Food Isn’t Fixed. But We Are Fixing It Now.

2015. It’s hard to believe we’ve marked fifteen years in the new millennium. “2015” feels like that emblematic far-off year in a fantastical ‘80s movie. In that version of now, cars flew (or drove themselves?), eyeglasses displayed our email (oh boy…), and entire meals came in pill form (just add water!). People and planet lived radiantly together. Only alien life forms could screw it up for us.

We now shake our heads at many elements of that dated futurism. Perhaps we scoff most at the idea that fueling our bodies could be as simple as shrinking meals into a capsule. On the surface, not much about the way we nourish ourselves has changed in the past 30 years. Growing food is challenging (scaled indoor agriculture is still in its infancy); waste is huge; our health remains poor; and the war of hearts and minds is brutish (how do you get people to eat their broccoli?). Debate still rages between Slow Food and Silicon Valley; between PETA and Paleo. We haven’t cracked the code on the radical simplification of food. How fanciful, and how American, to believe in the cathartic simplicity of a pill. If only*.

And yet…

Nevertheless, the future for scaled, real solutions has never looked better. There is much reason for optimism as a number of tectonic shifts gather steam. Some elements of the food system (processing innovations, online distribution, the financial ecosystem) are changing relatively quickly, while others (the education of eaters and entrepreneurs, land use, federal policy) are morphing more slowly. However, the direction of progress throughout the Western food system is encouraging. And we all have a role to play in accelerating that progress. As we kick off 2015, let’s explore why.

The Increasingly Educated Eater

The modern history of nutritional science is sordid, indeed. Throughout that history, brash personalities gambled entire legacies on studies and hypotheses that masqueraded as high science, but were really imperfect guesses. Today, the broader population is beginning to coalesce around some of the major questions of diet and health. Excellent scientific journalism by the likes of Dr. Robert Lustig, Gary Taubes, and Nina Teicholz has laid bare the consequences of failed dietary conceits. We now know that the stealthy surge in consumption of metabolically disastrous sugar and processed carbohydrates has created a public health nightmare. We also now know that we shouldn’t have demonized certain fats: evolutionarily, they have always been an important plank of our nutrition, and the links between some dietary fats and both heart disease and weight gain were never as clear as we were made to believe.

These are not middling realizations or fads: we are talking about a fundamental reassessment of the major constituents of the food that undergirds the Standard American Diet. Vegetables are becoming cool again. Portion sizes are becoming (slightly) more modest. Coke, Pepsi, and McDonald’s have experienced stinging contractions in their U.S. business. We’re in the grip of several revolutions in consciousness, layered atop one another. And those revolutions have already engendered dietary shifts that are shaking the foundations of the Western food industry.

A Reconsideration of Food Processing

With more people seeking unprocessed foods, or at least scrutinizing ingredient labels like never before, there is unprecedented pressure on food processors. High Pressure Processing (HPP) has won enormous market share gains in bottled beverages (e.g., the “cold-pressed juice” trend), largely because it is not as destructive to nutritional integrity as pasteurization. Acidified foods are under review as they have been linked to increased prevalence of cancer and acid reflux-related problems. (Important note: not all low-pH whole foods – such as lemons – increase acidity in the body.) Sugar faces renewed investigation as an additive in 80% of foods in the center of our grocery stores. And chemical stabilizers are subject to greater consumer investigation than ever before.

The net effect of all of this is an increased impetus on food processing innovation and greater demand for real foods, delivered cleverly. Food processors that can navigate the intersection of tastiness, health, and convenience will continue to be rewarded. A visit to a major natural foods trade show like Expo West (which had a record 67,000 attendees last year) confirms how many companies are trying to deliver on this promise, and how many eaters and retailers await them.

The Technological Makeover of Retail and Distribution

Over a billion dollars have been invested into food delivery businesses by venture capital in the last 18 months. The traditional brick-and-mortar retail model is under pressure. Think about what this means for us eaters. Instead of relying on monolithic grocery chains to decide which foods are made available to us, we can increasingly turn to online distributors (many of them!) to pick precisely which foods we want delivered to our doorstep. An important bottleneck in food choice is being broadened. As we buy more of our groceries and meals online, our options will proliferate. Upstart products and brands will be able to grow more quickly than ever before. The aforementioned processing innovations will disseminate (and topple incumbents) faster than ever. This is an important spur for transformative food companies that otherwise might have toiled, cash-strapped, for many years to get a shot at a national presence. Now, a multi-region sales profile is not out of the question for a small food business that can navigate the new online sales platforms. This change is great for food producers and eaters alike.

