Ted, I might be in the minority, but I am very skeptical of touted health benefits of many of today's products. Diet Coke with vitamins? I really don't care. Yogurt that helps you regulate your digestive system? Dannon is facing a class action lawsuit for touting such claims.

Perhaps it's the marketer in me trained to be cynical...

I understand where you're coming from, Paul, and I do not think that the amount of vitamins or probiotics in most foods and beverages could possibly be adequate to make a substantive difference in most people's overall health. A balanced diet is key, no matter what.

Having said that, this nutraceutical trend is huge and it's growing. There is no derailing this. It is in our present and looming even larger in our future. Lawsuits are nothing new when it comes to food claims. Dannon(for one) is a big company and I'm sure that at any given time, they're handling a number of suits brought by consumers for all kinds of reasons.

Many consumers like you may be skeptical, but this trend is here to stay, Paul. Thanks for weighing in. Much appreciated.

Wow, Ted, look what we boomers have started! I always knew that our numbers would dictate product development and marketing trends.

I also remember the Lucy bit on Vitaminavegamin - the first TV neutraceutical (loaded with booze). That's a classic.

In real life, there was Ted Mack who promoted Geritol on his show - a product with a 12% alcohol content. Now, there's a pick-me-up!

I think this foodie trend will continue until the majority of boomers are in diapers. That and cosmetic wonders. The best part is that the focus is on healthy living, and, as Martha says, that's a good thing.

I think it would be very helpful to have some sort of regulation of the supplements industry. That would be a way, though not perfect, of separating the serious supplements from the bogus claims.

Now, the FDA does not do a perfect job with drugs but it does help. Right now anyone can say just about anything about their supplement. There is really no regulator to even make them prove that the herb (or whatever) is even in the supplement. There appears to be absolutely no accountability.

That said, I take supplements myself and go with brands with a good reputation. I guess I act as my own FDA. Not really ideal since I am no expert.

At the outset, let me state that I live in India but many of the phenomena mentioned in the article are mirroring here too.
My view is that there are different consumer segments with radically different behavioural patterns and psychographic profiles. So, on one hand we are witnessing a trend towards organic farming (going the 'natural' way), on the other hand we are seeing emerging popularity of over the counter, packaged health solutions.
The awareness on health issues seems to be increasing and smart marketers are noticing that at least a significant portion of consumers are open to quick fix solutions because they don't have the time or inclination to take the healthy route the hard way. They would rather pop pills than bother themselves with finding out what a balanced diet is.

The real point is who's smarter-the Consumer who can help himself/herself with balanced foods at much lower costs with undeniable benefits or the Marketer of health foods which may have suspect benefits. It's a fact: there is a gullible audience out there willing to join the 'convenient health foods' bandwagon.
An example, food for thought really, would you rather eat an apple, get all the vitamins, minerals and fibre or instead drink a pack of processed and 'fortified' apple juice and top it with a spoon of a branded fibre/roughage powder.

Vigyan,

I agree with what you say in principle: you can get all the nutrients you need through a balanced diet.

The reality is that a lot of people are missing this or that nutrient because, perhaps, they do not have time to cook as much as they should and so on. That is where a good multi vitamin might be a good idea.

The second thing is some research has shown that there are herbs and so on that have medicinal value. Long before there were drug companies, there were herbs that hunters and gatherers used for various ailments and they worked.

We are trying to re-capture a bit of that wisdom now with herbal supplements. There is solid research to show that some herbs do have beneficial effects. There are other herbs that are pure myth. There are certainly unscrupulous companies selling bogus products that do not even contain what they say they contain.

To me this is an industry that has huge potential for good if only they had a way to weed the hucksters from their ranks. Not an easy task.

With solid research to back claims and a way to regulate product quality, this is an industry where the sky is the limit. Without that people will start to feel they are being taken.

Remember, for about 99% of human existence we were hunters and gatherers. Most of the huge amount of wisdom about the healing and supplemental power of the natural world has been lost. We are just starting to scratch the surface in regaining it.

