I think people who view healthy eating as a lifestyle choice are willing to pay a
premium for organic foods, up to a point. It's understood that we will pay extra
for a healtier food because of increased manufacturing costs, and shorter shelf life.
Yet paying a 10 - 30% premium seems excessive, especially if you're of the mindset
that it is more a responsibility of manufacturers to provide healthy alternatives,
rather than a privilege of the consumer to be offered the choice.

I don't really pay attention to healthy food ads, or ads in general. I do take notice
of instore point of purchase displays, and prominent packaging that show the health
benefits. On that front, I believe the food companies are doing all right. However, I
would like to see more of these items leave the organic section of the store, and find
themselves alongside their less healthy counterparts. Not sure if that's more the fault
of the manufacturer or the stores.

Jesse,

You raise some very good points, and I believe that many consumers agree with you. Many would like to purchase natural or organic foods if the prices were a little less steep. Also: many consumers don't have or take the time to really read up on healthier food choices. I do believe many are reading food labels and packaging more closely than ever before, comparing and studying ingredients. And enough consumers are demanding better choices, making an impact on food manufacturers. That, along with the meteoric growth in natural/organic foods, is driving the market.

Some supermarket chains have integrated natural/organic foods alongside mass market brands in every food category, but some continue to set up separate "departments" for these foods. I'm not sure how these approaches have worked for supermarkets, and it would be nice to hear from them, as well as other consumers on this issue. Is it better for consumers to view all of their choices side by side, or is it better to have dedicated areas within stores for natural/organic choices? What do DF readers have to say about the subject?

Thanks, Jesse, for adding some terrific comments to my post. Much appreciated.

Ted,

We've been buying organic and healthy for 30 years, and now are reaping the price benefits from the traditional outlets. What you say? What cost benefits?

Buying healthful foods at Stop n Shop is less expensive the same foods purchased at what we know as health food stores. Therefore, we old-timers are buying the same good food at lower prices. Bravo to manufactureres and distributors such as Kraft and grocery chains such as Stop n Shop and Shaws.

You're right, Lewis. When the big grocery chains jump into the natural/organic food business, they usually offer consumers branded choices as well as a private label of their own. Because of their tremendous purchasing power, they can offer the same foods as the known health store brands at lower prices, even having their PL lines co-packed by those well-known companies. Still, for some consumers, the pricing is yet too high for their budgets. With more natural/organic choices coming onto the market due to demand, prices should continue to come down.

I'd also say this to consumers in general: what do higher prices mean if in the long term, a more sustainable method of agriculture, with fewer pollutants and better health for all of us is the result?

Thanks for making your usual great observations, Lewis.

• How do you feel about the move of the major food companies to healthier foods? Are you willing to purchase them even though prices are higher?

I think it is great. I am willing to pay more to a point and I know others who prefer the healthier selection but are more price sensitive. In my opinion, food companies should be careful in applying their microeconomics to find the equilibrium, otherwise, consumers will feel they are being fleeced. That is a feeling that can turn someone away from a product or service for a long time before trust is regained.

• Do you think healthier foods are worth more?

Yes, to a point. See above...

• How do you feel these companies are doing in getting the word out about offering healthier food choices via their marketing and advertising?

No major food companies are reaching me but I am probably a bad example since I do not own a television, read very niche magazines, and so on.

"I'd also say this to consumers in general: what do higher prices mean if in the long term, a more sustainable method of agriculture, with fewer pollutants and better health for all of us is the result?"

I would support paying more for real food that is produced in a more sustainable manner. In fact, I do. (Then again -- I can afford to, unlike many folks. But I guess that's a whole nuther discussion....)

Western food production needs signficiant change, away from what Thomas Pawlick ("The End of Food") calls tasteless "red tennis ball" tomatoes, away from most of the "food-ish" stuff that passes for actual food sold in the aisles of a typical grocery story, and toward sustainable, viable, nutritious alternatives.

I'm glad that producing "better" foods is on the radar of the major food companies, and I hope that consumers continue to advocate for more sustainable food production, as well.

Thank you for answering the questions posed on my post, Neil. I agree that consumers expect to pay more for healthier foods but if they get the perception that they are being overcharged relative to other category choices, they will not trust the brands that indulge in these practices. Once lost, trust is very hard to regain, also.

Reaching the consumer is vitally important. What you've said indicates that consumers are not easily reached with conventional advertising, Neil. That is true for most consumer products these days. Food manufacturers need to increasingly utilize new media to reach their targeted customers. Otherwise, their messages are not going to be seen or heard by all of their constituents. Thanks for weighing in, Neil. Great points.