A Better Education for Food Entrepreneurs

The food industry has myriad quirks and considerations that make entrepreneurship tricky. Thankfully, a collection of educational platforms has sprung up to help food founders learn how to build their businesses and mitigate risk. Local Food Lab has been holding startup workshops across the country. Food & Tech Connect has launched a suite of online courses. And the Culinary Institute of America has launched The Food Business School, a full-blown MBA-esque program for food entrepreneurs of all stripes. The combined impact of these programs will be a boost of rocket fuel to an already promising generation of food entrepreneurs.

Changes in Financing for New Business Models 

Food is a famously difficult industry for entrepreneurship. Because barriers to entry are low but growth is slow and painstaking, a large number of young food companies fail to progress beyond nascence. Achieving the maturity required to entice institutional investors has been the privilege of a very small fraction (perhaps less than 5%?) of food entrepreneurs.

Yet today, crowdfunding allows packaged food entrepreneurs to finance their businesses in more sophisticated and low-friction ways than ever before. By spreading risk to more investors in bite-sized nibbles of capital, entrepreneurs are able to raise more money earlier, and are simultaneously forced to hone their marketing pitches. More – and better – companies will be able to thread the crowdfunding needle. The result will be better food products for us.

As a case study that brings to life several of the above trends: I was a backer of Exo cricket protein bars on Kickstarter in mid-2013, and last week I was able to buy a case of Exo bars via an innovative new online retailer for health foods called Thrive Market. It dawned on me that Exo has achieved de facto national distribution, less than 18 months after launching via a crowdfunding platform. Five years ago, that would have been nearly unthinkable.

In addition to the very public proliferation of crowdfunding platforms (micro-investment), large-scale financial shifts are changing the way capital is raised and deployed in the agricultural value chain. Billions of dollars of institutional capital from pension funds and endowments is flooding into real assets such as farmland and food processing. Given the long-term outlook of these investors, more and more agricultural producers are being asked hard questions about the sustainability of their operations. Water use, energy and environmental impact, the nutritive quality of food products, and labor rights are all under unprecedented scrutiny from large financiers. This is a big deal. The soil and our bodies will benefit.

Enlightenment at the USDA

I recently had the privilege of spending an hour with Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. In that conversation, I learned much about the new programs the USDA has launched or is developing. The list of topic areas is impressive: bringing more young people into farming careers; soil and water health; climate change risk management; sustainable land tenure policy; and food waste reduction. Given that the federal government underwrites over $200 billion in loans to the rural economy every year and channels millions more to farms through grants and investment in R&D, it should give us all hope that the USDA is taking a progressive stance on the issues of the day. Let’s all pay attention to and support these programs, and lobby to ensure that they thrive in future political administrations.

The Year of the Future…

In many ways, it’s arguable that the “future” we longed for is already unfolding. The radical transparency of modern life has forced us to ask hard questions about our hard problems. Solutions to those problems have begun to bloom. Positive changes in the food system are real, synergistic, and persistent. As eaters, shoppers, investors, and learners, it is our responsibility to enable this evolution with our choices. We don’t need a magic pill. We just need us.

*While we’re on that topic: I don’t believe Soylent is the “pill” we longed for. It merely modulates the fifty year-old nutrition shake concept, even if it is more scientifically formulated and more cleverly marketed. Soylent can sustain, but it does not nourish, and it does not supplant a real meal protocol. It is a stab at extreme reductionism in the face of an age-old challenge: what to eat, and how to get it? And let’s keep in mind that Soylent’s ingredients still come from plants. So do the ingredients of Hampton Creek, Impossible Foods, and Beyond Meat’s products. Horticulture remains the foundation of our food chain. And horticulture remains challenging.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Mighty Wild: Bringing the Acorn to Your Pantry

MW_Logo_289COver the years, I’ve been intrigued and excited by food startups that introduce consumers to a unique ingredient through a tried-and-true form factor. Great examples are Exo’s cricket flour bar and Kuli Kuli’s moringa bar. Last week, I sat down with a food entrepreneur embarking on a similar mission. Her chosen ingredient: the acorn. Aline Copp is the Co-Founder of Mighty Wild, the first company to bring acorn flour to the retail shelf, initially in the form of a cracker (with the potential for other products down the road). Mighty Wild is crowdfunding the first stage of their growth via a Kickstarter campaign that launches today – check it out and be among the first to sample these delicious crackers: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/817922812/mighty-wild-gluten-free-vegan-acorn-crackers

