I had seen the Flat Earth line on the shelves and hadn't noticed that it's a Frito-Lay extension. I guess this is how they are walking the fine line... creating healthier alternatives for those who want it, all the while maintaining Fritos and Cheetos for those "veterans" who don't really care about trans fats (or fat at all).

Ann,

You're right. The hardline snacking crowd just goes for taste--healthy choices aren't part of their consideration when choosing products. However, overall consumer pressure has caused snack and cookie companies, among others, to experiment with changing the "recipes" in their foods so they can be both flavorful and healthier--and that's a win directly linked to consumer demand.

Whose fault is the growing obesity problem anyway? Let's place the responsibility on consumers where it belongs. They DON'T have to purchase all the junk food out there and can make healthier choices, creating market demand with their pocketbooks.

In my opinion, a healthier population begins with an investment in health and nutrition education in elementary school, continuing into middle school. As a former educator, this is where I think we can have a major impact.

I give credit to Frito Lay for coming up with Baked Lays, which are tasty and lower in fat. However, to get more consumers to make that purchase, why won't the company and grocery stores sell them for the same price as high-fat Lays potato chips? Lower fat means paying a penalty - higher pricing, plus the baked version isn't on sale with the same frequency as the fried version. That, in itself, can be a barrier.

Elaine,

You're absolutely right. The responsibility does rest squarely on the shoulders of consumers to make the right choices. However, you know as well as I, that convenience foods and snack foods are quick to grab and consume in our modern fast-paced society. Thus, the food companies have a responsibility in this too, to make their products as healthy as they can. Beyond that, if consumers over-indulge in less healthy food choices, they will ultimately pay the penalty. Thanks for your great observations, Elaine. I appreciate them very much.

This sounds like a classic case of the old adage to "keep the cannibals in the family". In this instance, it seems like a smart approach.

Paul,

Thanks for another great comment, as usual. You're right--covering the bases is essential if Frito-Lay is going to continue to be a dominant force in the snack aisles.

Ted, Subway restaurants provide tasty sandwiches, many of which are healthy and lower fat. The fast food giants have attempted healthy food choices, too, but I wonder how these options have been received.

Maybe brands like McDonald's and Burger King are so engrained with having unhealthy, yet tasty fast food, that consumers find it difficult to embrace healthier choices at these places. Perhaps it's a paradox to build a brand around high-fat, tasty food, then launch healthy choices like salads and such.

I still maintain that it boils down to consumer education and supply and demand. If a fast food giant offers healthier choices, but sales are low because that's not what their customers demand, what's the point?

Cigarettes kill, but consumers still buy them. Alcohol causes disease, but consumers still buy them. The warnings and disclaimers can only go so far.

I've stayed away from fast food restaurants most of my adult life. I've survived. I choose to eat a healthy diet. We all have choices and education is the key to understanding how harmful overindulgence can be - and how deadly.

As far as I know, eating a healthy diet never kept anyone from dying.

It is my personal belief that eating a restricted calorie diet composed of items lower down on the food chain (fruits, vegetables, grains) will do the most for a person's health.

Elaine,

You're right when you point to education as the key to understanding that what we eat has a direct correlation to our health. You're right when you say that it's a matter of personal responsibility. And you're right when you question whether brands that own "tasty, high fat" images will be successful in having the consumer embrace more healthful choices in their outlets.

However, there is growing public demand to replace unhealthy fats with healthier fats. Cereal products are now being made from whole grains. Sugar levels are being cut. So should companies cede potential business to new competitors in their categories, ie, fast food, convenience foods, snacks, etc--or should they continue to secure their dominance by meeting demand?

In order to be viable, brands have to adapt over time, and make changes to better meet consumer demand. My guess is that companies like Frito-Lay, McDonald's and Subway (good mention here) are trying to do just that. Will they be successful as they slowly reorient their product mixes to respond to growing consumer trends? Only time will tell. But it might be a bigger mistake to do nothing and hope this current trend is not that at all--just another fad. Then what happens if they're wrong?

