairs and communal tables, not plastic ones that are nailed down. Several offer beers from local breweries and menus that change with the seasons. "People want to eat more vegetables that are nutritious and unprocessed," said Greg Dollarhyde, chief executive of Santa Monica-based chain Veggie Grill. "The big trend now is make it better for me, but I don't want to give any flavors up." Many of these restaurants cater to salad skeptics or meat lovers who shy away from anything green or overly healthy. "I don't like saying the H word because that's going to turn people off," said Mike Donahue, co-founder of Lyfe Kitchen, which has expanded to 13 locations since opening its first restaurant in Palo Alto in 2011. "I tell our people they have got to start every message with, 'Tastes great, tastes great, tastes great. And oh, by the way, it is good for you.'"

There is this Soup Plantation chain where customers can pick up at least two dozens of salad combinations selecting from a range of vegetables and adjuncts which can have a variety of flavors and taste when assembled on the plate. Similarly there is the Veggie Grill chain which strategically plans its marketing to attract clients without overs selling the health claims. All these new players are exploiting the strength of organic food and locally made food movements to carve out for them selves a viable market which if the present growth is any indication will sideline many of the existing fast food chains in attracting customers in the coming years. Innovative design of eating places and use of china wares provide a different eating experience compared to the staid ambienc associated with many of the established fast food chain restaurants. When one looks at the present trend, credit must be given to the good old Subway restaurants which offer, though through a fast food format, some of the most healthy menus predominantly based on vegetables. No doubt this is a welcome development for Americans who face a bleak future caught between the juggernauts of fast foods, junk foods, GMO foods and heavy meat based foods.    

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

VEGETABLES FROM "HEAVEN"-EVER EXPANDING ROOF GARDENING

Urban agriculture is a hot topic in some countries because of the supposed advantages for vegetables from such endeavors in the form of lesser carbon emission, freedom from pesticides, relatively lesser from pathogens. Though it started in a very small way twenty years ago, recent developments in this sector is raising the possibility that urban gardens may play a critical role in meeting the requirements of vegetables for a significant segment of the city population without depending on arrival from far away places or from other continents. There is even a more friendly version of urban gardening where fresh produce retail shops are installing such gardens in the same building for the customers to pluck their need directly from the plants. It is amazing that a city like New York with a mega population and sky rocketing real estate prices is leading in establishing urban gardens on roof tops which is considered a far sighted development initiative. Here is a report on this interesting phenomenon.

"Today, she could have had both. New York City (the stores!) is suddenly a farming kind of town (the chores!). Almost a decade after the last family farm within the city's boundaries closed, basil and bok choy are growing in Brooklyn, and tomatoes, leeks and cucumbers in Queens. Commercial agriculture is bound for the South Bronx, where the city recently solicited proposals for what would be the largest rooftop farm in the United States, and possibly the world. Fed by the interest in locally grown produce, the new farm operations in New York are selling greens and other vegetables by the boxful to organically inclined residents, and by the bushel to supermarket chains like Whole Foods. The main difference between this century and previous ones is location: whether soil-based or hydroponic, in which vegetables are grown in water rather than soil, the new farms are spreading on rooftops, perhaps the last slice of untapped real estate in the city. "In terms of rooftop commercial agriculture, New York is definitely a leader at this moment," said Joe Nasr, co-author of "Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture" and a researcher at the Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson University in Toronto. "I expect it will continue to expand, and much more rapidly, in the near future." For city officials, the rise of commercial agriculture has ancillary benefits, as well. Rooftop farms have the potential to capture millions of gallons of storm water and divert it from the sewer system, which can overflow when it rains. And harvesting produce in the boroughs means fewer trucks on local roadways and lower greenhouse gas emissions, a goal of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration. Community gardeners and educators have tended plots and grown food for years. But they have only recently been joined by for-profit companies intent on getting back to the urban land. Gotham Greens began harvesting from its hydroponic greenhouse on a rooftop in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn last year; it plans to open three more next year in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The existing operation, with 20 employees, grows bok choy, basil and oak leaf lettuce, and sells to retailers like Whole Foods and FreshDirect. Brooklyn Grange, another farming operation, incorporated with the intention of finding a site in Brooklyn. But two years ago, a one-acre rooftop became available instead in Long Island City, Queens. The partners, led by Ben Flanner, the president and head farmer, spread out 1.2 million pounds of soil and started planting. This spring, Brooklyn Grange finally made good on its name, starting a second farm on a 65,000-square-foot roof at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where more than 100 rows feature pattypan squash, scallions and beefsteak tomatoes. Mr. Flanner pointed out two benefits to an agricultural aerie — plentiful sun and an absence of pests. "There are a number of parallels with regular agriculture," he said. "What we don't have are deer or foxes or rodents".