Aline first tasted acorns in her fifth grade classroom in Texas. After reading My Side of the Mountain (a classic children’s survivalist novel), her class cooked acorn pancakes. California natives can likely relate: making acorn meal while studying Native Americans is a universal California elementary school activity. (Acorns were a crucial source of calories for native Californians. The anthropologist Alfred Kroeber estimated that >75% of native Californians relied on acorns for food on a daily basis.) Later on, after graduating from an MBA program motivated to create a food business, Aline visited an exhibit on acorns in Yosemite and was inspired. The seed for Mighty Wild was planted.

Acorn flour, the main ingredient in Mighty Wild crackers

Acorn flour, the main ingredient in Mighty Wild crackers

Despite having the idea – to create artisan food products using acorns – Aline and her co-founder Mimi Brown still faced a great deal of work. Specifically, they had to transform their raw ingredient into workable acorn flour, create a recipe for a food product, and build a supply chain from scratch. They spent months perfecting the process of making flour, first removing bitterness from the taste, and then milling the product into a fine powder. The founders then took advantage of Aline’s experience from the California Culinary Academy to battle-test dozens of recipes. They finally settled on their favorite creation: the acorn cracker. Their crackers highlight the nutty relish of acorns via three flavors: original, spicy chipotle, and rosemary & caramelized onion (my favorite). Acorn flour is naturally gluten-free, which positions the crackers in a very high-growth category. I see them as a high-end alternative to the gluten-free staple Mary’s Gone Crackers…almost Mary’s meets Rustic Bakery flatbreads, perfect for the sophisticated cheese plate.

10-11-14-218-Edit-CROPPED

When tasked with securing a supply of acorns, Aline and Mimi had to start from scratch. Though wild acorns are abundant in the US and hold an illustrious place in our country’s history, there is no formal domestic supply chain. Acorns are currently eaten in other countries (as acorn jelly – dotorimuk – in South Korea, as liqueur in Spain) and are occasionally used domestically in high-end restaurants (chef Corey Lee of San Francisco restaurant Benu, just recently awarded three Michelin stars, featured a pasta dish centered around the oak tree and acorns – pasta made from acorn flour, jamón ibérico from pigs fattened on acorns, black truffles grown at the roots of oak trees). However there are currently no retail products in the US made with acorns. Aline and Mimi tracked down the current domestic sources for acorns and spent months formalizing their supply chain. This included defining their own guidelines for responsible foraging in order to minimize the impact on natural ecosystems. To ensure the continued health of domestic oak trees, Mighty Wild is collaborating with the Arbor Day Foundation to dedicate a share of their revenues to planting trees.

With product and supply chain in place, the next step for Mighty Wild is to secure a sales channel. They’re currently in conversations with buyers at a major natural foods chain and, interestingly, were encouraged by a buyer to launch a Kickstarter campaign to prove demand exists for their products. It’s amazing to see that within just five years Kickstarter has become an accepted means of validating consumer demand, even for a national chain. We can’t wait to see Mighty Wild on shelves everywhere!

Kickstarter link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/817922812/mighty-wild-gluten-free-vegan-acorn-crackers

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Love with Food and the Disruption of Focus Groups – Takeaways from the Mixing Bowl Food IT Conference (continued)

Note: This is the second post covering takeaways from The Mixing Bowl’s June 20th conference on Food IT: Soil to Fork. The first post focused on Pantry Labs and the potential for smart refrigerator technology.

cropped-logo2A particularly interesting afternoon session at the Food IT conference centered on the question, “How is IT being applied to the marketing and selling of food?” The panel addressed the full spectrum of steps required to bring a new food product to market: product conceptualization, formulation, customer testing, design, packaging, and scaling. Given the work I do for my day job (management consultant at Bain & Company), I have significant experience in the customer research step of the process and am therefore intrigued by opportunities to make the customer research step quicker (and cheaper) through the use of technology and shifting market dynamics.

The panel included:

Panel, from left to right: Cornyn, de Tourreil, Ong, Sah, and Brodeur

Panel, from left to right: Cornyn, de Tourreil, Ong, Sah, and Brodeur

The Focus Group: The Traditional Tool for Customer Research

Chris Cornyn kicked off the panel by describing the value DINE Marketing can bring to the table. His premise? Nine out of ten new food products fail. The majority of these products fail – despite being heavily researched and tested – because they “get the insight wrong.” That is, they gather data on customer needs, wants, and desires, but fail to understand the true driving forces behind those needs.[i] According to Chris, a brand needs to understand not just the most explicit functional consumer needs (i.e., the need for sustenance) but also the nutritional, emotional, social, and cultural needs that drive purchase decisions. But how can a company best do that?