You've made an excellent point, Ann. I do think consumers have pushed back--not purchasing high-priced, crunchy pink tomatoes in the winter, or red tennis balls the rest of the year, to cite your example, is just one way we can all let supermarkets know we expect better tasting, more nutritious choices. Farmers' markets are proliferating and doing very well selling local produce. Thank you very much.

It's grassroots consumer demand that is pushing the marketplace. And that is the way the market is supposed to work. The supermarket chains are getting it, and so are the food manufacturers. Let's hope we continue on this path.

Thanks, Ann, for adding some good thoughts to the post.

This topic is right up my alley. I spend an enormous amount on groceries, due to choosing lower sugar/higher fiber alternatives and a lot of produce and fresh meats.

Four years ago I lost 200 lbs. and eating this way has helped me keep it off. It's a priority for me, so I will spend the extra money, sacrificing in other areas when need be.

As I always have felt, the market will ultimately determine if trends "take hold:" healthier foods are no exception.

Consumers have to make eating healthfully a priority in order for manufacturers and restaurants to continue to offer and expand "healthy" alternatives.

The bottom line is: these products will only be offered if the marketplace demands them. What will be a challenge, especially during these tough times is that the big players in fast food have managed to offer products for next to nothing. McD's, Wendy's, KFC, even Denny's have all in the recent past introduced entire meals for just a few dollars.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months.

Congratulations, Dawn, on taking the initiative you have to lose weight and improve your health. As you pointed out so eloquently, it is up to us to determine what our priorities are. If we decide we can give up other things in order to spend more money to eat healthy foods--that sounds like a wise choice to me. After all, without our health, we have nothing.

You've also raised the issue of restaurants and their offerings. Interestingly, when McDonald's and other fast food eateries have offered "healthier" choices in the past, like salads, many of those options have included more fat than their burgers! The dressings alone have been very high in fat. So "caveat emptor" as always--"Let the Buyer Beware".

Thanks for adding greatly to this conversation, Dawn. I appreciate it.

Speaking of "let the buyer beware," consumers to be educated on what is truly a healthy alternative and what isn't.

As you pointed out, many salads and other so-called healthy choices can be worse than the original. Just because you add a little lettuce to a meal doesn't make it healthy.

I've taken issue with General Foods. I think they've done a really good job of positioning themselves by manufacturing whole grain cereals, beating Kelloggs and Post to the punch. However, when you turn the package to read the ingredients, many of them have just as much sugar as the previous versions.

I won't get into the whole physics of the effects of sugar on insulin and the epidemic of diabesity (diabetes/obesity) that's run rampant in this country. I could talk your ear off on that topic. But we have to know exactly what we're buying and what effects it will have on us.

If the "healthy" trend is to take hold, it will truly have to be healthy or else consumers will not continue to shell out the extra money.

Right on the money, Dawn. "If the "healthy" trend is to take hold, it will truly have to be healthy or else consumers will not continue to shell out the extra money."

In the long run, there are no short cuts in regard to becoming informed consumers. If we buy whole grain cereals that are loaded with high fructose corn syrup rather than unprocessed turbinado sugar. . .we aren't doing ourselves as much good as we think we are. Sugar and salt, as well as hydrogenated fats have caused obesity and health problems for a few decades now. The less processed the food we buy is, the more "whole" it is, the healthier it is for us. Still, it's encouraging to see General Mills and other companies taking their first steps in providing healthier food choices. Now that we have whole grains, let's urge them to use less sugar and better sweeteners than corn syrup, for example. Consumers can keep this going; I truly believe this takes a grassroots effort on all of our parts.

Thanks for adding so much to this conversation, Dawn. It's great.

Dawn, your point is well taken.

Even at my local healthy grocery store, they have cereals on the shelves that present themselves as very, very healthy.

The ingredients include a LOT Of sugar. Often, they try to couch the sugar as raw sugar, evaporated cane sugar, etc., which is still sugar.

A sugar by any other name is still sugar and we all need to be a bit careful, there.

I think to be honest in their marketing, sugar should be considered part of what makes something healthy or not. This is especially true these days with the high rates of type 2 diabetes and so on.

Neil,

You're right that a lot of sugar is a bad thing, even if it is unrefined and natural. However, some sweeteners are worse than others and too much of anything, even if it is natural, isn't a good thing. Unfortunately, Americans are weaned on high sugar, high salt diets from a young age. A good start for food manufacturers would be to lower the amount of sugar and salt in all foods in a gradual manner. What do you think of that idea?

