Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Menu

Food Politics

Photo by Stephan Henning

2019 Trends that No One is Talking About

, , , , 0

There are some huge trends emerging in 2019. And I’m not talking about CBD, plant protein or mushrooms, as that would be a ‘year in review’. 

There are trends that are coming hard and fast at the food industry that few are discussing and that need to be addressed, so we are going to lay out all eight of them here:

  1. Racial Advertising: Our food system is not only loaded with artificial ingredients, but also systemic racism.  In no way is that more obvious than in the excessive advertising that targets people of color. In 2017, black teens saw more than twice as many ads for unhealthy food products as white teens, researchers found. Statistics show that growth in consumption of organic food by communities of color is outpacing that of the total population, so someone tell the ad agencies and marketing directors: targeting black teens with junk food has to stop.
  2. Whitewashed Venture Capital: Less than 1% of American venture capital-backed founders are black. Less than 1%. So venture capital is failing to invest in diversity of innovation, and it’s costing us: in 2016, the Center for Global Policy Solutions reported that due to discriminatory financing practices and a bias towards companies primarily operated by white males, America is losing out on over 1.1 million minority-owned businesses, and as a result, foregoing over 9 million potential jobs and $300 billion in collective national income, according to Forbes.
  3. B Corp: This certification is exploding. Danone officially became the world’s largest B corp in 2018, defying any and all excuses.  A challenge within the certification itself is that due to its costs, it inadvertently burdens minority groups who do not have the same access to capital, as discussed above. There has always been some backlash against the certification and the suggestion that it is yet another “Winner Take All” strategy. However, that can be addressed, and given the intent of the board of B Lab, I am certain that with increased noise and pressure, it will be.
  4. The Bullshit Factor: Consumers are calling out companies that fake authenticity. RXBar is the poster child for this one. For almost 18 months, consumers complained about reactions they were having to these products: from life-threatening allergic reactions, to GI upset, to vomiting to skin rashes. It took 18 months before a recall was issued. So if a company promises “No B.S.” in their products, chances are you want to take another look.
  5. Food Waste: It’s seismic in our food system, from soil to shelf. Imperfect produce is not accepted at the grocery store and antiquated “sell by” dates fill dumpsters with products fit for a kitchen. Almost 40% of the food that we produce is wasted. The bottom line is that we need it to feed the world. Around the country and world, we are now seeing everything from food recovery programs to zero food waste bloggers to ambitious European Union (EU) food waste reduction targets. Food policy in the U.S. needs to get with the 21st century. 
  6. Melatonin-infused Products: Anxiety and depression are impacting millions of Americans.  Is it any wonder? The steady stream of headlines put us into fight or flight mode, and stories of “climate grief” and the growing emotional toll of climate change are mounting. Climate grief is yet another reason why sleep is elusive to millions. What helps? Melatonin. So look for melatonin-infused supplements, teas and snacks to help pillow our heads and settle our minds.
  7. A New Labeling Debate: With lab grown and cell-based ‘milks’ and ‘meats‘ in production, the FDA and USDA are playing a game of “Who’s on First”? Nobody is quite sure by whom or how these products are going to be regulated. There are no long term testing models. On top of that, the meat industry is suddenly getting defensive about who can label what “milk” and “meat.” Is a tofu sausage really a sausage? Stay tuned.
  8. Climate Calories: Two-thirds of the U.S. military installations are threatened by flooding, drought and wildfires driven by climate change, the Defense Department said in a new report required by Congress. But it’s not just impacting the Department of Defense, climate change is a national security issue, a food security issue and so much more. It’s disrupting agriculture and farming. So put it on the balance sheet, measure the risk and mitigate it. We need to think about it this way: How many climate calories does your product consume? And what plans are you putting in place to mitigate climate risk? 

As BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, wrote in his 2019 letter to CEOs:

“Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address pressing social and economic issues. These issues range from protecting the environment to retirement to gender and racial inequality, among others. Fueled in part by social media, public pressures on corporations build faster and reach further than ever before.”

Heading into 2019, make sure you are managing your business for purpose-driven profits that align with the values of 21st century consumers.

There is too much at stake, and the risk of obsolescence extends far beyond a company’s bottom line.

 

corntrailer1

The Seed: How Monsanto Pitted Farmers Against Each Other

, 0

I often am approached by movie producers who are working on films, either a feature film, short film or documentary. I have become very good at saying “no.” More often than not, the film sensationalizes a very serious subject. As a result, I review every project and endorse few.

The Seed is a film project that I have known about for a few years, so when the producer reached out earlier this week to share the trailer, I took a look.