Until recently, the primary method for understanding customer needs was focus groups. Focus groups are a form of research in which a company recruits target customers, places ~5-10 of them in a room together with a trained facilitator (usually with a one-way mirror allowing for observation), and gathers qualitative data on the customers’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs towards a specific brand or product. In my day job, I’ve structured, organized, and attended focus groups for multiple CPG/restaurant brands. My main takeaways? They’re expensive, time-consuming to execute, and static (it’s a one-time shot to get the data you need; if you want dynamic reactions which evolve over time, you need to set up a series of focus groups, and with few scale-driven cost savings).

As an example of the costliness of focus groups, I conducted one set of six groups across three US cities at a total cost of ~$45,000[ii] – not necessarily a significant cost for the big brands out there, but certainly a barrier to entry for smaller CPG start-ups. Based on my experience, I was particularly interested when Mark Brodeur from Nestle claimed that, “The days of focus groups are over. Now it’s about leveraging social platforms.” So, what options do brands have for gathering consumer research without costly focus groups?

Radian6 and Bottlenose – Social Listening Tools

Social listening tools, or social media monitoring tools, allow a company to observe what’s being said about them, their brand, and their products in the social media world. This was the option Brodeur seemed most excited about, however he acknowledged the limitations to this approach: there is a massive amount of data out there on social platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) but the challenge lies in synthesizing the data into actionable insights. When pushed for examples of specific companies meeting this need, Brodeur was at a loss. He cited the incumbent leading solution Radian6 (acquired by Salesforce.com in March 2011) and an audience member chimed in to recommend the smaller start-up Bottlenose, which emphasizes its ability to execute real-time trend analytics. (For a detailed discussion on the pros, cons, and alternatives to Radian6, check out this quora topic.)

DINE Marketing – iPhone Video Ethnography

As another alternative to focus groups, Cornyn shared a lower-tech solution that still relies on the qualitative reactions of consumers without the high price tag (I’m assuming). DINE Marketing conducted a study on behalf of a powdered mashed potato brand using crowd-sourced iPhone videos. Participants were asked to answer a series of questions via video about their favorite powdered mashed potato product (e.g., What do you like/dislike about the packaging? How do you store the product?). These videos revealed a serious flaw in current packaging (hard to open, impossible to seal once opened) that allowed DINE to innovate and create something much better. The relative lower cost of this path depends on what a company like DINE charges to gather the data, but it certainly seems easier than executing focus groups (although you do lose the benefit of a group dynamic, which allows participants to build upon one another’s’ ideas).

Love With Food – Direct Consumer Feedback logo_red

For brands, an attractive alternative to hiring consultants and marketers to conduct research is to get in touch with the customer directly. That’s a challenging task given that many consumers don’t see the value in filling out surveys for brands (and those that do are likely not a representative cross-section of a brand’s customers). However, one food startup is making that connection much easier: Love With Food curates monthly boxes of natural and organic snacks and ships them, for $10 per box, directly to consumers around the country. Customers get to discover new and unique products each month, and also receive a handful of coupons and discounts for purchasing more of the featured snacks.

Sample Love With Food box (themed, "Take Me Out to the Ballgame")

Sample Love With Food box (themed, “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”)

The value proposition on the brand side is perhaps even stronger: brands get to introduce their product to a sizeable group of new customers nationwide (Love With Food boasts customers across all 50 states) and, even better, receive valuable marketing data based on customer feedback and follow-on sales.  Customers are incentivized via a point system to log-in and review the specific products they received. Customers can then redeem points in the online store to buy more of the products from the boxes. The feedback and sales data are packaged for brands in a marketing report. Founder and CEO Aihui Ong elaborates on the value of customer data to brands, “Most brands are very interested on how attractive and easy-to-open their packaging is.” Brands also test new product concepts, explains Ong, “One brand in particular, Little Red Dot Kitchen (maker of Asian BBQ jerky), used the survey to find out what new flavors customers are open to trying. This company took the data collected and developed a new flavor offering with very little time and money spent on R&D.”

