The Good Egg

Pea Protein: It’s Green, Healthy, and Packs a Punch

People are crazy for protein these days. Never mind that we’re already getting more than we need, or that consuming too much can be bad for your health. We want — we need! — fuel for our on-the-go lifestyles, and protein promises this in a wholesome, all-natural sort of way. 

Manufacturers have met this demand with a raft of new and reformulated products proclaiming their protein power, everything from cereals to drinks and various snacks. There’s also increasing demand for the type of protein powders, shakes and bars that have been on the market for some time now. 

Most of these products rely on soy protein isolate, milk, or egg whites for their protein. But with food allergies and demand for inexpensive, sustainable ingredients on the rise, the market is ripe for alternatives.

Enter pea protein. That’s right: protein from peas. It’s not a new innovation, but with the stars aligning on its healthy, all-natural profile companies have made major investments and are now incorporating it into bars, beverages, mixes, and more. According to an industry insider interviewed by Foodnavigator-usa.com, the pea protein market “is ready to explode.”

Most consumers probably haven’t heard of pea protein, but that shouldn’t be a problem given their familiarity with the ubiquitous legume. It’s green, it’s healthy — enough said. Still, it’ll be interesting to see how companies communicate that health message, given that shoppers aren’t typically concerned with the source of their protein.

It’ll also be interesting to see if there’s a protein backlash eventually. This is always a risk when a questionable health trend goes full speed ahead. But for now, green means go.     

Why Not Bulk?

With all the concern over excess packaging right now, there’s a lot of talk about what the most effective and sustainable solution might be. Will it be biodegradable? Will it be edible? Will it be made from tiny mushrooms?

The future of green packaging is anyone’s guess. But it’s worth noting that a solution exists currently, and has for some time. It’s widely available, and chances are you pass by it every time you go to the grocery store.

I’m talking about the bulk section. Yes, those big plastic bins full of seeds, cereal, nuts and other trail mix-y ingredients. Most consumers choose to take a pass, but those who do shop bulk find attractive savings and the satisfaction that comes from cutting out all that unnecessary packaging. According to the Bulk Is Green Council, a trade group, shoppers can expect to save 89% by shopping the bulk aisle (an investigation by NPR lowered that number to a still respectable 56%).

While they’re mostly associated with earthy natural food stores, bulk departments have undergone a makeover in recent years. Grocers carry a larger selection of products in bulk — everything from shampoo to cooking spices — and have improved their management practices to address concerns over safe handling and cross-contamination. Mainstream retailers like Safeway have thriving bulk sections, while natural grocers have increased their sets. Delicious Living recently ran this story profiling a bulk-only store in Colorado that’s seen sales take off in the three years it’s been in business.

Despite all of this progress, most consumers are still reluctant to try bulk. The main concern is food safety. Given the dominance of packaged foods in this country, we tend to distrust anything that’s not hermetically sealed. There’s also a learning curve, along with the added effort required to bag and label the ingredients.

Those that do overcome their reluctance, though, stand a good chance of becoming repeat customers. Once you start saving money, eating healthier, and helping the environment, it’s kind of hard to stop.

Behold, the Rise of the Veggie Chip

If there’s one product out there that perfectly embodies consumers’ conflicting desires to eat healthy and snack more often, it’s the veggie chip.

Once relegated to natural food stores, with all the flavor of sun-bleached seaweed, this supposedly better-for-you snack has undergone some major flavor enhancements as it’s being pushed into mainstream supermarkets and convenience stores. This year, General Mills has unveiled two varieties of veggie chips under its Green Giant brand, while all-natural companies like Terra and Food Should Taste Good have grown their sales on the backs of chips with unique flavors like sweet potato, olive, and kimchi. 

Americans are snacking more than ever, accounting for about one third of their total calories consumed, according to a study by Rabobank Group. At the same time, those snacking the most are so-called healthy eaters, according to market research firm NPD Group. These are the people who reach for Greek yogurt over a pint of ice cream, or baked chips over fiery hot Cheetos. Capture these customers and you’ve got a guaranteed hit on your hands.