A garden friendly policy like that is in place in New York goes out of the way to help potential "gardeners" to establish such productive system and added to this the city itself is offering the roof tops of its own buildings for gardening at reasonable contract fees. The changing attitude of established and reputed retailers towards produce grown in urban gardens is encouraging many citizens to enter this area. These retailers are tying up with those growing salad vegetables for marketing locally and thus create a win-win situation for both. Though all urban structures are not suitable for raising roof top gardens, there are still millions of such apartments and building complexes which may eventually get into this loop. Probably future designs of urban dwellings may incorporate gardening features, suitable for raising small gardens either as a part of the individual units or as a collective roof top facilitiy.

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

"LOCAL FOODS"-A "FREE FOR ALL" SITUATION!

Like organic foods, local food movements in some of the western countries have gained acceptance by a significant segment of the consumer because of the perceived feeling that they are safer, more nutritious and environment friendly. While organic foods got really established across the world with their own standards, quality vigilance and international protocols, local foods can be confirmed only by tracing the sources from where they have come. Most of the big retail food chains are the losers because local foods made available in the farmers' markets are much more in demand than the products offered by the former which are sourced from hundreds of kilometers away with practically nothing known about their credentials. Of course with traceability law in place consumer has a much better chance of knowing the history of the produce bought from a retail chain. If a recent report from the UK is to be believed one in three dealers offering local foods are of suspect credentials and here is a take on that situation.

"Council food enforcement officers visited over 300 premises across England and Wales because of the increasing consumer interest in buying `local'. They visited both point of sale and manufacturing facilities. In total, 558 products (65 per cent from restaurants, 23 per cent from retail shops and 12 per cent from manufacturers and other) labelled as `local' were investigated. Full inspections revealed that at least 18 per cent of the claims were undoubtedly false with a further 14 per cent unable to be confirmed and therefore assumed false. These false claims were found at similar levels across all food sectors with almost one in five restaurant descriptions misleading customers. Meat and dairy products were frequently misleading with 50 per cent of poultry, 29 per cent of sausages, 27 per cent of both beef and lamb and 24 per cent of dairy products all completely false. Chairman of Local Government Regulation councillor Paul Bettison said: "To have around a third of all items investigated turn out to be false or potentially false is extremely worrying. "At present there is no widely agreed definition of the term `local' and it isn't acceptable. Everyone should be operating in a fair environment and following the same rules. Defra and the food industry must agree the definition of `local'."

According to one report even some of the retail chains in the US are resorting to malpractices, setting up local food section in their premises but stocked with materials sourced through their regular supply chain which amounts to cheating the consumer. As there are no established methodology to distinguish between local and those sourced from distant places, sufficient scope exists for fraudulent operators to make a fast buck through this easy route. Until clear cut guidelines are established for defining any food as local, consumer is left at the mercy of the dealers in providing local foods, many of them unable to resist the opportunity to cheat the unsuspecting consumer. A rigorous vigilance system must be in place for bringing to books such fraudsters which may provide the necessary deterrent.

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

THE REAL ENERGY GUZZLERS, PLEASE STAND UP!