By building a relationship directly with the customer, Love With Food is creating a platform with massive potential. They’ve garnered a ton of press coverage and continue to grow rapidly. The company announced a seed funding round of $1.4M this June. Ong states that Love With Food will use the funds to, “expedite growth, expand the team, and launch new product offerings like a gluten-free option.”

Beyond making it easier for smaller food companies to gather customer research, Love With Food is focusing on another mission: alleviating hunger. For each box shipped or product purchased, Love With Food donates a meal to a food bank in the US. To date, they’ve donated over 250,000 meals. Good luck Love With Food!

In sum, there are multiple exciting options out there which provide alternatives to the traditional focus group model. Social media generates a nearly infinite amount of data, smart phones allow for quick and easy video interviews, and new platforms like Love With Food are offering companies an unprecedented opportunity to connect directly with potential customers. I’m not sure if I’d join Brodeur in saying that, “the days of the focus group are over,” but it certainly seems like we’re headed in that direction. I’ll have to tell my clients that the next time I’m commissioned to conduct focus groups…

____________________________________________

[i] One excellent example of the failure to understand people’s needs comes from my time at the Stanford Design School (d.school), which employs an empathy-driven design process. We were told a story about women in the developing world who spent laborious hours every day using stones to crush nuts into a fine meal. Western visitors to the community brought in a machine that crushed the nuts for them in a fraction of the time. Once the machine was in use, the visitors discovered that the women were miserable. The time-intensive process for crushing nuts had provided those women with ample time to sit with each other so they could talk and bond. The “laborious” act was at the center of an entrenched social ritual. By bringing in the machine, the visitors had “missed the point” entirely.

[ii] For those who are curious, here’s a bit more detail on the economics of focus groups (rough estimates based on one set of focus groups I conducted, encompassing six groups across three US cities). The predominant costs are as follows:

  • Moderator: (~$10,000) A company typically hires a third-party trained facilitator with extensive experience leading groups (though larger CPG companies may have these people in-house). The moderator advises throughout the set-up of the groups (e.g., recruiting strategy and criteria, discussion guide) and is the point person shepherding customers through the desired topics.
  • Facility fees: (~$5,000 per facility) Across the country, there are hundreds of facilities designed to host focus groups (here’s one example). They charge a stiff fee for the use of one of their rooms, complete with one-way mirror and recording capabilities. Typically the fee includes the labor cost of participant recruitment (facilities often have their own database of locals they can tap based on specific needs), as well as a hefty overhead fee for junk food snacks and catering
  • Recruiting incentives: (~$175 per recruit) This covers the cost of incentives for potential focus group participants. In terms of number of recruits, we always over-recruit in case there are no-shows and to allow us to whittle down the group to the best possible fits based on assigned homework the recruits submit
  • Travel expenses: (~$3,000-4,000 per attendee) For team and moderator, billed at cost (hotels, meals, flights)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pantry Labs and the Promise of Smart Refrigerators – Takeaways from the Mixing Bowl Food IT Conference

On Friday, June 20th, the Mixing Bowl, in partnership with the FEED Collaborative, held a conference entitled, “Food IT: Soil to Fork.” The event featured an impressive collection of speakers and food and agriculture startups. I’ll be sharing my takeaways from the conference via a series of posts this summer.

Mixing bowl logo

Included in the day’s agenda were two fast pitch business plan competitions: one focused on food-related startups and the other on agriculture. The winner of the food competition was a hardware startup called Pantry. Pantry attracted attention throughout the conference thanks to the live demo of their sensor-driven smart vending machine, along with the delicious fresh-pressed juices they were giving out to bring their technology to life.

The details on Pantrypantry logo

What Pantry sells is a smart vending machine solution which enables the easy vending of refrigerated items. In sum: it’s a refrigerated kiosk which can be stocked with any sort of food (or even non-food) item, particularly exciting given it makes the sale of healthier fresher foods easier than it is today. A customer unlocks the fridge via his or her credit card, takes as many items as desired, and the fridge tallies the cost using radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to monitor the items leaving the fridge.

Benefits cited by the Pantry website include:

  • The ability for a retailer or food service provider to sell food unattended, in any location, at any time of day
  • Shorter lines for consumers, particularly vs. attendant-staffed cafeteria stations
  • A streamlined, elegant, and user-friendly customer experience

Pantry Founder and CEO Art Tkachenko elaborates on the Pantry value proposition:

Pantry in a hospital cafeteria

Pantry in a hospital cafeteria

“For consumers, the experience is magical – they just swipe their credit card, pick up their item(s) off the shelf and they’re done with the transaction. For Pantry operators, we provide a level of analytics that they’ve never had access to before – especially for a vending machine. We tell them exactly what’s inside of every Pantry at any time and, moreover, we provide them with the ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘when’ of every purchase. We want our customers to succeed so we’ve put a lot of effort into designing an actionable dashboard with this data.”