Will these shoppers go for veggie chips? It depends on which brand they buy. Many of the selections are fried and made primarily of corn flour and potatoes, with some vegetable puree mixed in. Scan the ingredients list for Green Giant’s sweet potato chips with sea salt, for example, and you’ll notice sweet potatoes aren’t the first or even the second ingredient (that’d be corn flour and sunflower oil, respectively). Veggie snacks can also be high in sodium. Trader Joe’s veggie sticks contain 300mg of sodium per 1-ounce serving, while Whole Foods’ 365 brand veggie chips have 250mg per serving.

Terra sweet potato chips, on the other hand, list sweet potatoes as the first ingredient and have a negligible 20mg of sodium per 1-ounce serving. And Trader Joe’s vegetable root chips redeem the company name with a mere 35mg of sodium per serving.

Look deeper into the category and you’ll see even more niche varieties from up-and-coming manufacturers. There are bean chips and chips with seeds baked in. Some have nuts and fruit in them. Indeed, chips have become a delivery system for all sorts of different ingredients and health benefits.

Not all of these chips are as healthy as they purport to be, but that probably won’t determine sales as much as it should. After all, if it contains vegetables it has to be healthy, right? 

Boycotting A Food Company? There’s An App For That

Smartphone technology has proved to be a bit of a double-edged sword for the food industry. On the one hand, companies are able to drive traffic and build loyalty through promotional apps, digital coupons and other programs. On the other hand, there are those apps like GoodGuide and Fooducate that with a quick barcode scan peel back the curtain on unhealthy ingredients, less-than-savory corporate practices, and other data that companies would rather you not know.

Which type of technology will prove most influential in the coming years? It’s looking like the latter. Witness the recent release of an app called Buycott, which helps shoppers avoid certain products according to criteria they’ve outlined based on their values. There are filters that flag products containing GMOs, those made with unsustainable palm oil, and even those made by companies with connections to the Koch brothers. 

So popular is the program that according to Take Part, Buycott’s website went down last week when it released the Android version of its app due to high demand.

Buycott admits its program isn’t perfect. Companies are constantly merging, realigning and updating their products, so the database of information the app relies on can be wrong or out of date. The organization is relying on crowd sourcing to keep its app up to date, though it’s unclear how reliable that approach will be.

Judging from its website, Buycott also looks pretty wild and woolly right now. There are dozens of different campaigns ranging from fluoride use to Israeli-Palestinian relations, making it something of an activism free-for-all that could turn off many shoppers. Am I a bad person for not caring about Associated British Foods’ ties to Zambia?

Still, the message to the industry is clear: Transparency is vital. And while the various legal and political battles over labeling and banning ingredients like GMOs will continue, consumers can ultimately get the information they want. The most dangerous weapon, it turns out, can fit conveniently in your pocket.

Don’t Just Sell Local. Define It

Once limited to farmers’ markets and roadside stands, the demand for locally sourced products has exploded in the past decade. Now everyone from the corner bodega to Wal-Mart is crowing about their commitment to local farmers and the goods they grow, build, brew, and bake. 

The appeal is obvious. At a time when many consumers are suffering from processed food hangover, the promise of transparency, freshness, and supporting families and small companies rather than conglomerates holds tremendous value. To put it in monetary terms, sales have ballooned from $4 billion in 2002 to more than $11 billion in 2011, according to stats compiled by University of Missouri agricultural economist John Ikerd.

The problem is that term “local”. What does it mean, exactly? I’ve spoken to retailers that consider “local” to be within a five-state radius. Others say it should be within state limits or within a 250-mile radius. However it’s defined, there’s a good chance that a company’s definition of local doesn’t square with what consumers think it is.

To clear up some of the confusion, organizations around the country have been offering their own marketing and certification programs that let shoppers know the provenance of the products they buy. In Kentucky, for instance, there’s the “Kentucky Proud” seal that indicates products made in the Bluegrass state. Agriculture departments in New York, Kansas and other states offer similar programs. Narrowing the field even further are labels like the new “Chicago Grown,” which will call out products produced in the Windy City.

Supermarkets themselves are starting to catch on, too. Last year New Jersey-based Kings Supermarket unveiled an ambitious program called Local Fresh 24/7 that promises locally grown produce on shelves within 24 hours of harvest. Considering how complicated grocery supply chains are — with their maze of distributors and quality control steps — this is quite a feat. In Canada, Longo’s Market offers relies on local greenhouses to keep stores stocked with produce through the long winter months. 