Thanks, Neil, for making a very important point.

Ted, yes, good point on the gradual manner as people are very used to high sugar and salt.

If you abruptly cut it, a lot of people would not like the taste.

Exactly, Neil. Regardless of health issues, people purchase food products primarily based on flavor profiles and mouth feel. Not only does the public have to be reeducated about healthy food; it also needs to be retrained, if you will, to adapt to less sugar and less salt. Thanks for the great conversation today, Neil.

Most all industrially produced food is essentially bad for you. They will fill you up butthey won't make you healthy. McDonalds, General Mills, and all the others produce food as cheaply as possible and sell it based on sugar/salt/high fructose corn syrup content that has long term health consequences.

If you can, stay away from the supermarket and buy your food at your local farmer's market.

Eating fresh, unprocessed food is always best as you point out, Cruz. Still, with a bit of knowledge and work, you can supplement locally purchased produce with packaged foods, meats and fish that are pretty healthy--if you know what to look for, and if you're selective. You're right: most convenience and fast foods are the worst when it comes to health.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation, Cruz. Much appreciated.

Cruz, I do think Ted's point is good, though.

Many people are very used to a lot of sugar and salt. If someone abruptly switched they might find "health" food to be completely inedible.

There is this sort of the iconic image in popular culture of a wife making her husband eat better (often because of health problems). Eating better inevitably means "health food." He ends up sneaking out later for a burger, fries, and a Coke.

This image of healthier foods not tasting as good is still with us now but to a lesser extent. It does, however, taste different and I suspect expectations of how sweet, salty, etc., food should be would have to adjusted.

The existing expectations are fairly long standing for many people and have been part of our culture for a long time.

Ted- great post.

What the food producing companies are doing, is the same thing car companies (and the like) are doing; making profits out of changing attitudes. As soon as "thinking green" became something companies could make money off of, they all started "thinking green"... as in MONEY.

Food giants are no different and are smart enough to see where the market is shifting. It's simply filling a niche demand. In my line of work, the cycling industry, much of what we do is find niches with un-met needs and then try to meet those needs. We also look for emerging niches that we can try to develop products for before our competitors do a better job.

Point is, food companies are meeting their bottom line needs by providing healthier (and more profitable) products to their consumers. Both parties benefit- we get better foods to eat and they may more money in a down economy. It may not warm and fuzzy... but it's reality.

I meant to say "make more money" there at the end... sorry. (Still hard to type with this thumb...)

I had been working in a company that started producing organic products, but we were forced to sell the product in a higher price than its peer ( our own non organic product )by more than 40 %, (still very reasonable) the reasons were:
1-It will add positive image to our existed protfolio, in consumer minds( as we are environment friendly & health conscious company).
2-the competitor was selling the organic products in a 30% higher than the non organic products of the same category.
3- We can't sell the organic products in the same price range as the non organic, as consumers will have doubts.

We are forced to sell the organic - healthy products with higher prices, as it is perceived this way : quality for price.

and for me as a consumer, I will buy the healthy products as I am sure it healthy for higher prices - it can be translated as: I buy my health

Thank you
Fatma Noureldeen
Group Brand Manager
Scib Paints
www.scibpaints.com

Fatma,

Why are you forced to sell at a higher price? It is unclear to me what you are saying.

In microeconomics there is an equilibrium point that you should strive to reach. At that price you will likely maximize profit.

Are you sure you are not reducing demand for your product by your higher price in a way that is lowering your profit? I would go run the numbers.

You are making big assumptions that consumers expect a large increase in price for organic. As an organic consumer myself, I have my limits and I know what they are. Other people like me have their limits, too. You cannot just assume that consumers want to pay more to feel better about what they are buying.

I know people who do *not* currently buy organic because they perceive it as too expensive. They WANT to buy organic. Those are potential customers and there are a lot of them that are more price sensitive than me.

Natural/organic foods used to be a fringe business, Tim. It didn't become mainstream until the major food companies became aware of a couple of facts. First: they were losing significant volume as consumers in the mainstream started buying billions of dollars worth of whole, clean foods. This made it an attractive high growth category, whereas the mainstream supermarket business has been flat. Second, the margins on natural and organic foods are much higher than those on mainstream food products. What's not to love about healthy sales growth and higher profits, you know?

Consumer needs were being met but only in traditional health food store channels until the supermarkets decided to cash in on the act. The net result: lower prices due to mass purchasing power and private label efforts and much wider distribution, making natural/organic foods available to many more consumers.