Overall, Pantry offers a great value proposition for retailers and food service providers. It could also promote innovation by lowering the barrier to entry for selling products directly to consumers, by providing food producers a distribution alternative to pricey brick & mortar locations. I also am a fan of any technology that makes the distribution and sale of fresh foods easier relative to the inherent advantages of shelf-stable, preservative-laden, traditional vending machine fare. This could be a valuable technology to increase access to healthy foods in food deserts.

However, what excites me most about Pantry is seeing RFID tags in action and envisioning their implications beyond retail vending: namely, smart refrigerator technology.

The potential for smart fridge technology

From the consumer angle, I see two meaningful and high-impact opportunities for smart fridges, both driven by an increased ability for the consumer to monitor and understand what is coming in and out of their refrigerators:

1)    Data on food consumed: Over the years, I’ve been beckoned by the siren’s call of the quantified self – the idea that you could track massive amounts of personal data (your sleep, your exercise, your diet, your alcohol consumption, your mood, your day-to-day health) and run a giant regression to start to better understand what drives the day-to-day fluctuations in how you feel. A key input to that equation is  food consumed, and to-date I haven’t found an accurate technology that makes tracking that input easy and passive. I once spent a summer manually recording everything I ate. It was exhausting and definitely not sustainable nor practicable for the average person, who I’d assume has far less interest in the topic than I do. I’ve always viewed the automated, passive collection of food consumption data as a holy grail of quantified self. Smart fridges don’t get you all the way there (since we consume plenty of food outside the home, and what goes in and out of fridge can be consumed by more than one person), but they would be a step closer to automated data collection. That excites me.

2)    Data on food waste and spoilage: A topic that was addressed in a Mixing Bowl panel (and covered at length on this blog earlier this year) is food waste. As previously articulated, there is massive opportunity to improve our diets by eliminating the expense of wasted food and using the saved money to upgrade to more nutritious food. The average family of four throws away $1600 worth of food per year, which is a huge figure when compared to the estimated incremental cost to the same family of adopting a healthy diet: $2000 per year. One hypothesis for reducing the amount of food wasted is to increase consumer awareness of what’s actually being thrown out (and how much money could be saved). Smart fridges which utilize sensors to alert the consumer of food that’s soon-to-spoil and then tally the value of food which spoils could go a long way in increasing transparency around this issue and motivating behavior change.

Pantry is aware of this opportunity and helps food vendors monitor and avoid food waste. Though food waste at retail is substantially smaller than food waste by the end-consumer (~13% of total food waste vs. 55%, respectively), there still is an opportunity to reduce waste. Via RFID tags, Pantry monitors the age of each item it holds and alerts retailers once an item has passed its shelf life. These data could help vendors make better decisions around how much to produce, how to stock aging food, and how to quantify food waste.

For a more in-depth review of RFID technology to date, and the vision of the smart fridge, this article is a worthwhile read.

What’s next for Pantry

For now, Pantry is focused on selling their technology to food service providers, particularly within workplace and hospital cafeterias. Current customers include Stanford Hospital & Clinics, UCSF Medical Center, Lemnos Labs (hardware startup incubator, previously featured on this blog here and here), and cloud platform provider Akamai. Longer-term, Pantry also sees the promise of incorporating their technology into the home and consumer market.

Here is Tkachenko on Pantry’s near-term priorities:

“We’re currently working with cafeterias to augment their food programs – both in terms of staying open around the clock and in terms of placing Pantries in remote locations around campuses. With around 30,000 cafeterias around the US, we have our work cut out for us in this market. However, we recognize the broad appeal of cheap and efficient brick and mortal point of sale and will be looking for quality food partners to place a Pantry into either locations with no food options (like gyms or smaller offices without a cafeteria) or as a true grab n’ go kiosk within existing eateries.”

Congrats, Pantry team, on Friday’s business plan competition win! I’m looking forward to witnessing your future growth and development.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em…Steal Their Playbook

“We are simply not winning the war. And it is a war.”