Other companies have in-house standards behind their local labels. BJ’s Wholesale Club, for instance, defines “local” as being grown within the same state as the store where it appears.

My question is, why not tell customers about these standards? Why not take that next step and give consumers the full transparency their demand for local products dictates? If there are no such standards, then make some. Or at least talk about the people and companies that supply stores. Retailers like Whole Foods get a lot of marketing mileage out of simply telling the story of Bob the pepper farmer.  

As we’ve seen in so many cases, if companies don’t tell then shoppers will find out for themselves. And you certainly don’t want to get caught selling “local” Florida tomatoes in New York. No sir.

How Far Do I Have to Walk to Burn Off That Burger?

Let’s ponder the calorie for a moment. If I say that a hamburger has 600 calories, what does that mean to you? Is that on the high side? Is it acceptable? Or do you just want to know if that comes with fries and a drink?

It’s important to think about what calories mean to consumers these days as regulators and the food industry place them front and center in the fight against obesity. Across the country, restaurants are listing calories counts alongside greasy burgers and sugar-laden beverages, peeling back the curtain so customers can decide how healthy or unhealthy they want to eat.

The hope — for public health advocates, at least — is that people will make the shift towards lower-calorie choices.

The reality is that calorie posting is not moving the dial. Studies on the topic show that labeling has little to no effect on people’s food choices, particularly in low-income areas where fast-food restaurants proliferate.

So does this mean the effort is a failure? Absolutely not. For many people, myself included, it’s helpful to see those numbers. The first time I went to Chipotle and saw that a chicken burrito with all the fixings had 900 calories, I changed my order. Indeed, calorie counts do help many health conscious consumers. Scott Davis, executive vice president of Panera Bread Company, which lists calorie information in all of its 1,600 stores, noted in a recent Huffington Post column that:

…for those who did pay attention, it was a huge hit. These customers expressed deep appreciation for having been given the freedom to make intelligent choices.

Davis also noted, however, that overall his customers’ eating habits didn’t change much. Scott Davis is no dummy. He realized that by posting calories, Panera could accomplish a bit of healthy marketing without actually having to change the way it does business.

Ultimately, listing calories is a good start, but many consumers have a hard time processing them. “It requires a computation that many people might not find easy to make at the point of decision,” Anthony Viera, a researcher at the University of North Carolina, told Scientific American. Viera and colleagues recently conducted a study that found people eat fewer calories when given information that’s relatable. Participants were separated into three groups and each presented with a different menu: one without calorie listings, one with calorie listings, and another that told them how many minutes of walking they’d have to do in order to burn off each item.

You can probably guess which group ordered the fewest calories per meal.

Another recent study came to the exact same conclusion after the “exercise label” it introduced spurred people to order healthier foods. In both studies, those who were given calorie counts and those who weren’t ordered roughly the same number of calories.

As more and more companies institute calorie labeling under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as well as various state and city laws, this is all food for thought. It’s important to arm consumers with information — but that information has to be relevant to their everyday lives.

Researchers have covered walking, but I think we can go even further. What about climbing stairs? Lifting groceries? Laughing? I want to know how many times I’d have to lift the TV remote before I burn off that hamburger.

Welcome to Caffeine Nation

We fancy ourselves a nation on the go, in need of regular boosts of energy throughout the day. We eat snacks that are conveniently packaged and fortified. We buy meals that are quick, easy and flavor dense. We down tiny bottles of liquid fuel that jolt us awake in the middle of the afternoon.

And yet, apparently we aren’t awake enough. Over the past few years, food and beverage companies have been adding caffeine to jelly beans, popcorn, maple syrup — even Cracker Jacks are now “Jack’d”. Chewing gum, which is supposed to stimulate us by the act of chewing alone, just became caffeinated.

Never mind that we’re not getting enough sleep, or that we’re not nearly as busy as we think we are (read a New York Times or Gawker comments section to see what people do with their “busy” days). We seem to exist in a cyclical state of alertness followed by exhaustion, an unnatural rhythm necessitating the consumption of more and more stimulants as we seek to be “ON” at all times.