And now you get to, too.

The Seed is currently in production. It tells the story of the operating system that Monsanto introduced when they introduced their genetically engineered seeds into commodity crop agriculture back in the 1990s. These seeds had never before existed in our food supply and fundamentally changed farming in America.

With the release of these patented seeds, farming and the autonomy farmers had over their land and operations changed dramatically. Farmers entered into technology stewardship agreements, committing them not only to the purchase of these patented seeds and the trait, technology and licensing fees required to use them, but also with these contracts, farmers had to use Monsanto’s signature sides – herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and other weed killers. It was a brilliant new business model for a company that sold chemicals up until the mid 1990s that was built on the backs of our farmers. All of our farmers.

And because these new ingredients weren’t labeled in our food supply, we didn’t know and couldn’t help. We had no idea what was going on on the farm.

And now, the system is broken, pitting farmers against each other.

In no way is this more telling than with what is happening to farmers: the opioid epidemic in farm counties is jaw dropping, according the Farm Bureau, farmers debt is increasing, net farm income is declining, average farm debt is over $1.3 million in farm states like Nebraska, and farmer suicides are becoming all too common, as the Guardian recently reported in the gut wrenching piece, “Why Are American Farmers Killing Themselves in Record Numbers“. As a result of all of this and more, succession plans for farms are failing.  Young farmers do not want to step into these broken business models.

In a conversation with a commodities trader who recently moved to Denver from Omaha, I learned that farmers are telling younger generations: don’t go into commodity crops like genetically engineered corn and soy, go into specialty crops or organic.

This film gives a glimpse into why. If you want to learn more, please contact us.

And please share the clip below, so that we can get our farmers out of debt and back on track.

Written in memory of Scottie McAllister of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa.

b-corp

The B Corp: The Most Important Trend in Business

, 0

There are a lot of trends to cite in business today, especially when it comes to natural food products: CBD oil, collagen, turmeric, and fermented foods, just to name a few. Layer on top of that blockchain, AI, and the rapid advance of tech into every industry, you realize that there is a tsunami of “trends” to keep track of.

But few are as important as the rise of companies seeking B Corp certification. So what is it? According to B Lab, “B Corps are for-profit companies certified by the nonprofit B Lab to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. Today, there is a growing community of more than 2,100 Certified B Corps from 50 countries and over 130 industries working together toward 1 unifying goal: to redefine success in business.”

MegaFood was honored B Corp Certification earlier this year, continuing its commitment to changing the world and ensuring our future is healthy and sustainable. Furthermore, my friends at Danone put all of the naysayers to rest when they became the world’s largest food company to obtain B Corp certification. As two companies who have proven their leadership in their unique markets, this is a huge signal to the marketplace: if we can do it, you can, too.

So the question is, why isn’t every one of your favorite brands certified B Corp?

If you’ve spent a few minutes on the B Corp site, you quickly learn why this is an incredibly valuable certification. It takes serious commitment. It’s not just about recycling your trash at your office, or making sure there are charging stations for electric vehicles. B-Corp companies embrace accountability through their entire business model, from inclusion and diversity, to environmental accountability.

It truly is conscious capitalism at its finest in the corporate world.

It’s just another reason why I love working with and knowing friends at B Corp certified companies like MegaFood. In addition to creating premium vitamins and supplements made with whole foods from a select group of trusted farm partners who support organic and regenerative agriculture, MegaFood has always been committed to B Corp social impact standards as a champion of change in the creation of meaningful jobs, the improvement of lives, and the application of best business practices. The brand is dedicated to:

  • Corporate bylaws that include social, environmental and economic diligence.
  • Its trusted network of farmers who grow MegaFood products’ whole food ingredients. The development of a global verification standard for food grown in a regenerative way in partnership with The Carbon Underground and Green America to improve soil health, human health, and support a reduction of the threat from climate change.
  • Its status as the first supplement brand to obtain glyphosate residue free (GRF) certification for its entire line of products.
  • Integrated social impact as a crucial role in company-wide performance evaluations.
  • A strategy for improving employees’ well-being by offering development opportunities through self-leadership and providing high-quality comprehensive benefits packages.

Ultimately, MegaFood is helping us build better and smarter systems, from sourcing, to product development and even through internal benefits – such initiatives that recognize that we are all stakeholders in this planet of ours.

Want to learn more for your company? Where to get started? (Hint: Build it into your business model). If you are an entrepreneur, start now! What may seem radical today will be the standard tomorrow. Get in front of it, and if you have questions, ask friends who are already on the path.