For example, the Amazon rain forest is a cornucopia of species of plants that yield a bounty of cures and supplements. If this industry can maintain its credibility the possibilities of combining the scientific method with the wisdom of the land holds incredible potential.

This can be done with respect. The rain forest and its people are more valuable to the world intact than burned to the ground, which is what is happening now. With species diversity varying by the smallest of plots, we burn cures when we burn.

Instead, we should be conserving with respect and awe at the potential...

Right you are, Elaine. Boomers like us are driving a lot of this nutraceutical trend. This trend is already more mature in Europe and Asia than it is here and I suspect we are far from peaking. Thanks for adding your comments. Great walk down memory lane for many of us!

You've made some excellent points, Neil. FDA as a regulatory agency, has its hands full with the food and pharmaceutical industries. It would be difficult for the agency as it is staffed now, to add to its responsibilities. That makes it imperative for consumers to take responsibility for educating themselves about herbal products and supplements. It is also important for them to buy products from reputable companies and stores, that in turn, should be policing themselves.

Thanks for weighing in, Neil. I appreciate it.

Thanks, Vigyan, for sharing your perspective with us. We enjoy hearing from people around the world.

The point today is that people are realizing healthy eating and responsible supplementation are based on new thinking: prevention is far more desirable than having to treat disease. The goal should be to consume a healthy, balanced diet, and when/where necessary, to supplement in a limited but meaningful manner.

Thanks again, Vigyan, for making some excellent observations.

One thing I'd like to mention: the quote I used to title this post should see proper attribution. This quote comes to us from a very famous doctor--Hippocrates.

Yes, ideally, the FDA would not get involved but I think it is inevitable for the heavy hand of regulation to come down if some self-regulation does not happen.

1. When I buy something that says it has herb X in it, how do I know it really does? Who enforces that claim?

2. When a company claims herb X does Y, how do I know if it is true or not true?

Right now, neither 1 nor 2 are met by the industry as a whole. It is sort of I trust this brand type of thing because a friend says they are good or the woman working in the natural herb section of the grocer says they are a good brand.

There needs to be independent evaluations of claims and independent evaluations of individual products. Otherwise, you could be buying sugar pills, right? Or am I missing something?

Thanks a lot Ted for your comments. It's a pleasure for me too, getting global perspectives.

Thanks Neil for your observations.Taking your point further, the essential characteristic of nutraceuticals is that it is more preventive than curative and has more long-term benefits than short-term benefits. While a brand may make a claim to provide a specific benefit, given that we are at the beginning of the curve, it may actually take several years before the efficacy of the product may be really known.
That's where ancient sciences, like Ayurveda in India, have an edge because the herbal formulations of say, Ayurveda are proven performers for centuries. While the Ayurvedic science has been carefully preserved in its most pristine form, there are modern Indian companies which have brought it within the reach of consumers in forms they are likely to consume readily. So, this is a good example of preventive health care where the efficacy is not suspect as long as the formulations and ingredients are right.
The only significant difference between say a US market and Indian market would be that while in India many of the herbs are part of ethos, therefore easier to convince on efficacy, in US it may be a trifle difficult to get people try Ayurveda but given that yoga, another Indian science, has won widespread acceptance and admiration, it may not be that hard either.

I have done Yoga and demonstrably feel better after a session. Everyone I know who does it regularly has improved well being and they even visibly look healthier.

Unless an herb, including Ayurveda, has that sort of transformative characteristic, I (and many others) require more evidence. How are herbal formulations of Aurveda "proven" performers? What is the proof or at least strong evidence?

Second, and again this is probably even more important, when I buy and herb how do I even know what I am buying? Since there is no regulation, there is no real obligation to follow-through on the formulation claimed on the label. There could be an incentive to sort of fudge on the ingredients to save on cost.

Now, this is where reputation comes into play. If I knew that reputation were *directly* linked to quality that would be great but know no such thing.