Hi Opal,

Thanks for posting your comment. You're a wise person in your pursuit of a healthy, low fat diet. Question: would you make room in your diet for the occasional snack if it was lower in fat, baked rather than fried, and perhaps made from whole grains? Or would you still continue to avoid these foods altogether?

Ted, I don't disagree with your assessment. If... the consumer is demanding healthier choices, the market is responding, and sales are steadily growing, it's a win-win. What will be interesting to see is if people walk their talk. They may demand healthier choices at these fast food places, but will they purchase them with frequency?

You're right. Time will tell.

As far as I am concerned, if I want a healthy snack, I can make my own with fresh/dried fruits/nuts etc. If I want chips, I don't care if they aren't "healthy", healthy is not what I'm after in that case. And it's MY business what/how much I eat. NO ONE has the right to decide that my way of eating is good or bad, it's NONE of their business, they aren't paying for anything for me.
And if FritoLay really wants more people to buy their so-called healthier junk food, then they had better price it the same as their so-called unhealthy junk food. Otherwise, I'm going with what's cheaper and tastes good.
As for the commenter who said a restricted calorie diet is healthy, yeah right. I dieted my way from 175 lbs to 350 lbs, and failed weight loss surgery added another 40 lbs. Thanks, but no thanks, diets don't work and I refuse to keep on trying to do something that has no guarantee of working permanently.

Elaine,

I don't yet have kids but I was surprised to learn that school lunches have not changed much since I was a kid. They still serve things like hot dogs and tater tots are still around(!)

I have learned that some changes have been made but it seems pretty samey to me.

Why do teachers, parents, school boards, and administrators tolerate their children still being fed such garbage passed off as food? I find it hard to understand why it has not changed *dramatically* since I was a kid.

We wonder why kids and adults are obese and getting type 2 diabetes, etc.? Well, a lot has to do with decisions made at home but the schools don't seem to be helping much.

The thing is their marketing probably will work. Many people who want to improve their eating and health will buy this product and think they are doing the right thing. I bet many will feed this to their kids.

These are still products that are created in labs.
It seems Trans Fats are the new demon. What is going to be the response? More saturated fat. Are people going to be leaner and healthier as a result? I doubt it.

I applaud the food industry for making some progress on healthier food but we have a long, long way to go.

When I see happy cows having fun outside, green grass, and stories of passionate women inventing chips, I say "Caveat Emptor."

These chips were not likely created by passionate women and the ingredients don't come from a mythical family farm. They are not going to make you healthier.

Eat them because they taste good and are not as bad as some other chips but don't delude yourself.

Elaine,

Your assessments are dead on. It's fascinating to see new trends as they unfold. Of course sometimes what we perceive to be trends are actually short-lived fads. Hindsight is always 20/20, so we'll look back on this in future and determine the success or failure of healthier snack foods and fast foods. Thanks, Elaine, for contributing a great deal to this conversation.

As you pointed out, Vesta, we all have the right to choose the food we want to eat, and it isn't anyone else's business. No one has the right to pass judgment on anyone else, either.

Still, I think companies are under increasing pressure to make their foods healthier and expect to see more of the same.

When it comes to dieting, different things work for different people, and there are considerations besides calorie reduction. Snacks that still manage to taste good, but cut down on harmful fats and salt, for example, can be helpful. Again: this is a matter of personal preference, and as you point out, price. We all purchase and consume what we enjoy eating and we all have that in common.

Neil,

You make some very good points. No snack food that doesn't come from Mother Nature, ie, raisins, nuts and apples, is going to be "healthy", but snack companies can make chips and other manufactured snacks "healthier" than in the past. Also: Frito Lay is using sunflower oil in its chips now and that is an unsaturated fat. Thanks for your observations, Neil.