Together, we can build smarter systems, and that is such an exciting prospect!

 

This post was created in partnership with MegaFood®. I’m proud to work with brands that care about the health of its consumers and the planet. As always, all opinions and text are my own.

 

Genetic engineering, GMO and Gene manipulation concept. Hand is inserting sequence of DNA.

New GMO Technologies Represent Major Challenges to Non-GMO Supply Chain and Certification

, 0

Originally published at the Non-GMO Report by Ken Roseboro.

New genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR gene editing, RNA interference (RNAi), and synthetic biology are presenting major challenges to the non-GMO supply chain and certifiers, as some products developed using those technologies are entering the market claiming to be “non-transgenic” or even non-GMO.

Cibus used oligonucleotide mutagenesis (ODM), a gene editing process, to develop a canola variety that the company claims is non-transgenic. Conagen developed a “next-generation natural preservative” using synthetic biology and claims it is non-GMO. Calyxt developed a gene-edited high-oleic soybean that was grown this year, and the harvested crop will be processed at two non-GMO and organic processing facilities in Iowa, American Natural Processors and KemX Global. While Calyxt doesn’t claim that its soybean is non-GMO, the company issued a press release saying it had “received a letter from the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirming that the Company’s high-oleic soybean variety is non-regulated, as the product contains no foreign DNA.” A synthetic biology sweetener, EverSweet, developed by Cargill, was even certified non-GMO by NSF’s True North non-GMO program.

“Being misrepresented to the supply chain as non-GMO”

“One of the biggest concerns is that these products are being represented to the supply chain as non-GMO. These companies are really taking advantage of the fact that these products are not transgenic and equating that with being non-GMO,” says Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project. “But they have been developed using genetic engineering techniques and they are GMOs.”

This muddying the waters of what is non-GMO creates challenges for food manufacturers who may not be aware that some ingredients were developed using new genetic engineering techniques.

“The lack of transparency coming from purveyors of these new techniques has put food companies in a vulnerable position. Getting out in front of this new dynamic has also created a strategic challenge for us,” Westgate says. “How do we help protect the supply chain so that people are not misled?”

To prevent misrepresentations of new GMOs as non-GMO, the Non-GMO Project requires that suppliers fill out affidavits that include a list of techniques that are prohibited in non-GMO verification. These include gene editing, synthetic biology, and RNAi.

“We are not just looking for them to say it is non-GMO,” Westgate says. “We are looking for someone with sufficient knowledge of the supply chain to attest that none of these techniques have been used.”

Westgate emphasizes that these so-called “GMO 2.0” technologies are genetic engineering.

“Gene editing still involves transgenics. They still use soil bacteria, to get the DNA into the nucleus of the host plant. It’s just that it is not there in the finished product. They have used genetic engineering to develop them. There is no possible way they can be non-GMO.”

The European Union Court of Justice has also ruled that products developed using gene editing should be subject to GMO regulations.

NSF’s True North non-GMO standard also prohibits gene editing and other new GMO technologies. “Gene editing and synthetic biology meet the definition of ‘genetic engineering’ under NSF’s Non-GMO protocol and are therefore not allowed, except in limited circumstances such as when enzymes are used as processing aids and are not present in the finished product,” says Steve Taormina, business unit manager for NSF International’s Consumer Values Verified Program

The Non-GMO Project does not allow such exceptions, considering products such as enzymes made using GMO microorganisms as GMO even if they are not found in the final product. This led to the Non-GMO Project objecting to NSF’s non-GMO certification of Cargill’s EverSweet sweetener made using a GMO yeast.

“If something is created using a fermentation microorganism, and if that microorganism is genetically engineered, then the product that it makes is genetically engineered,” Westgate says.

Taormina says NSF welcomes input on its non-GMO standard. “As with all standards, NSF’s Non-GMO True North certification program continues to evolve with science and technology. This certification program is currently under review, and we welcome additional key stakeholders—users, regulators, industry, and academia—to participate and provide their perspectives as part of the stakeholder review group.”

“Trying to distance themselves from consumer rejection of GMOs”

New GMO companies don’t want their products called GMO or genetically engineered because of negative consumer perceptions of the technology.

“We definitely see a huge trend of these new GMO companies trying to distance themselves from the consumer rejection of GMOs by basically saying that their products are not GMO,” Westgate says.

One of the challenges with products made from new GMO techniques is that they aren’t regulated by the government. As with Calyxt gene-edited soybean, the USDA considers these products “unregulated” so they can enter the market much faster than older GMOs, which must go through a regulatory process that can take several years.