However, since reputation is really all I can go on at this point, that is how I shop for supplements. I suppose it comes down to I am trusting firms that others trust. I am assuming that these companies have cultivated good reputations and formulate with an eye to keeping their reputation high. And I assume they got their reputation through having a passion for doing it right. Big assumptions but what else can I do unless I want to give up on supplements altogether.

The other side of this is that there are lots of supplements being sold that are *not* what they say they are or have little evidence to back up their claims. That is very bad as the reputation of the industry as a whole could be dragged down thus affecting the good companies really trying to do a good job.

Another thing is there appear to be whole areas of supplements (e.g, homeopathy) where there seems to be no evidence it even works. If I am wrong correct me but where is the evidence that homeopathy does anything at all for what ails you? I am very open to being shown to be wrong about homeopathy.

Elaine, hats off to boomers for the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and equality for women, and certainly thank god for Alice Waters and her local, in season food movement.

However, the baby boom generation has brought us some bad things. Most of my friends parents where the father took off were baby boomers. If it feels good man, do it. I have more than one fucked up friend because dad decided it would feel good to abandon the family.

That trend of the broken family seems to have established itself now.

Second, there is drugs. Frankly, Ken Kesey and Timothy Leary and others got the word out about LSD and other psychadelics and no doubt many benefited from responsible use of mind expanding drugs.

The consequences were that when you popularize drugs they eventually spread to populations who are not trying to "tune in" but just trying to numb out. That's where hard drugs have taken there hold in many places courtesy of the foundation laid in the 1960s, which makes the family collapse even worse in some communities.

To me the baby boomers brought us some good things and some bad things on to society very, very fast. As I said, I thank the boomers for much of it but some of it, I wish the boomers would try to fix. The break down of the social order is the big one.

It is a tall order to fix that one but the baby boomers by their sheer numbers were able to bring us several great changes in our society. Why not admit a few mistakes and use some of that generational power to bring back the family and a strong social order that is frayed now.

I have many friends that got kicked in the gut by irresponsible baby boomer parents so I have seen the bad up close. I also am thankful we have environmental regulation and so on but I also wish more boomers would practice what they once preached. Peace and love starts at home and with individual buying decisions. What are boomers doing driving GIANT SUVs??

The family break up thing reminds me of that song from Hair, which spoke to the boomers' high ideals for society but that they did not always hold themselves to high standards. This one is caring less about one's own son than the lifestyle and the movement:

How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

And especially people
Who care about strangers
Who care about evil
And social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend?
I need a friend

How can people be so heartless
You know I'm hung up on you
Easy to give in
Easy to help out

And especially people
Who care about strangers
Who say they care about social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd
How about a needing friend?
I need a friend

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

To clarify the song above is sung, in Hair, by a woman who has been left to raise her daughter by herself by her hippie boy friend.

He says something like, "you would no understand" these things. He implied he was after some higher ideals than simply caring for his wife and daughter.

Her song, pitch perfect in its message, was the response...

You've brought up some great points, Neil. I'd like to help out on this one, having been a marketer for natural products for quite some time, in the recent past.

You are right. Without official regulation, it's important to buy herbal products, or any supplements from reputable companies that stand by their products. The good ones have web site access to good information and even employ nutritionists and medically trained personnel to answer customers' questions. The onus is on each person who chooses natural products to become educated consumers.

Ayurvedic medicine has thousands of years of tradition behind it in India. . .so does Chinese herbal medicine. In order to choose and use these products properly, it's best to see a naturopathic physician.

Homeopathy is an entirely different matter, Neil. It has its own pharmaceutical governance and is an established medical system with its own physicians. Hugely popular in Europe, it was suppressed by the mainstream medical community in the U.S. in the early part of the last century. It has made a comeback here and it is growing. Homeopathic medicines, if properly used and prescribed by a physician are renowned for their efficacy. They also are renowned for having no side effects, unlike allopathic medicines.

Hope that helps, Neil.

Hi Claire, thanks your insights.

BTW, my posts were *way* too long and some a bit off topic. I have to avoid posting at 3:00 AM.!