IMG_6964_croppedTodd Putman, a former chief of marketing for Coca Cola North America, minced no words as he strolled across the stage at the 2014 Childhood Obesity Bay Area (COBA) conference. As the event’s afternoon keynote speaker, Putman commanded the attention of several hundred rapt – if not dubious – physicians, health educators, students, food entrepreneurs, and parents. All in attendance agreed with Putman about the monumental struggle at hand for the health of America’s children. Whether each listener would characterize the proliferation of metabolic disorder and its repercussive afflictions as a “war” was a question of personal interpretation. Yet, even the most tenderhearted audience members would not shy away from bellicose language on one point: Putman and his kind were the enemy. Or, at least Putman used to be.

Putman was invited to conclude the day’s proceedings because he no longer shills sugar water for our generation’s Philip Morris. The weight of “karmic debt” compelled Putman to employ his talents promoting healthier products. Putman has most recently stewarded substantial multi-year compound annual growth in carrot sales as chief marketing officer of Bolthouse Farms. And his speech focused on how he had gotten more kids (and adults) to eat beta carotene-rich produce.

Putman, Bolthouse CEO Jeff Dunn (another former Coke executive), and their team launched a series of cheeky, creative, and visceral campaigns to build more of a persona around their company (“Juiced By A Bunch of Carrot Farmers”), baby carrots (“Eat ‘Em Like Junk Food”) and other produce (“The Food Porn Index”). They also developed innovative flavors and packaging to make carrots more attractive to palates attuned to the gustatory wallop of junk food.

As Putman described the fascinating ways in which Bolthouse had increased sales, one could plainly see the energy rising amongst much of the audience. Putman was handing over the keys to the castle: tried-and-true tactics for compelling at-risk eaters to make better food purchases. (Another great example of this school of marketing: “Broccoli vs. Kale.”)

But those tactics also alarmed a cadre of health education purists who bridled at Putman’s fundamental thesis: decisions are driven by emotions and urges; emotions and urges are shaped by marketing; and marketing sells products. In other words, Putman succeeded at Coke by stealthily (nay…at times, quite conspicuously) kneading his audience’s subconscious minds, and was succeeding again by taking a similar tack at Bolthouse.  As Putman put it:

When is the last time you saw anything rational in a soda ad? There’s nothing rational in it. Why? They don’t have anything rational to say or sell. They do emotional. On the other hand, we (in the healthy food industry) have rational, and we (market) rational, and it doesn’t work!

An Inconvenient Truth

The American grocery store is a cornucopia of choice: the average store contains over 40,000 unique items. As the modern food system has evolved a panoply of shelf stable, sumptuously packaged, imperiously contrived, and ultra-low priced “foodstuffs,” it has become incumbent on each food company to tell people why they should buy a specific product. The reality of this situation is elegantly captured in one of the simplest tropes of economic thought: the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Unless all food companies were to collectively and unanimously agree[i] to stop marketing their wares, any one company must actively market its product, knowing full well that passive abstention (even in conscientious protest of often corrupt competition) will result in a loss in the game.[ii]

And, for better or worse, the exchange of money for goods is a sort of game. Someone making a purchase perceives value in a good. The game for a marketer lies in getting people to perceive value.

The best marketers – even the understated ones – know that value takes many forms, and that the most powerful forms are emotional. Seemingly rational elements of marketing – “fewer calories”; “no GMOs” – are actually appeals to emotion and a sense of aspirational identity. One textbook marketing practice is to establish different “consumer[iii] segments,” demarked by different lifestyles and desires. To a professional marketer, a person seeking low-calorie products may be a middle-aged man compelled to lose weight by physician’s counsel and memories of a trim youthful figure (fear of death; disappointment; vanity; desire for control). A person looking to avoid GMO’s might be a young college student striving to make a political statement through her purchase behavior (assertion of identity; fear of an uncertain future; desire for impact). Underlying these “consumer segments” are shared emotions, impulses, buzz words, signals, hot buttons…the clay plied in a clever marketer’s hands. And once an emotional chord is struck, it can reverberate for a very, very long time. Thus why marketers size up a consumer with a presumptuous metric called “customer lifetime value.”

One of Coca Cola’s most successful historic marketing efforts – the “Share a Smile” campaign – evoked the most aspirational emotion of all: happiness. (Boldly, Coke now hosts a webpage called “What Is Happiness?”) To many under the spell of that simple motto, a can of Coca Cola represents a respite from the strains of daily life; an effervescent escapism; a modest treat; a reward for hard work; a way to connect with others; or whatever else people conjure up when they smile, or even think of smiling. And, for many satisfied consumers, getting all of those rewards from a shiny red can that costs less than a buck represents a great value. Marketing goal achieved.