To track all the products being developed using these new technologies, the Non-GMO Project employs a full-time research team. A research analyst says there are some 80 products she monitors along with 250 companies involved in genetic engineering, from “older” transgenic technologies to the newer techniques.

The research analyst finds new companies and products all the time, and this is likely to continue. “We can expect a significant increase in the quantity and range of biotechnology products over the next 5 to 10 years,” the analyst says.

But while new GMOs are entering the market, they still represent just a small segment of the GMO industry. “In the big picture, it is still the case that almost all GMOs are transgenic crops that are developed to be herbicide tolerant,” Westgate says.

Education is another key to dealing with threats posed by new GMO technologies to the non-GMO supply chain, particularly for the food industry and consumers.

“It is important to get that baseline understanding established, especially in the food industry, for people to understand how dishonest and unscientific it is when companies say that these things are not GMO,” Westgate says.

One of the biggest challenges is the fact that there are no tests to detect new GMO products developed using gene editing and synthetic biology. But that will change soon.

“There is really good progress being made with developments in being able to test for these things. We do expect that within the next couple of years most of these new GMOs will be testable, and as soon as there are quantitative tests for them we will be requiring those,” Westgate says

Healthy soy meadow at beautiful sunset

Regenerative Agriculture: What It Means and Why It Matters

, 0

“Regenerative agriculture” is a buzzworthy phrase being thrown around by the food industry, similar to the way the word “sustainability” has been in years past. But what does “regenerative agriculture” mean? And why is the food industry using it? Well, that depends who you ask. Without outcomes attached to it, it becomes a marketing term.

It’s creating a lot of headlines and has a lot of strong and good intentions behind it. But so did the words “sustainability” and “natural” until they were co-opted. As Matthew Dillon of Clif Bar points out, we have to be careful to not just create buzzwords that are good for marketers. We have to also make sure they are good for farmers.

More than just a buzzword

But here’s the deal: regenerative agriculture is good for farmers because it can take such good care of the soil, which in turn provides a stable and fruitful business for farmers. And why does soil matter? Because the soil is where our food comes from, and if the soil is healthy, our food will be healthy. And you guessed it, we have a much greater chance at health ourselves.

On average, we have just “fifty-seven more years of growing crops,” according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. That is just fifty-seven more harvests until we have no more topsoil to grow food.

That’s a pretty scary and small number and also where regenerative agriculture comes in.

According to Food Business News, “What makes this issue different is that in the case of natural, organic and non-G.M.O., large food and beverage manufacturers were slow to embrace these movements. By contrast, in the case of regenerative production, mainstream companies are participating in the establishment of standards and establishing partnerships to put those practices in action.”

So what is regenerative agriculture all about?

Regenerative agriculture describes farming and grazing practices that, among other benefits, reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter, and restoring degraded soil biodiversity.

The term regenerative agriculture was first introduced by Medard Gabel (1979), and then developed by Robert Rodale (1983). But not much happened for a mighty long time, until recently in the natural and organics products industry.

My friends at MegaFood give such a straightforward and direct definition of regenerative agriculture: according to Sara Newmark, VP of Social Impact at MegaFood, “It literally begins with the soil!” She explains, “Healthy soil produces crops with higher nutrient densities, and a great way to manage the land for optimal soil health is by implementing regenerative agriculture.”

The way we grow food is destroying our soil. Chemical applications have a profound impact on soil formation. According to MegaFood, “85-90% of plant nutrient acquisition is microbially-mediated so without microbes, plants starve to death. Carbon is no longer being introduced into the soil and as a result of all of this combined, our food is on average 40% less nutrient-dense than it was 50 years ago.”

Another eye-opening statistic!

“Regenerative agriculture is defined as a system of farming principles, patterns, processes and practices that actively enriches soils, biodiversity, ecosystems and watersheds while effectively producing a variety of ecosystem functions and agricultural yields,” as the Carbon Underground states. At the community level, regenerative agriculture can increase farmer and rancher livelihood, along with resilience and the well-being of communities and economies.

Who wouldn’t want that? As of late, farming communities seem to be hammered with bad news.

Good for People and the Planet

As the Carbon Underground goes on to say, “Regenerative agriculture is proving to be one of the key ways by which we can reverse global climate change as well as affect positive change within the realms of land system change, biochemical flows, ocean acidification, the hydrological cycle and the revitalization of biodiversity.”
It addresses climate change and increases soil quality. Boom!