Neil, even though your 3 a.m. rant was off-topic, you still made some valid points. :)

Just like any demographic, boomers represent a zillion subsets. There were irresponsible ones who left their families or got zonked out on mood-altering drugs, and there were good ones. The ones who helped bring about women's rights and equality, the civil rights movement, better labor laws that protect workers, the sexual revolution (pre-HIV), greater access to higher education, the development of technology, rock music, and overall enlightenment are the good ones. On a balancing scale, are we better off today because of the boomer generation? I vote yes.

Many are still driving big cars because they got stuck like many other Americans, after the price of gas got exhorbitant.

BTW, Barack Obama is a boomer, as is George W.

I agree think the balance sheet is mixed:

Good: woman's rights, environmental movement, and participation in the civil rights movement.

Bad: The collapse of the family, the spread of hard drugs (I realize many boomers stopped with soft drugs but drugs kept spreading).

The boomers contributed heavily to the collapse of the previous social order: they threw the baby out with the bath water. The bath water was the oppression of women and minorities, while the baby that was tossed was a stable society founded on the family.

Don't boomers feel some responsibility to correct these ills that are the bad part of their legacy with the same zeal they protect the good part of their legacy?

As for massive vehicles, wouldn't a boomer consider buying a massive vehicle selling out? How could the same people who brought us the environmental movement drive a Hummer? Even before gas prices went through the roof we knew these massive vehicles were beyond the pale didn't we? I mean we know about pollution, feeding noxious dictators oil wealth, etc., before the price went up didn't we?

I realize that Obama and W are officially boomers but Obama is on the very young end, almost X. George W does not, to me, represent the ethos of his generation unless I am mistaken about the ethos. Since I am so-called generation X I might not really understand the ethos.

Interesting conversation thread, Neil, Claire and Elaine. Thanks for extending the post into these areas. Let me add this: I do believe that boomers are leading the way on this nutraceuticals issue. In fact, I think their purchasing power and demands are pushing manufacturers into offering cleaner, healthier foods and beverages in general.

This is a very interesting observation and trend. Here are my 2 cents. It seems we are going into two directions, back to basics (organic) and developing bionic (functional) food to satisfy our needs. I agree that all natural food and a balance diet are better and more nutritional than other alternatives. However, depending on income level, it is an expensive proposition to keep a 100% natural food diet with our fast lifestyles, thus functional food becomes a substitute to stay healthy. This could be more psychologically than real. I have tried some vitamin waters and teas without noticing the difference except for price and the product label. My daughter on the other hand, “smart food” and “mood foods” are part of her daily diet, which she justifies as a balance to her fast pace life and eating habits. But then again, I take multivitamins and don’t feel the effects, except to know that they are good for me. Functional food is an easy, inexpensive implementation, and instant gratification to become healthier. As consumers, boomers to generation Y, become more health conscious, they will turn to products that will offer this kind of solution.

Ted, yes, I am personally thankful for the boomers for the following: natural, organic, local, whole foods, and nutraceuticals. Without the boomers we would not have these good things or, at least, not at nearly the level have reached. I am easy walking distance from a great natural grocer.

Elaine, chalk this big one up on the good side of the ledger for the boomers. :-)

Javier,

You've made similar points to those of Vigyan earlier in the conversation. You've stated it well: our fast lifestyles make it difficult for us to eat nutritionally balanced diets as we should, thus the need for some supplementation for most of us. The latter doesn't take the place of a good diet, though, and can't be substituted for one. Gen X and Y people are likely less aware of that than Boomers are. Natural foods are more expensive, Javier. The good news is that more and more supermarket chains are adding their own private label lines of natural foods. Their huge purchasing power and reach are bringing prices down on healthier foods in general.

Thanks for weighing in, Javier. I appreciate your insightful comments.

I think I speak for many of the children of the boomers when I quote Peter Fonda in Easy Rider with regard to the boomers:
"You know Billy, we blew it".