I agree with you that good business can dovetail with good, healthier products, Tim. It is a win-win for everybody. Thanks for adding your comments. I appreciate it.

Fatma,

I'm not sure what you're saying about the way your company went about pricing its organic offerings. Was the 40% more than the mainstream products a reflection of higher cost of raw materials, or was it arbitrarily high in your view? Even when comparing apples with apples, if organic offerings are priced significantly higher than like products, consumers will not purchase them unless there is some other significant advantage to be had. And I mean significant. Consumers expect to pay more and companies should expect more profitability in selling these kinds of products. To your point about image building, I'll say this. It's great to offer healthier food products to consumers but a company's image is built on many factors. Quality offerings is one of those factors. However, transparency, fairness, great employee and customer relations and service are others that all comprise an image. Being great in one area while failing in others does not go to creating a positive image all by itself. . .

Thank you for sharing your insights with DF readers, Fatma.

I started buying organic food twenty years ago. It was of varying quality and was super expensive. Even when I could scarcely afford it I persisted. Now it is available on supermarket shelves ... and is much more affordable.

And while this is good for the retailers, and for consumers -- what happens further down the "food chain"? I agree with Cruz, if you really do want to support "green foods", then do so at a local farmers market.

A number of us have made the point that organic/natural foods consumers have benefited immensely from lower prices and wider distribution when the supermarkets finally got into the act.

The concept of "locavores" is growing in the country. People want to purchase locally grown, fresh foods in increasing numbers. That is a growing trend and a truly "green" one. It supports local growers, doesn't get trucked in from thousands of miles away, and a great deal of it is grown sans pesticides and chemical fertilizers. But in many parts of the country, there is a very limited season in which we can purchase locally grown foodstuffs, so most of us still have to rely on supermarkets to a large extent. That's why we need to continue to increase the nutritious quality of our food products, regardless where we purchase it.

Thanks for adding your insights, Gavin. They are much appreciated.

Ted- I agree with your points totally. But remember when buying a solar panel was either A) next to impossible or B) too cost prohibitive to actually be affordable? Over the past few years, due to so many companies getting on the eco bandwagon, things like solar panels have become much more affordable and easy to locate. It is still very expensive to add solar to your home, but not like it was 20+ years ago.

As the market demand for organic foods has grown, the food companies have seen enough "critical mass" to make it worth their while. At the same time, their involvement has generated more less expensive offerings to consumers, which has added more consumers willing to go organic. It's created a perfect storm of mutually beneficial outcomes; more profits for the food co's and more good food offerings at a "better" price for more interested consumers.

But, as for the rest of the conversation here; buying locally grown foods is the best if that is an option you have. Here in San Diego we do have a few good options. Some of them even accept food stamps for families that might not otherwise be able to afford the luxury of fresh, safe foods. Buying local is a great way to eat better while doing good things for the planet.

All that said... I'm getting hungry!

I don't think we disagree on this, Tim. As our population has aged, and health-related concerns have risen, so has the demand for more nutritious foods. With prepared foods and overly refined foods leading to obesity and health issues, this is also a contributing factor.

Education has and will continue to be a factor, as well. As more people become better educated about nutrition, the call for natural/organic foods will continue to rise. Likewise, as we learn more about environmental issues and lean toward a wiser use of our precious agricultural resources, there will be a greater demand for these foods. As supermarkets begin to increasingly use their purchasing power and volume to private label these foods, there will be increased distribution. As you say, many elements come together to create a "perfect storm".

Lastly, we'd love to be able to buy fresh, locally-grown food year-round. Here in New Jersey, that isn't an option. It isn't in most of the country. But where and when we can, it is the best way to go. No doubt about it.

Thanks for continuing the conversation, Tim.

I agree with Cruz and Gavin who touted farmer's markets. They are a fantastic way to support your local farmer.

But as Ted said, you can only purchase fresh, local produce in season. That is, unless you are very lucky in where you live.

Out of season, we have to rely on food companies of some sort. Yes, support your local ones when possible but, again, unless you are very lucky, you are going to have to reach beyond the local to stay fed. That seems to be the reality as I see it.

Right, Neil. In the meantime, purchasing natural and organic foods supports farmers and processors who have committed to growing and bringing more nutritional products to market across the board. If we do that, it might encourage the turning over of farm production acreage more and more to organics. It has to be seen as lucrative for the growers to want to make a change from using chemicals to increase yield, to returning to age-old farming practices that might decrease yield but increase nutrition and safe consumption for everybody. That means they have to be able to share more in the profits, doesn't it?