Transitioning to regenerative agriculture and storing the excess atmospheric CO2 in soils and biomass presents us with our best opportunity for carbon sequestration and working with the 500 million smallholder farmers who provide 80 percent of the world’s food is a way to do it in a way that feeds people and planet.

As affirmed by soil scientist Dr. Rattan Lal, “A mere two percent increase in the carbon content of the planet’s soils could offset 100 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions going into the atmosphere.”

Let’s do this!

So how do we get there? There are shifts happening in consumer values and this is giving rise to an unprecedented degree of ethical decision-making supportive of the transition to regenerative agriculture.

This is especially true for millennials, of whom 62 percent were found to be willing to pay more to support responsible business practices, responsibly produced food and brands that practice environmental responsibility, according to Regeneration International.

Furthermore, companies like MegaFood, which exists to nourish our world in its nutritional crisis, are leading on this, too. The brand is taking bold action to ensure its vision of a planet in which everyone is truly nourished becomes a reality in our lifetime. The Carbon Underground and Green America, in partnership with Ben & Jerry’s (Unilever), DanoneWave, Annie’s and MegaFood, are currently working on a global verification standard for food grown in a regenerative manner. Through this effort, alongside its internal standard for ethical sourcing, MegaFood hopes to inspire participation in a global movement to restore soils. These standards, which include incentivizing farmers to reach shared goals as well as leveraging new technologies like blockchain to pay for ecosystem services, among others, are being discussed as we speak and we can expect to see great movement this year and into 2019. It couldn’t come soon enough if we only have 57 harvests left.

So what can the consumer do? Support the brands that are pushing regenerative agriculture, get engaged and push for policy. The last thing the food industry needs is another “natural” disaster. Regenerative agriculture solves a lot of problems. It needs and deserves our full support.

 

This post was created in partnership with MegaFood®. I’m proud to work with brands that care about the health of its consumers and the planet. As always, all opinions and text are my own.

voting is the core of democracy

One Hour for Democracy: What’s It Worth to You?

, , 0

The internet has been buzzing with pictures about Patagonia giving its employees Election Day 2018 off, so that they can get out and vote.

Truly, this is something that we can not take for granted.

A friend from college, now an attorney in Louisiana, shared the following stats on just how recently women and other minorities earned the right to vote. Looking at it in its entirety is rather eye-opening. This is recent, folks. Use it or lose it.

In 1776, you could only do it if you owned land.

By 1856, you no longer had to own land, but you could only do it if you were a white male.

By 1870, black men could also do it.

By 1920, women could do it.

By 1971, you only had to be 18 to do it.

*interesting note: In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal). On the heels of the court’s ruling, and the ensuing dominance of Jim Crow, Louisiana’s registered black vote dropped from 130,334 in 1896, to 5,320 in 1900, then, to 1,342 in 1904. The same held true all over the South.

As Patagonia pushed for corporate awareness, others followed. And Blue Point Brewer ran a full page ad in the New York Times. The Voters’ Day Off IPA mention in Sunday’s  New York Times got people asking why it’s important to establish Election Day as a federal holiday. They’re in, are you? They decided to run with it, too, launching this petition to make Election Day a federal holiday.

As we began to make some noise, others did, too. We don’t have to wait for the government to take action on this.  We can drive amazing change in the marketplace. We’ve done it with countless issues before.  So we are at it here again.

My friends at Once Upon a Farm got in on it, and as I continued to highlight efforts, others chimed in. Laura Batcha at the Organic Trade Association said it has always been part of their protocol, their employee handbook has always offered time off on Election Day, and to count them in. My friends at MegaFood recognized that while they could not give employees the entire day off, they could give them an hour or two off to get out and vote.

What could be more reasonable than that?

“The right to vote is the most basic right, without which all others are meaningless.” ~ Lyndon B Johnson

Giving employees an extra hour at lunch on Election Day to go out and exercise their right to vote, to participate in this democracy that our ancestors, advocates, and military have fought so hard to protect.

It’s one hour. What’s democracy worth to you? One hour. Join the efforts, give your employees the day off, given them an extra hour off. Celebrate those who vote. Be part of history. Vote.

Join Us;

  • Patagonia
  • Blue Point Brewer
  • Once Upon A Farm
  • MegaFood
  • Organic Trade Association
  • Do Good
  • AllergyKids Foundation
  • Will you be next….?
  • Sign the petition asking for Election Day to be a federal holiday here 
  • Can’t do that? Give your employees an hour off to vote. #OneHour4Democracy #VOTE
meat drugs

Is Your Meat on Drugs?

, 0

With North Carolina flooding in the news, particularly the devastation being seen across the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), I am reminded of another issue that is critical to the health of our families.