BTW, on second thought, George W. does fit the ethos. He is pure irresponsibility defined as precisely as possible in one human being. He ran our country into the ditch.

Yikes, I have been a tad hard on baby boomers. I would like to clarify that my comment are based on many friends growing up who were hurt by their boomer parents.

My parents, on the other hand are great people, as are many, many other boomers.

My dad is an engineer who was active in the civil rights and anti-war movements. My mom is a teacher who was active in women's rights. And they did a good job of raising my sister and I as did many other baby boomers.

I am a sort of listener and so friends have always confided in me on their experiences with their boomer parents. Over the years it has lead me, wrongly, to lay it on a generation. That wasn't fair so I hereby apologize to a generation.

Here are my thoughts, coming from a 25-year old marketing professional, who lives a (mostly) healthy but extremely busy lifestyle:
1. Transparency in Labeling and Packaging. The growing transparency in CPGs is heartening. Never has there been more awareness of what is good and bad for you. I'm too young to know, but I'd be willing to bet 10 years ago saturated fat and high fructose corn syrup weren't as scrutinized as they are now.
2. Should we market like a liberal? There are more healthy and organic food choices every day available to the consumer... of course some CPG companies do exploit that, but it's not their fault Americans fall for a 25% less fat sticker, which for example could mean it's 75 gr fat instead of 100gr. Hardly a healthy option. As long as the CPG companies are being transparent in their statements and marketing, they can't be blamed for the general misunderstanding of the masses.
3. Societal Constraints. The very busy dual-income American lifestyle makes it very difficult to be able to cook nutritious, healthy foods every day. A growing number of convenient- and MORE healthy if not entirely- foods is better than the alternative. Busy folks can't change the number of hours in a day, and it used to be that convenient foods were ALWAYS high-salt, high-fat, high-sugar, high-calorie. It's a good thing there are healthy, albeit not the healiEST, options out there.
4. Economic Reality. I am fortunate enough to have the income to justify the purchases of healthy fresh vegetables, organic meats and such. The bad-for-you convenience foods are far less expensive than eating healthy. Until we can tackle that as a social problem, I'm afraid that we'll just have to look at the bright side and be happy that at least those affordable junk foods are a little "less bad for you" then before.

You've made some excellent, well-articulated points, Alexandra. As I've maintained all along, CPG companies have a duty to be truthful and to clean up their acts when it comes to switching harmful ingredients for less harmful ingredients. However, so do consumers have a duty. We all have to become educated so we can make healthier choices for ourselves.

Transparency is important for every company--in every industry--B2B or B2C. It's the only way we can gain real trust among our customers, isn't it?

It is difficult for harried, busy people to pursue healthy, balanced diets day in and day out. Let me ask you, this, Alexandra: what is most cost effective in the long run? To pay less up front for cheap, convenience meals and more in future for medical care and drugs to help "fix" the problems we've created for ourselves? Or to pay more to maintain a healthy diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish and quality meat now to avoid deteriorating health and high costs in future? The choice is ours--each and every one of us have to decide what we want to do.

Thanks for weighing in, Alexandra. Great stuff.

Alexandra, on point 2, I assume you mean that healthy foods are more likely to appeal to liberals. That certainly used to be true but I have found more and more conservatives going in for organics, etc.

I happen to know some *very* conservative people who eat organics, whole grains, etc., without a second thought.

Healthy food has become (or is becoming) politically neutral. That was not always the case since it was pioneered by very liberal people. Conservatives used to scoff at what used to be called "health" food or food for "granola" types and so on. It used to be associated with the counter culture. No more.

And Alexandra, I am in full agreement, you cannot make labels idiot proof. Lay out the facts but people need to educate themselves. Many are doing so.

In recent years more and more people seem to know the differences between the kinds of fats and so on. There was a time not so long ago when almost nobody knew what a trans fat was and everyone thought margarine was way, way healthier than butter.

There are segments out there who take the time to educate themselves about the basics of nutrition. If some won't bother or doesn't care, then what can you do?