The only problem, and it is a valid one, is that organic produces less yield and therefore requires more land.

There is an argument to be made for genetically modified as the next green revolution to feed the world.

The first "Green Revolution" was the use of fertilizers and pesticides to dramatically increase yields.

The truth is we cannot feed the world using 100% organic. It is unfortunate but true.

Organic is, in a sense, a luxury of the affluent. As more land goes to organic, more and more land will be required to produce the yield that we get from fertilizers and pesticides.

GMO may be a big part of the yield/land/population dilemma but its mere discussion arouses strong emotion.

People want organic, which means no chemicals. People do not want genetically altered. The alternative? Relatively low yield per acre agriculture. That can only take you so far and you must sacrifice, as this grows, other uses for that land whether it be wildlife habitat or other human use.

Excellent, Neil. You are very well informed on this issue and dead on in your comments. Thank you for taking the time to add significantly to the issues surrounding organic farming.

The pros and cons of GMOs have created raging debates in the past and they will continue to do so. As you point out, we will need to increase yields to feed a growing global population and the solutions are complicated with many implications.

We may have to adopt some measures in future where compromises are made. Let's hope we think these issues through and do the best we can to be better stewards of our land and still meet the global demand for food.

Thanks, Neil, for sharing so much great information with DF readers. Much appreciated.

To be frank, if we do not want to use chemicals, we may have no choice but to go with GMO if we want enough food.

If given a choice, I would take GMO over pesticides and fertilizers and there may come a day when that stark choice is presented.

Of course, personally, I will continue to buy as local and organic as possible. There is much to be said for buying food from close to home for many reasons.

Some time ago I read a post and comments about the cost of organic food. I did a search but wasn't able to find it -- the writer contended that the extra paid for organic food is wasted. He (or she) recommended buying regular produce, eating a generally healthy diet, and investing the money saved by not buying organic food. His contention was that the odds of health consequences from regular produce were favorable and the odds of having enough money for medical problems were better if the "organic premium" was invested instead of spent.

What hasn't been mentioned in the comments here about organic foods is that sometimes merchants only offer organic products in some categories. The supermarkets near me don't offer a choice between organic and regular produce in many categories.

Neil -- Pesticide use may face another challenge soon. Several of the articles I have read about colony collapse disorder in bees are suggesting that pesticides may be implicated in the loss of honey bee colonies.

At the same time, I am becoming more cautious about GMO. Cross-fertilization by modern corn is affecting the native varieties of corn in Mexico, for instance. I would prefer to see more research on sustainable agriculture and innovative plant management along with basic, accessible technology to provide more food worldwide. The book "1491" by Charles Mann has some interesting observations about the history of agriculture.

Ted -- I wonder if lack of imagination is affecting the seasonal produce business. I read about the amount of heat that server farms throw off and wonder why that energy isn't used for greenhouses or office heating or hot water production in New Jersey or Pennsylvania (where I live) and other four-season states.

The post about the cost of organic versus saving the money for medical costs and that being more rational, seems absurd to me. Quality of life and preventing illness is much better than avoiding buy organic and then treating illness that might result from chemicals in food. That is spurious thinking.

I am not suggesting you were advocating that idea but simply stating that I think that if you can afford to buy as organic and local as possible, it is good for your health in a preventative sense.

Barbara, I do agree that some hard thinking, research, and decision making is needed on sustainability. The first "Green Revolution" has run its course and it is time for change. This process that has started but, in the early stages, it can go in many possible directions.

You've raised many important points, Barbara. Many writers and news organizations have suggested that buying organic is a waste of money. Many others have pointed to an increase in cancers and other major diseases, citing increased modern exposure to pollutants and chemicals as a primary cause. In some cases, it isn't possible to wash chemicals off produce; it runs systemically through plants. That's why many experts advocate buying organic lettuce, grapes, cherries, etc. That may be one of the reasons some supermarkets offer more organic than commercial produce choices in some categories. Or, it might be that the commercial produce simply doesn't meet their quality standards in some cases.

As to year-round growing in local markets, I'm sure that some growers are in a better position than others to install state-of-the-art greenhouses to do so, while others are not. Power can be generated and recycled with geothermal technology, for example. . .but I'm no expert in this area. Growers might be encouraged to look into this if they are given tax incentives or rebates by their state governments. Still, it may not be feasible for now for many farmers. Yet. Things are changing rapidly and this scenario may, as well. We'll have to see how this unfolds. At least, we're looking forward and working harder than ever before to come up with solutions to the problems of energy creation, consumption and growing more food in a healthier manner in the future.