Every year, more antibiotics are fed to food-animals in North Carolina than are given to all Americans.

Think about that. More drugs are given to North Carolina animals used in our food supply than are given to all Americans.

Every year, nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics are used in livestock and poultry in the U.S.—four times the amount prescribed for treating infections in people. Around half these antibiotics are nearly identical to human drugs.

Which means that 80% of all antibiotics are used on factory farm animals—the animals used in our food supply. And 90% of animal antibiotics are sold and used with no prescription. In other words, while we have a paper trail when we use antibiotics—it goes on record at our doctors’ offices – there is no paper trail when they are routinely used on the animals we eat.

That’s because they’re not given to sick animals. Instead, they’re put routinely and without prescription into animal feed or drinking water, and delivered to entire flocks or herds of healthy chicken, turkeys, swine and beef cattle.

Why? To fatten them up, because fat animals are more profitable than skinny ones.

And while using antibiotics to promote growth in these animals might also promote profits for the food and pharmaceutical industries, when our limited supply of antibiotics is used so freely, there are public health consequences.

None of us have access to information on exactly which antibiotics are used, and how they are used on industrial farms raising more than 9 billion animals each year. Big drug companies and meat companies don’t volunteer it, and so far the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have never required it from them.

This is where you come in.

Tell the FDA: “Improve reporting of antibiotic use on industrial farms. Health professionals who rely on antibiotics to treat dangerous infections deserve nothing less.” If the more than 5 million U.S. health professionals who rely on antibiotics to work—nurses and dieticians, physicians and more—speak as one voice, the FDA will no longer be able to ignore them or us, the Americans who depend on them to keep our families safe.

 

wall-street-flash-boys-michael-lewis-02

8 Questions Wall Street Needs to be Asking Food Companies

, , 0

This morning, headlines announced that Denise Morrison is stepping down as the CEO of Campbell’s.  What a huge loss to the food industry.  Shareholders were quick to flash a chart of the share price. No surprise there. Turning around a deeply entrenched and heavily subsidized industry like the food industry is not going to happen quickly.

Unfortunately, the writing has been on the wall for the last few months.

The problem is that Wall Street still measures these companies and CEOs using 1985 metrics.

The game is changing, and Wall Street needs to get with it, too.

Quarterly earnings are a terrible metric, when a fundamental shift needs to happen to an entrenched and deeply subsidized supply chain.

Wall Street needs modern metrics if they are going to evaluate 21st century food companies. This is a big conversation that has to happen now in order to grow organic.

According to Forbes, “it has been widely reported that mothers control 85% of household purchases and have a U.S. spending power of $2.4 trillion. Within this segment are tens of millions of millennial moms. In fact 83% of new moms are millennials, according to a study conducted by BabyCenter– they give birth to about 9,000 generation Alpha babies each day.”

Adweek and Trybe have also chimed in, saying: “80% of millennial mom says that safety is a top priority for their family. They cite safety as a higher priority than value or price. Additionally, around 50% of millennial moms list that they favor pure, wholesome ingredients as a key deciding factor when comparing brands. In essence, millennial moms value the quality of a brand over quantity, and if brands can’t illustrate that, it will be hard to appeal to this segment.”

And don’t whitewash it; by the year 2020, half of all children in the U.S. will be non-white. On top of that, 8 in 10 households are now purchasing at least some organic.  With a supply chain of less than 1% of all U.S. farmland as organic, something has to change.

Food companies, the big CPG brands, have been slow to meet these changing needs. Many of them fought the consumer for years.  Companies like Kroger stepped in and launched private label brands and quickly won the hearts and wallets of 21st century families. At Kroger, “20 million households purchased items from its Simple Truth brand line last year, and private-label items accounted for nearly 28% of items sold in the third quarter, the company said, accounting for 26% of sales dollars”.

So what do the food companies need to be doing?

Here are 8 questions Wall Street should be asking food companies right now:

  1. With over 80% of American households now purchasing some organic, what percentage of your product portfolio is certified USDA Organic?
  2. What percent of your portfolio contains Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy and corn, since these genetically engineered ingredients are also an indicator of exposure to glyphosate?
  3. In light of recent lawsuits over glyphosate use, what percentage of your product portfolio is exposed to glyphosate?
  4. What plans do you have to grow your organic product offerings?
  5. Less than 1% of US farmland is certified as organic. What is your company doing to convert farmland to ensure a stable pipeline and organic supply chain? Kashi has a certified transition program in place to help farmers convert. Would you embrace this model by Kellogg’s to ensure that your supply can meet growing consumer demand?
  6. From where are you importing organic ingredients until you build out your pipeline?
  7. What program do you have in place to help the farmers you source from convert their farms to organic?
  8. Food security is no longer simply about calories, it is also about health. What are you doing to communicate that to your consumers in order to ensure product loyalty?