Excellent points, Ted, I thought I saw buttermilk on the ingredients list but if they are primarily using sunflower oil (an unsaturated fat) then hats off to them.

You are 100% correct, also, in your implication that people ARE going to eat chips, etc. When I think about it some more, I realize it would be a huge service if snack companies could make their snacks healthier than before.

As it stands now, your typical manufactured snack is outright deadly and I don't think I exaggerate when I say that.

The buttermilk thing set off something I have been thinking about for a while. The latest food demon is trans fat even so far as to ban it in some places. If the restaurant or manufacturer merely replaces trans fats with saturated fat -- which it definitely will be in many cases -- people may be fooled into thinking they are eating a lot better.

I will end by saying you are right, Ted. I stand corrected. I raise my coffee cup to Frito Lay and other food companies and I say tell us more stories of happy cows helping out and passionate women inventing chips. It is better than what we have now and, if the marketing works, we can expect more healthier manufactured foods. The market will demand it.

Neil,

Thanks for adding to this conversation. I'd also like to add that a number of companies that manufacture cookies and snack foods other than chips are working in the same direction as Frito-Lay when it comes to switching to healthier fats. While it's sometimes hard to maintain the flavor profile the consumer expects while changing ingredients, it's got to be helpful when the major category players experiment for however long it takes and make it happen. The ripple effect that creates can then lead their competitors and smaller players in the same direction. Of course, the natural product industry has embraced this for years. Natural food grocers, from independents to Whole Foods have aisles lined with cleaner, healthier snack foods. I'd urge DF readers to check them out.

I hear that farming is hard work. And, even harder so without chemicals. Growing chickens, hogs, cattle, or crops of any kind is just tougher without chemicals. The large-scale indutrialized food production empires are always looking to increase margins by reducing costs -- many times through application and utilization of technology in place of labor. We know we can have healthier, chemical free food, but not without the cost of the incremental labor necessary to produce it. If you want quality food, you will need to pay for it.

I am holding firm to my position regarding the benefits of a restricted calorie diet composed of items lower down on the food chain. Whether or not we want to accept it as true, everything we do has a consequence for both ourselves and others -- even the foods we choose to eat!

Opal

Many people feel as you do, Opal. And you're right when you point out that producing organic foods is much more costly, and that people who choose cleaner foods know they will have to pay more for it. And you're also correct in saying that every action brings consequences with it. Bottom line: people have the freedom, and the ensuing responsibility that comes with that, to make the decisions they choose to make. And that includes what they choose to eat. Thanks for writing eloquently about your position, Opal.

And the truth is the "Green Revolution," which was the period between the 40s and 60s when pesticides, etc., increased yields enough to feed people who would otherwise not have been fed.

Unless something has changed recently, Organic yields are lower. This means less yields and MORE land required.

Many people are choosing organic but we cannot say that is 100% a good thing. I happen to think that buying as local and as natural as possible, whenever possible, is the most important thing.

Now we have genetic engineering. It is a way to increase yields with less or, in some cases, no chemicals. What are the consequences of genetically modified food? I don't know. What are the consequences of politically stopping it? I don't know.

To be honest, it is quite possible that a lot of people will starve without either chemicals or genetically modified food. That is where the yield is now and we have a large population on this planet. Genetics might allow us to give up chemicals completely some day soon and get high yields on less land and even more marginal land.

These issues are not easy nor given to quick slogans about how great organic is or about how horrible genetically modified food is. I am committed to buying local and organic but I don't preach about it. If I did, I would be claiming to have wisdom I don't have.

Neil,

You pose some very valid, thought-provoking questions and observations. I, like you, am no expert in these matters. Many people are raising these same issues, and they have been for decades now. Let's hope that with science and technology we can find the balance here: that is, between growing all of the food we need to feed growing populations in a manner that is more environmentally sound, and safer for human consumption. Otherwise, we're polluting our bodies and the earth we depend on to grow what we need for sustenance. That's hardly the best scenario, is it?