Thanks for all of your input, Barbara. I appreciate it.

You've raised a very important point about the correlation of nutrition to health, Neil. You're right. Pay more to eat more nutritious food today, and that does not necessarily have to be all organic, by the way, or pay the price in medical costs later. We've seen a meteoric rise in health care as a result of an explosion of obesity-related illnesses that have mushroomed in recent years. Not good.

Great stuff, Neil. Thank you.

I think what we're forgetting in all this that much of what these companies are doing are just spinning a product based on convenience, and we're all buying into it.

I saw on a bottle of Diet Pepsi the other day some logo stating that it's healthy. Nevermind that it's loaded with chemicals and, in my opinion, it tastes like battery acid. But because there is no fat or sugar, it's deemed as a healthy choice. Now, does that make Diet Coke with Vitamins even healthier?

I liken this change in the convenience food industry to the low-sugar/low-fat phases that we went through several years back. This time, it's putting a little more of a technical spin on it, such as "probiotics" or other terms that the general public doesn't get. But they're scared enough to look into it. And if the box says healthy, it must be true, right?

Thanks, RJS, for raising a point that we've all overlooked. You're right: just because certain foods cut back on sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, that doesn't in and of itself make these products healthier to consume. As you point out, chemicals, preservatives, artifical colors and flavors carry their own problems. . .and these can't be masked by adding a few vitamins or probiotics to them. Commercial food manufacturers, overall, seem to be moving in the right direction, but much more has to be done. Good catch, RJS. I like the way you think and you're absolutely dead-on. Thanks for weighing in.

This is an interesting topic Ted and it looks like you have had many comments.

I am a Malaysian with varied eating habits and tastes. I can eat Western and every other cuisine except the internal organs of any animal. I do prefer vegetables and fruits and fish more than meat. We have lots of health articles, health talks this and that and organic food too.
I join one organised by a qualified naturopath from US and it is a monthly talk on holistic health. One can't help it and try to stay off everything that smacks of GMO or non-organic. But going organic in Malaysia is not cheap. It is double the price. That is those that are packaged as organic or sold in organic shops. Also the organic fruits and vegetables sold in the hypermarts are expensive.

However, we still have small little garden patches where we can growth some green leafy veg or something but it is not enough for family consumption.

When I read about sustainable food agriculture and compare it to the hungry world, I am terrified that we may really not be able to feed the starving millions. The only way to go is what we have done before, grow more, grow faster, in a shorter time and have greater yield; the GMO way. We have no choice and if we get cancer etc. etc. how do we tell a starving child or family that they will get cancer in years to come? This is ridiculous.
The world has no answer for food production for the billions. Organic is good but not for the poor and starving.
Unless, big companies do something and rethink their corporate goals based on capitalistic gains, the world will still face, in the years to come a greater increase in food prices and organic food may even triple and be out of reach of the middle class even. I am sorry that I sound so negative but I have read enough journals and many reports to know that we are in trouble as far as food production is concerned.

I have advertising as my backgound and if companies can just go "less" on hype adverts but deliver the goods so to speak, more customers will buy. So in reference to health and food, the public is now more and more discerning and companies can't pull the wool over our eyes without getting some "butting" from us consumers!!!

Interesting discussion all. Thanks for starting it out, Ted.

The healthy claims on the front of a package are often misleading and can be downright wrong. For example a product can say "zero trans-fats" on the front when there are actually .5 g per serving which you can only tell if you read the ingredient list and see partially hydrogentated (fill in the blank ) oil. And as many of your previous commenters have said, low fat and low sugar claims aren't all they seem to be; many artificial sweeteners are more harmful than the sugar they replace.

It's great that the major food companies are getting the message that healthier is better BUT the best food is that which is processed the least. I do health and nutrition counseling and one thing I do is take my clients on tours of the grocery store and teach them how to shop. Mostly I have to help them un-learn everything they think they know from ads and labels. I'm skeptical that the business model of a large multi-national food manufacturer will allow the creation of actual healthy foods. What will they do to broccoli to make it healthy that it doesn't already have when you buy it fresh? Where can they add value?

I would disagree with Niel on one point about buying organic. I think it is an important way to prevent future illness - the fewer chemicals and the cleaner the land and water, the better. There have also been a number of studies that show that organically raised produce has more nutrients than conventionally raised produce.