The "Locavores" movement started in the US for encouraging people to shun foods brought from far away places and in stead consume those that are grown locally seems to be based on unsubstantiated premise that the former is responsible for large consumption of fossil fuel energy. A recent study debunks this theory and in stead blames the house holds as the biggest culprit in this energy saga. Though one cannot accept the stand that people should consume more of energy efficient commercially produced industrial foods for cutting down energy waste, there is a point in that more needs to be done for cutting down on house hold energy consumption through more optimized kitchen operations and improved designs of kitchen appliances. While energy experts focus only on the narrow aspect of energy consumption, there are other issues like the impact of industrial foods on consumer health.

In his recent The New York Times op-ed, "Math Lessons for Locavores" -- debated at length in our"Food Fight" feature -- Stephen Budiansky shows that transportation and "modern" (i.e., highly mechanized and chemical-intensive) farming make up relatively small parts of industrial food's energy footprint. Consumers in their kitchens, in Budiansky's view, are the real energy guzzlers -- so locavores should stop worrying and learn to love industrial food.Those points are addressed broadly by a recent article in Amber Waves, the publication of the USDA's Economic Research service. On page 13 of this lucidly written report, we find that in 2002, U.S. households used nearly 4 quadrillion BTUs of energy in the kitchen, more than any other sector of the food system. By contrast, transportation -- think of the vast fleet of trucks that ferries the food we eat cross-country, to supermarket chains and eateries -- consumed about 0.6 quadrillion BTUs. And agriculture, with its gas-dependent combines and other machines and fossil fuel-sucking fertilizers and pesticides, used just 2.1 quadrillion BTUs.

The energy consumption by the agriculture sector in most developed countries is a matter of concern but very little can be done to reduce the consumption without affecting land productivity. Possibly some alleviation measures can be thought of which includes extraction of energy from farm wastes through anaerobic digestion or bio-fuel production so that the net energy utilization comes down significantly. Both these technologies are at a ripe stage for utilization in large farms provided necessary resources are made available to install large scale facilities in the coming years. .

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

LABELING "TRAUMA"-A "CATCH 24" SITUATION?

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is an issue that is hotting up in the EU because of its implications beyond Europe. One of the cardinal principles of global free trade is "non-discrimination" of products based on country where they are manufactured as it can be construed as an indirect attempt to influence the buying decisions of the consumer at the market place. If the product quality is same there is no reason why a consumer cannot buy a product made in another country and the rigorous testing systems put in place at the entry points in each country is supposed to allow only safe and quality compliant products in. The "patriotism" factor, "local produce" movements, carbon foot print figures, cheap labor cost, lack of hygiene and sanitation, etc are all invoked to shun foreign made goods and protect nonviable local industry. If the global village concept is accepted there is no place for such discriminative trade practices any where in the world.

"Supporters of the proposed COOL regulation say it would put a stop to the practice of meat imported from countries outside the EU being processed, say in Ireland, and then being labelled as produce of Irish origin. While this is it legal, they say, it seems neither fair nor equitable as it comes perilously close to misleading consumers. Opponents counter by arguing the imposition of COOL across the board would cause serious difficulties for manufacturers of complex products such as pizzas, pies and ready meals that buy ingredients from multiple sources according to factors such availability or seasonal variation. Taken to its most extreme, they warn of vast labels listing the origin of dozens of ingredients, covering swathes of food packaging. Constantly changing labels would increase costs and waste. And inevitably, these additional costs will be passed onto customers. Everyone agrees consumers shouldn't be misled about the provenance of food. But where do we draw the line between this and the heaping of questionable bureaucracy on companies that may force some players out of the market and cut customer choice? On food labelling, as with everything else, knowledge is power. Devised properly they allow us to make informed choices about what we eat. But it is vital to find the balance between serving up portion-sized information that illuminates rather than dishing up an overload of data that risks keeping consumers in the dark and placing needless strain on food manufacturers".

Looking from another perspective, indicating the country of origin should not be an issue at all, if the manufacturing countries which export their food products have nothing to fear on the quality or safety count and probably such declaration should bring honor to them. If the products are good, consumers can be expected to prefer them over the locally made ones over a period of time. It is the industry which is having a problem as illustrated by the report above. While traceability is a desired goal which will be useful in identifying the source of food contamination responsible for food poisoning as and when it occurs, practicability of any strategy that is considered must be kept in view.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com