I’m being dramatic, of course. But you can’t blame an industry observer for seeing in this increasingly caffeinated food supply a dystopian future where everyone’s living from one jolt of hopped-up jelly beans to the next. (Note to self: Idea for next novel)

In reality the trend, much like a caffeine buzz, is bound to come down at some point. The Food and Drug Administration said this week it plans to examine the influx of caffeine in food and beverages, noting in particular the increase in those products marketed to children. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly discourages the overconsumption of caffeine amongst adolescents. Among adults, caffeine intake has been linked to mood swings, irregular heartbeat, and even depression.

The FDA is also scrutinizing energy drinks right now, with several deaths and numerous reports of “adverse effects” connected to their consumption. Drinks like Monster and Red Bull are, frustratingly, classified as dietary supplements and thus not subject to regulations on caffeine.

So while it’s tempting to ask, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Michael Jacobsen does, “Could caffeinated macaroni and cheese or breakfast cereal be next?”, it does appear consumers and regulators have their limits. Maybe there’s hope after all of returning to the good old days, when we were jacked up on coffee, tea, and soda alone.

Is This the Future of Packaging?

Food companies have put a lot of work into making their products cleaner, healthier and more eco friendly. But what about the packaging they come in? There are an awful lot of all-natural and organic products inside boxes, bags and wrappers that are anything but. Is it right to say a product is “better” if it comes packed in Styrofoam or some other non-recyclable, non-biodegradable container?

Granted, this is no easy task. Packaging has to keep a product fresh and free from contamination, and synthetic materials are by far the easiest, most cost-effective way to do this. Yet the demand for better packaging, coupled with the ever-increasing capabilities of manufacturers, means the industry should be further along that it is right now.

Consumers deserve some of the blame, too. Remember the compostable Sun Chips bag that came out a few years back? Here you had a package that could fully break down in a matter of weeks, and all people could do was complain about how loud it was. So fierce was the backlash, in fact, that Frito Lay scrapped the effort for all but its original flavor, then released a quieter bag a year later.

The lesson, it seems, is that consumers want better packaging — they just don’t want to have to sacrifice anything for it.

So with all of this serving as context, we look ahead and wonder: Is it possible to have eco-friendly packaging that’s also safe and convenient? One answer could be the latest effort from Harvard bioengineer David Edwards, the man behind such oddities as Le Whif and Le WAIHH (seriously). His WikiCell is an edible, biodegradable material made from natural and semi-synthetic ingredients that can keep anything from ice cream to juice fresh for up to six months, depending on storage conditions. The concept is similar to that of an orange. That is, there are two layers — an outer shell, which is made of sugar derivatives, and an inner membrane composed of food particles and a small amount of either alginate or chitosan, both naturally derived polymers, inside of which is the food or beverage. You can peel away the shell or bite into it, bite off an end and squeeze out the contents or pop in a straw. The possibilities are numerous.

And this, it seems, is the real appeal of the WikiCell. Beyond being environmentally friendly, it also opens the door to culinary creativity. Shells can be made using a variety of different foods, which play off the contents contained within. Think vanilla ice cream wrapped in a macadamia nut shell, or goat cheese inside an herb skin. Being able to have fun with the packaging could make up for other barriers that might keep shoppers from buying in.

Those barriers could prove to be many, at least initially. For one thing, the amorphous WikiCell looks like something out of a David Lynch film. The material can be molded into different shapes — like a pear, for instance — but conventional ones, like a bottle, are still in the works. There are also questions about storage (where in the supermarket do you store doughy blobs?), safety (can you actually bite into it after just washing off the surface?) and regulations (what sort of extra packaging might be needed, given that it is edible?).

Many of these will be answered after the WikiCell hits select retailers starting in June. Success beyond its novelty appeal is certainly not guaranteed, and seems a long shot at this point. But at least it’s got people talking.  

Why is Hershey’s Bothering with Nutrition Labeling?

Do we really care how much fat and sugar is in a candy bar? Isn’t the whole point to eat it in sweet, blissful ignorance?

These are the questions that came to mind when I read about The Hershey Company’s decision to put nutrition information on the front of its packaging. Announced last week, the initiative essentially takes a few values listed in the Nutrition Facts panel — including sodium, sugar, calories, and saturated fat — and puts them front and center, where supposedly consumers can finally see them.