As a health counselor, I follow this issue closely. The Environmental Working Group publishes a list of the 43 most common fruits and vegetables and their pesticide loads. The 12 worst foods (and those they recommed you always buy organic when you can) are peaches, apples, sweet peppers, celery, nectarines, stawberries, pears, imported grapes, spinach, lettuce and potatoes. See http://www.foodnews.org/ for more info and the complete list.

When you look at the total picture (and my clients ask me this all the time) and include the cost to the global environment of shipping organic produce across the country you might make some different choices. Farmer's markets are a great place to get to know who grows your food. Many small farmers are not certified organic (it's expensive) but do use the practices. You can find out by asking. I tell my clients to buy local organic first, local second and national organic third.

Thank you, Julia, for raising some very valid concerns about food production. In populous countries like Malaysia, it's pretty apparent that there isn't enough food to go around, especially among the poor. This is why technology and agriculture are joining forces to continuously try to increase yield. Very simply put: more food is needed to feed an increasing world population. But at what price? I am no expert but we will have to make some hard decisions and maybe a few compromises, in order to grow more food without destroying the ecosystems that provide it. Otherwise, we're all in trouble. We will have to decide which trade-offs we want to make. . .what we feel we can live with and what we can't live with. While the problems we face in producing adequate food may seem daunting, I do believe we can meet these challenges if scientists come together to find solutions. And we have to--there is no other choice.

Consumers are becoming far more educated and sophisticated about nutritional issues, to your point. And that is a good thing. Food manufacturers have to know that they are under the microscope now, and respond to this by offering transparency, traceability to the mix. Otherwise, they won't be trusted.

Thanks for adding so much to this conversation, Julia.

Great points, Natalie, and I thank you for making a number of important comments. This is such a huge topic, it's impossible to cover every area that deserves to be discussed.

As I said after reading RJS's comments this morning, lowering salt, sugar and harmful fats while increasing chemicals--and that includes artificial sweeteners--does not constitute healthier food. Nor do overprocessed and refined foods. We did say that earlier on.

I do believe that grassroots pressure has had an effect on food manufacturers. I think that pressure will continue to increase as consumers become more and more informed and question what they're eating.

People like you offer an invaluable service, Natalie. You're able to guide consumers through the mine field in the supermarket--helping them to understand how to read labels and packaging and make more healthful choices. For some consumers around the world, as Julia pointed out in her comments from Malaysia, access to organic foods and locally grown foods may be limited due to insufficient quantities or exorbitant prices most people can't pay. In those cases, they have to rely on other sources for their food. Thus, I think it still wise for us to continue to push for cleaner, healthier mass marketed foods. Even as we avail ourselves of better choices if we have access to them and can afford them.

Thanks for writing, Natalie. Very much appreciated.

Natalie, I do not think we disagree on the benefits of eating organic. I am committed to eating as local and organic as I can.

My point was not that we should continue the "Green Revolution" that increased yields *substantially* in the post WW II world but that organic cannot completely replace the yield gains that came from the Green Revolution.

I was suggesting that we need a second Green Revolution that involves much, much less chemicals. So where does that leave us:

1. Green Revolution. Chemicals. High Yield but ultimately hurts the land and your health.

2. Organic. Low yield so requires more land. This means less yield (food) per acre. We cannot realistically feed the world this way. Maybe it is possible if we destroy huge amounts of the remaining wild habitat but I doubt it would produce enough yield even then.

3. GMO. It is possible that we can get more yield per acre with less or ultimately zero chemicals.

If there are other options, I am not sure what they are but none of them are yet suited for feeding large numbers of people.

Absolutely, eat organic, go to farmer's markets, grow a garden. These are all very good things.

But please do not forget that organic agriculture cannot feed the world. The math just does not work out.

Lest there be confusion, by "Green Revolution" I refer to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution

Neil -

I think you raise an important issue: how to feed a rapidly growing and gentrifying world?

I am not philosophically or morally opposed to GMO, and done right, it might just be the next Green Revolution, as you point out. But I think we need to be careful and cautious about it. Remember, we got into the first Green Revolution (with heavy pesticide and fertilizer use) with every good intention to feed the world more efficiently.

The Law of Unintended Consequences looms large here, I think. Farmers have been genetically modifying crops since they started planting them. And anything that can help us feed more people healthy, nutritious food is a good thing in my book. I get very nervous, though, when the genes of other species (sometimes even animal, bacterial or viral) get grafted into a plant's DNA. I do not believe that scientists are evil or that the companies doing this are motivated by profit at any cost, but I also believe that we often overestimate our knowledge. Before GMO can lead a new Green Revolution, I think we need to have a great deal of research, discussion and thought about what the possible consequences MIGHT be and whether they are worth the benefit.