First the disclosure: I am a former marketing director at Frito-Lay. I don't have any inside knowledge about this issue, because I've been gone too long. But I have a hypothesis that I'd like to lay out there:

I think the "healthy snack" approach will bring more people into the snack food market, and some portion of those people will try a traditional snack food product and fall in love with the taste. Then they'll become loyal users (of the traditional brands).

The net result? Frito-Lay will grow both the traditional snack market AND the "healthier" snack market.

That's close to what happened when P&G introduced Pringle's. People came for the novelty, tried "real" potato chips and became loyal users (of traditional potato chips). Frito-Lay's business GREW as a result of the Pringle's introduction.

Thanks for sharing some great insights, Michael. Even though you haven't been there for a while, I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea about the thinking processes at Frito-Lay.

You know, the natural products segment has long prided itself on offering consumers "better for you" snacks and manufacturers/retailers in that industry have built considerable volume doing so. Now just suppose that besides public pressure/opinion, Frito-Lay decided that volume looked attractive enough to go after it and get a piece of it. Or, putting it another way, the company decided it was losing a few too many consumer dollars to other niche players. . .mightn't that spur them on to getting into these categories?

Michael,

I realize you don't work there any more but doesn't that sort of contradict the marketing message? They are making the claim that they are doing this to help people eat better. Of course, they should make money while doing it but if they are also trying to pull more traditional chip eaters aren't they contradicting their "healthy" message. Look at the marketing they are doing.

To clarify, Michael, you are saying the goal is to increase the pool of snack eaters both traditional and healthy. If you are increasing the pool of traditional snack eaters then you are helping increase the number of obese people with type 2 diabetes, etc.

Does that not contradict their message about having a passion for healthy food? They went so far as to say that these healthy chips were conceived by a group of passionate women at Frito-Lay. This implies more than a cynical concern for the health of their consumers.

I realize I'm coning into this discussion a little later than most, however I want to applaud the blog, the discussion and Frito-Lay for doing this. While the whole foods market is growing by leaps and bounds, healthier alternatives to all foods are still outnumbered by the many unhealthy options out there, so coming to the table (Frito-Lay) with another choice for consumers is nice.

In regards to obesity and dieting: diets do fail, because too many people think of diets as simply a temporary change, not a long term change. Successful health and weight loss is achieved through changing the lifestyle: instead of buying the regular fatty Frito's, buy the healthier alternative; instead of eating them by the handful, read the nutrition label and eat what the serving size says a serving is. Nutritional education is a superb way of getting this message through to Americans, so they can again think for themselves and make better choices.

I also wanted to mention something on Subway: Subway has had to take some time in changing their brand to be perceived as a "healthy". Ten year's ago (or more) Subway was not the place I would go to for a healthy sandwich, since most subs are loaded with heaping mounds of meat, cheeses, sauces and then the very bread they were built on carried it's own poor nutrition. However, they have been able to "revamp" themselves and now are a very successful "fast food" chain that offers better meals to consumers.

Time will tell for Frito-Lay, but I think this is a good move in the right direction. Die-hard Frito-Lay fans may very well welcome this new addition to the product family, letting Frito-Lay shift their market from one consumer group to another.

Hi Jenna,

Thank you for joining this conversation and making many excellent points. You're right when you say that Americans need to become more aware of nutritional issues. For some people, watching their diet and opting for healthier snacks and even healthier convenience foods, along with exercise, is sufficient. For others, dieting is necessary. Lifestyle choices are a huge factor. When Subway and Frito-Lay begin making subtle and not so subtle shifts away from high fat foods to give consumers tasty alternatives they can enjoy, it's a win-win. And, as you pointed out, Subway has worked for a few years to change its brand image, quite successfully, so why can't other food brands?

Thanks for writing, Jenna. You've added some great thoughts to this post.