If it’s not exactly a plan brimming with sophistication, it seems to be a timely move. There’s been talk for some time now about a federal labeling program that would replace the Nutrition Facts panel, simplifying data while at the same time calling out harmful ingredients and putting everything into the context of daily values. Last year two industry groups, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute, came out with a labeling program called Facts Up Front, which is the model for Hershey’s program. GMA and FMI said they were trying to better inform consumers keen on living healthy lifestyles; detractors said they were preempting a federal labeling system by introducing their own watered-down version.

Whatever their reasoning (it was probably a bit of both), the initiative amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. Which isn’t a bad thing, necessarily. A big problem with the Nutrition Facts panel is that it’s incredibly boring. All those boxes and numbers in black text — what’s needed is a bit of color, which the Facts Up Front label provides. It’s also doing consumers a favor to whittle the panel down to a few key nutrients. And yes, putting this information on the front of packages (sadly, turning a package over amounts to an inconvenience for many people) will help, too.

But shoppers don’t just need better design — they need help crunching the numbers. Studies have consistently shown that people find the Nutrition Facts panel, with its use of gram measurements and serving sizes, a confounding tool. By simply restating these values, Hershey’s and the Facts Up Front aren’t clearing up any of this confusion.

Frustratingly, the label also includes amounts of beneficial nutrients like calcium and potassium, making it seem as though there’s something nutritionally redeeming about a Hershey’s bar or a bag of M&Ms. All of which begs the question, are these companies actually interested in helping consumers interpret nutrition information, or do they just want to appear engaged in the matter?

The Hershey Company says it’s helping shoppers by giving the highlights from the Nutrition Facts panel. But will people A.) actually care, and B.) understand what they’re reading? If a candy bar is listed as having 10 grams of saturated fat per serving constituting 15% of their daily values, with 2.5 servings per bar, then how much saturated fat are they consuming if and when they eat the whole bar?

Needless to say, that’s unnecessarily complicated. And for some people, it could ruin a perfectly good candy bar. 

Fairway Market Goes Public

My favorite New York grocery store, Fairway Market, just went public this week. And while I’m excited to see a good company grow, I don’t plan on sinking money into the stock anytime soon.

Despite the loyal following and sky-high sales Fairway enjoys in the New York City area, I’m not convinced the concept will go over as well in communities across the country. The company, which operates 12 stores currently and is owned 80% by private equity firm Sterling Investment Partners, says it plans to eventually have 300 stores stretching from coast to coast.

There’s a lot to like about Fairway. It has the widest, freshest produce selection of any supermarket I’ve been to in the city. Its prices are outstanding, its stores well-stocked, and it has a wide selection of quality private label products, from red pepper hummus to chicken cutlets.

Where Fairway really stands apart, though, is in the way it blends healthy, gourmet, and conventional products. You can find liter bottles of Coke and boxes of Cheerios one aisle away from the selection of 200 or so different types of olive oil. Shoppers flow seamlessly in and out of natural and artisan sections. If you’re a granola bar lover, you can buy Quaker Chewy or the Cascadian Farms variety. If you make a lot of sandwiches, as I do, you can opt for Oscar Mayer bologna, the Applegate Farms antibiotic-free smoked turkey, or a hunk of wild boar meat wrapped in butcher paper.

Lots of supermarkets have integrated segments like this, of course. But Fairway simply does it better. Its artisan and whole health products are as good as anything you’d find at a dedicated gourmet grocer, and its conventional items are like a greatest hits selection from Wal-Mart. These guys know what they’re doing, crafting a fine balance of products that makes them savvy curators without spreading the mix too thin.

For New Yorkers, the majority of whom have to walk their groceries home, this all adds up to something very important: a one-stop shopping experience that combines quality, value, and a sense of adventure. 

All of which is meant to say that, despite its claims that it’s “Like No Other Market”, Fairway is primarily a supermarket that executes well. It doesn’t stand apart from the crowd like Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods. It’s like a Kroger or a Safeway for demanding New Yorkers who want it all.

Is this enough to distinguish Fairway in the ultra-competitive national grocery scene? It’ll be tough, that’s for sure. The most successful chains right now are those with a clearly defined hook, like natural/organic (Whole Foods) or big box conventional (Target), or artisan adventurous (Trader Joe’s). Fairway’s identity as a store of many identities could be a tough sell. 

In the end, though, it is hard to bet against quality. And that’s what Fairway Market has in spades. If it can maintain that quality in moving from a local to a national chain, then it’s hard to imagine it won’t catch on with shoppers.