With demand for organic products far outpacing the demand for conventional, Wall Street needs to be asking these multinational food companies and their CEOs what they are doing to build out their supply chains to ensure that they have the ingredients to meet the demand. It takes just three years to convert farmland to organic. Millennial parents represent $200 billion in purchasing power. As this demographic grows, will companies have the supply to meet that demand?

It’s an important question for shareholders, stakeholders and spoon holders.

 

Rick Friday family farms

As Big Ag Reports Record Earnings, Farmers Report Record Suicide Rates

, 0

We’ve highlighted the work of Rick Friday here before, the renegade cartoonist who was fired from a newspaper for speaking truth to power. Thankfully, for all of us (except the multinational ag corporations), he got his job back.

This morning, he posted this on his Facebook page. What happens when there are no farmers left? And if less than 1% of our farmland is organic, we end up importing the food that Americans want to eat. Food security starts with farmer security. And right now, as big ag reports record earnings, farmer are killing themselves in record numbers. The suicide rates of farmers is more than double that of our veterans, and an opioid epidemic is running rampant on farms.

Something is going to give, and Rick Friday chimes in with this take:

“Monsanto marks record sales and gross profit in seeds and genomics segment in fiscal year 2017.

U.S. meat processor Tyson Foods Inc. reported higher earnings for the fourth quarter on Monday, November 13, 2017, as lower costs to buy cattle feed boosted profit margins in its beef and chicken businesses.

Cargill’s earnings were up across four segments—meat, food ingredients, grain and oilseeds, and financial services. 2017 earnings up 50 percent year-on-year on broad gains.

Land O’Lakes, Inc. announced increased third quarter 2017 financial results with quarterly net earnings of $47.5 million, up from third quarter net earnings in 2016 of $8.1 million.

Meanwhile, down on the farm…….”

And he attached the image above.

It’s food for thought. We have to #rethinkfood and protect our farmers. Our food system and health depends on them.

fpa

As the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association Era Ends, A Look at What Must Come Next

, , 0

In 2014, I wrote an article questioning the lack of vision and leadership at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association a Relic?” I asked. Some CEOs were shocked by the audacity of that question. To me, it was so obvious that the organization was failing its members by not addressing the changing needs of consumers or the changing needs in the supply chain for its member companies. It was stunning to me that no one had asked questioned them.

In July of last year, Campbell’s announced that they are withdrawing from the trade group due to “purpose and principles.” They were no longer aligned.

Then Nestle announced their decision to split with the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Dean Foods and Tyson have since joined, as the GMA finds itself slowly disintegrating—its shelf life far shorter than that of the Twinkies it once represented.

So what comes next?

In the last few years, a growing number of companies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have announced that they are not only dumping artificial ingredients from their products but also buying into the free-from and organic movements. It is a growing trend in the face of consumer demand.

#dumpthejunk has become the rallying cry, as a growing number of consumers call on companies to remove artificial ingredients, as we find ourselves reading labels because of diabetes, food allergies, ADHD and so much more.

So why is this happening on a one-off basis? Why didn’t the Grocery Manufacturers Association give its members the heads up? Why are these companies slowly peeling off these ingredients one by one in a slow and often reactionary process? It’s death by a thousand cuts.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is the voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product companies, but will it be a relic of the 20th century? With Campbell’s announcement yesterday, the answer is “yes.”

A question that is starting to pop up is: Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association still delivering value to its members? Would members be better served by forming a new organization? What if a new group started? Let’s just hypothetically call it the Food Production Association, and its mission was to meet the needs of companies in the 21st century?

A look back at the history of the Grocery Manufacturers Association suggests this might be a good idea.

Founded in 1908, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is a self-described, active, vocal advocate for its member companies and a trusted source of information about the industry and the products consumers rely on.

But do 21st century consumers actually turn to this organization today or is it a relic of the 20th century? And is it an advocate for its members?

The organization’s website goes on to say:

“A vital role of GMA is to serve as a central resource for our members, providing industry model practices and a means for collaboration between members, retailers and service providers on important challenges and opportunities facing the industry.”

