The Food Movement Minute is a top story news analysis for busy foodies. I chew up the top industry and consumer publications each day and spit out only the news that matters most in a quick and entertaining read. I have a very discerning palate.
Today’s topics: Competing GMO Standards, Consumer ‘ADHD Era’, Millennials
———-
Competing GMO Standards
The Story
The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act would create a national government-run standard for non-GMO claims, however, the current leading independent verifier of non-GMO products claims the Act will only confuse shoppers by creating a label with standards that are majorly sub-par.
The Details
It’s all about standards, people. Remember: HR 1599, The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (referred to by some as the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act or ‘DARK Act’), would override all state labeling laws for GMO and institute a national, voluntary labeling standard. Many opponents to the bill claim the standards are much too lax and overstep the issue of GMO labeling into other controversial subjects such as the definition of natural (the Act would allow GMO-containing products to make a ‘natural’ claim) and mandates for where GMO crops can be grown. Now the Non-GMO Project, the leading 3rd party verifier of non-GMO products, is weighing in. Their take? HR 1599 would drastically lower the standard for non-GMO verification currently in place. Megan Westgate, director of the Non-GMO Project states, “This is a serious concern for the Project, a nonprofit that has been working since 2007 to successfully establish a consistent and rigorous standard for non-GMO claims”. A big difference between the two: the Non-GMO Project requires ingredient testing, traceability and segregation for verification, while HR 1599 would not.
Why it Matters
Even if HR 1599 passes, the Non-GMO Project seal will still be allowed to function within the marketplace and experts are mixed as to the impact a national standard would have on the credibility and popularity of the current 3rd party seal. It’s possible the Project’s stricter standard may serve to further increase its cache with educated consumers. There are currently 35,000 Non-GMO Project Verified products in the marketplace.
———-
Consumer ‘ADHD Era’
The Story
Shorter attention spans and increased suspicion about food science has created a tricky environment for food brands to manage their reputation these days. Humor, proactive transparency, and meeting the consumer where they live on social media are keys to success. Looks like it may be time to get the design agency working on some meme art.
The Details
Consumers increasingly want their information in punchy, funny doses, regardless of the amount of science communication the topic may require. In fact, trying to prove a point with science can backfire as the GMO debate has perfectly demonstrated. Mark Hughes, president of food ingredient marketing firm Anderson Partners states, “…sometimes the industry is too heavy handed with science, almost to the point of saying, ‘I’m a scientist, you wouldn’t understand’, instead of making science approachable and easy to digest”. This approach also doesn’t play well against the opinion-driven food activists trolling social media. One Tweet from the Food Babe (with over 92K followers) can be enough to send a food brand into full crisis response mode. Having a strategy for responding to and engaging with the Food Babes of the world is critical to building and maintaining trust with consumers.
Why it Matters
In an environment where consumers are generally skeptical of food industry motives, online activists are stepping in to fill the void of trusted adviser. Beyond having a strategy for responding to activists in real time (this includes getting rid of social media policies that handcuff employees), brands should take time to understand activists’ concerns. “Speak back in the environment they’re speaking to”, says Hughes. “The same consumers who trust and listen to [activists] are doing so on the same social media platforms. So that’s where you have to go to reach the audience that evangelists have”.
———-
Millennials
The Story
With tastes and preferences that differ from previous generations and spending power to buy what they want, millennials are making their mark on food culture: what we eat, how it’s grown and how brands should be talking about it.
The Details
There’s a new food boss in town. Millennials (Americans born between 1982 and 2000) now account for a quarter of the U.S. population and are said to be more diverse and educated than any previous generation. A preference for vegetarian and vegan options, as well as a willingness to pay more for perceived values including nutrition, transparency and conscious capitalism has brands like Chipotle and Subway upping their game with tofu and hummus-based offerings while meat-heavy brands such as McDonald’s struggle to remain relevant. Although the millennial food trend has been showing up for years, it’s now becoming clearer as the generation matures and has increasing income to spend on food.
Why it Matters
This year marks the first time the number of millennials surpassed the number of baby boomers. A Forbes article published in July estimates millennial spending on food will increase by $50 billion per year through 2020. Seems like it’s a good time for food brands to get with the nutrition, transparency and conscious capitalism program.
———-
Factoid of the Day
Perhaps to re-coop some Karma points for now offering breakfast all day long, McDonald’s announced they will be phasing out their use of conventionally raised eggs in the U.S. in favor of cage-free eggs. The company uses two billion shell and liquid eggs annually, a little over 4% of the 43.56 billion eggs produced in the U.S. last year.
Image by Environmental Illness Network