We haven't done this in the organic food business (thought hard about the costs and benefits) and the following has recently happened there: as more large corporate food companies get into the business (e.g. Dean Foods buying Horizon Milk) the small producers get squeezed while the quality of the milk drops. Is large factory farming, even if it meets organic standards (cows are fed organic feed, and not given antibiotics, but can be given growth hormone and live in very small pens) good for people and the environment at large?

I don't think there are any obvious or easy answers about feeding a rapidly growing world population. Maybe GMO foods can help, maybe the efficiency of large farms is the only way to do it. But then again, maybe encouraging people to keep their more traditional diets rather than switching to the "western" diet is a better solution that doesn't require as much GMO or factory farming.

Unfortunately, the western diet has beome a sign of affluence in developing countries. To get back to where Ted started off - perhaps pushing large multi-national food companies to create healthier foods, to cut back on the advertising pushes all over the world, and to create foods based on traditional grains rather than all wheat (millet in Africa for example) that could be sold regionally is what we all should be doing.

You've raised a number of good points, Natalie. Good discussion between you and Neil, also.

Take a look at this story from today's NY Times concerning Monsanto's pioneering efforts to increase future crop yields by 2030 with new seeds.

Obviously, Monsanto's biotechnology innovations have been controversial over the past few years--for its advocacy of GMO seeds vs heirloom, biodiverse seeds for one thing. Let's remember this is a chemical company. Yet we should, as you propose, research this more closely since their proposals are intended to increase our growing capacity. The longterm ramifications of GMOs have led to raging, ongoing debates. We have a lot to learn. And we should make a commitment to doing just that. Ideas will continue to come in, and not all of them will be embraced. Still, everything should be put on the table and the studied and dismissed if unsafe or unfeasible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/business/worldbusiness/05crop.html?em&ex=1212724800&en=13c31749831dd592&ei=5087%0A

Thanks for your terrific input, Natalie. You've added a great deal to this conversation.

Natalie,

Our world is much, much more urbanized than it was. This trend continues.

Even if people ate only traditional diets, they would still not be able to grow it on their own little plot of land. We are no longer a longer so agragrian.

Therefore, we need larger farms that can grow food efficiently.

The first Green Revolution was necessary and made feeding much of the world possible in the post-war world. Were there unintended consequences? Absolutely. We all know what they are.

If we react with fear against GMO and look to only purely organic as the solution, will there be consequences? Absolutely. Again, you will need much more land to produce the same amount of food. This means more land must be put to food production, with consequences to wild habitat and to other possible uses of land.

I am not an advocate of GMO and have no affiliation with that industry at all. However, I have observed that the reaction against GMO does not have that much basis in fact but it is more of a visceral fear.

There is this dogma out there that "GMO" is ipso facto bad and that "organic" is ipso facto good.

I think GMO should be given a fair hearing with the dogma taken out of the debate. With issues as important as food, we cannot afford to take dogmatic positions. Many people have *already* made up their minds that organic agriculture is the solution and that GMO is the villain.

I am trying to keep an open mind and I hope, for our world's sake, that we all keep an open mind. Frankly, I am not sure what the solutions will be.

BTW, Natalie, I 100% agree with you on pushing the multi -nationals to push healthier foods based on traditional grains. Standardization and mono cultures are not helpful.

Second, I would say that when *possible* people should buy as local and organic as possible. We as consumers can make the extra effort to do so.

While I might sound like an advocate for GMO, I really do practice what I preach regarding local food. I walk with my backpack to the locally owned natural grocery and buy local food whenever possible.

But the truth is that buying local is not always possible. There are times of the year when eating healthy requires the help of rather large food companies.

We can all do the best we can.

You are quite correct Neil that we all do the best we can. I think that's the upshot of what Ted was asking way back when he posed the original question!

It's an interesting topic and one that will require some careful thought and trade offs as we move ahead.

Thanks Ted, for asking the question and to Neil for raising some of the tough implications.

Natalie,

I quite agree that we may all have to make some trade offs in the future in order to feed a growing global population as nutritiously as possible. Thanks to you and Neil for engaging in a meaningful conversation. You've both brought many good points to the fore.

Wow, Natalie, I took a look at your Web site. I am very impressed at the services you offer. Much needed!

Great Article. Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome, HDNF. Please feel free to make additional comments or share your insights with Daily Fix readers, if you'd like to. I always enjoy reading contributors' comments and POVs.