The organization may have done that twenty years ago, but is it still doing that today?

genrxThe landscape of health has changed, and it is changing the landscape of food. Today, the rates of diabetes is skyrocketing, 1 in 4 children has a chronic condition, 1 in 13 children has a food allergy, 1 in 10 has asthma and 1 in 68 has autism, with cancer now the leading cause of death by disease in American children. The rates of these conditions are escalating, and parents are reading labels.

Did any of us expect motherhood or fatherhood to look like this? Not at all. No one would choose autism, life threatening food allergies or cancer. No one. But we find ourselves face to face with these conditions every day. It is changing so many things in our lives, and it is changing how we approach the grocery store.

Some companies want to spend millions of dollars debating how we got here. Parents don’t have time. Their hands are tied managing these health conditions. CNN/TIME reported that the additional costs of raising a child with food allergies is $4,200/year. Consumers want transparency and denying them basic information about what is in the food we are feeding our loved ones is out of touch.

Over the last year, more than 60 state laws have been introduced to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods. Consumers know about it, companies know about it. Companies inside the Grocery Manufacturers Association are producing product lines without these ingredients, and those product lines are profitable pieces of their portfolio. One look at the success of Kroger’s Simple Truth, “free-from” line demonstrates what a brand can do when it removes additives, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup and more.

Consumers want “free-from” food. It’s not about debating the “how” or the “why” we got here. It’s about meeting her where she stands in the aisle of the grocery store, holding onto a child with diabetes or food allergies, or shopping for parent with cancer.

krogerstock-2Everyone is recognizing the need for food free from artificial ingredients. Panera Bread recently announced that they are pulling these ingredients from their products, Target’s Simply Balanced  committed to removing genetically engineered ingredients by the end of 2014, and Kroger is seeing record earnings growth with its Simple Truth product line, free from artificial ingredients and genetically engineered ingredients. The brand went from $0 to $1 billion in revenue in two years. The CEO of Kroger has repeatedly called it “a bright spot” in the company’s earnings reports.

So if companies that are dumping the junk are being rewarded by both consumers and the stock market, shareholders and stakeholders, what purpose does the Grocery Manufacturers Association serve by getting in the way of that? Is that in the best interest of its members?

As the Association spends record amounts filing lawsuits against the state of Vermont which has just taken a big step towards bringing transparency to its food system for its consumers, you have to wonder if this is money well spent for its members. What if instead, these members decided to leave the organization and start another one, one that truly met their needs in the face of changing consumer demand and the changing health of American consumers. Or what if some got aggressive and filed a “loss of business” lawsuit against it given the decline that companies like Kellogg’s are seeing in sales and the resulting employee layoffs as they entrench on the GMO labeling issue?

21st century families want free-from food. It isn’t complicated, and shareholders and stakeholders are rewarding the companies that understand that and are delivering products that meet that need.

They’re not debating the science, they’re not filing lawsuits, they are simply meeting us where we stand: in the aisles of the grocery store shopping for the 1 in 3 American children that now has allergies, asthma, ADHD or autism. They are building a new food economy, becoming icons for the 21st century consumer, making the Grocery Manufacturers Association look like a relic of the 20th century.

The $2.1 trillion food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry employs 14 million U.S. workers. As consumers opt out of food loaded with artificial ingredients, demand is growing. From 2013-2018, demand for organic is expected to grow 14%, but in the United States, less than 1% of farmland is under organic farm management which means that we have to turn to countries like China and Romania for non-GMO or organic food. We are literally outsourcing that entire economic opportunity. It is not in the interest of our food companies, our families or our farmers.

If the Grocery Manufacturers Association was true to its mission it would meet the 21st century consumer where she stands, and it would be addressing this supply chain issue for its members. But it’s not.

As it stands, it is quickly becoming a relic of the 20th century, opening the door for another industry organization to form.

Can you imagine if Kroger, Target, Campbell’s, Nature’s Path, Annie’s, Costco and other food companies joined together to form the Food Production Association whose mission was to build out a clean and safe food system and to secure the supply chain for 21st century families? Instead of channeling member dollars into lawsuits, it could grow the base of US farmland under organic management, so that we don’t outsource this economic opportunity for our companies, farmers and country to our trading partners.

Cancer, autism, food allergies and other conditions we are seeing in the health of our loved ones are not “trends,” neither is the demand for transparency. American consumers have a right to know whether the EPA regulates their corn as a pesticide or not. Sixty percent of the world’s population has been given that right.

fpaImagine an organization for the food industry that actually focused on securing a non GMO supply chain for American companies, rather than fight this shift in consumer demand and outsource this economic opportunity to China and Romania. Here’s what a logo might look like. It’s food for thought.

Load More