Kids, in particular, value marketing associations. Thus why sales of Disney-branded fruits and vegetables tripled in 2013.

Heads In The Sand

Food choices are shaped by many factors besides cost. Another deserved set of topics of focus at COBA was early-life family eating practices and dietary habits formed in youth. Even Putman highlighted the importance of childhood imprint years when he said, “the things that we do to kids’ palates early on have a monstrous effect on what they eat and buy later on.” (Thus why Bolthouse is “working to get fruits and veggies a seat at the cool kids’ table.”)

It is marketing to kids during imprint years that has contributed heavily to today’s epidemics. We know all too well that the barrage of mawkish mascot advertisements during several decades of Saturday morning cartoons helped shape millions of addictions to saccharine cereals (“They’re grrrrrreat!”) and titillating toaster strudels (my childhood weakness). I believe it is because of this history that some proponents of healthier eating oppose the marketing of any food to kids.

The most prominent no-marketing champion I’ve encountered is the legendary Marion Nestle. On two occasions, I’ve tried to learn whether she thinks food producers can play a role in getting people to make better choices. During a speech she gave at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, I submitted a question asking her opinion on which food companies – even those that lightly process their product – are helping remedy the various diet-related health crises in America. Her answer to the audience: “None. I don’t think anyone should eat any processed food at all, and I can’t name a single company.”[iv] Her answer brusquely disregarded companies that got people more to eat salad by packing chopped vegetables into pre-made salad mix; processors that compelled people through clever marketing to trade potato chips for seasoned, nutrient-packed nuts; and entrepreneurs that persuaded people to pay more for sustainably-raised meat by making a tasty, aesthetically-pleasing packaged jerky out of it. Nestle’s answer further troubled me, inasmuch as any young people in the audience who wanted to work for – or establish – a values-driven food company were likely left very confused and discouraged.

I had occasion to speak one-on-one with Nestle at another event a few months later, and asked a more specific question: did she think that clever and innovative ways of marketing produce to kids were justified if they helped develop kids’ palates for healthy food? Her answer to me was no, she didn’t think food should be marketed to kids, ever. Her belief was that it costs a food company too much money to market broadly, and that it is financially unsustainable for a low-margin produce company to keep up marketing in perpetuity.

Nestle’s categorical dismissal of financially sustainable marketing struck me as overly pessimistic. We live in an era of low-cost viral videos, social media marketing, demographic-oriented media channels, and increasing awareness of the importance of healthy eating. Where was the room for hope? Or a recognition of cost-effective tactics that work?

While I have immense respect for Nestle’s body of work[v], it struck me that she was trying to wish away the realities of the current system rather than offer up case studies of those succeeding within a set of rules that any one player can’t quickly change. To someone who has worked in the food business and recognizes the Prisoner’s Dilemma at play, Nestle comes across as someone who has made perfect the enemy of good.

Is All Marketing Vulgar?

IMG_6958_croppedI understand Nestle’s – and others’ – inherent distrust of food companies. Bolthouse, for all its success getting kids to eat more baby carrots, has also been buoyed by sales of sugar-rich bottled smoothies that have lost much healthful content during processing. Is getting a kid to pick a bag of carrots instead a side of french fries a “win” in the fight against metabolic disorder? Yes. Is a fruit and veggie smoothie better than a soda? Somewhat (although water would be better yet). But the stubborn truth remains that getting the average kid to pick those products likely depends – heavily – upon effective marketing.

The major issue with food marketing is the ease with which any company can mislead, if not outright deceive, potential customers. A shrewd reader of recent food news has likely seen the POM Wonderful vs. Coca Cola lawsuit in the headlines. The courts – culminating with the U.S. Supreme Court – found that Coke had not violated any laws by marketing a Minute Maid “Pomegranate Blueberry Juice Blend” that contained a mere 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice by volume. Yet, even if Coke didn’t break the law, certainly they broke our trust. And we’ll read labels more carefully the next time, or avoid Minute Maid altogether.

In my opinion, the “line” on marketing should be drawn by three parties: government, consumers, and the leaders of companies themselves. The government continues to establish and review marketing laws in both the legislative and judicial branches. Consumers continue to bring class-action lawsuits and publicly shame companies that breach our collective standards. We must continue to play referee, and call a foul when we see one. In the Internet age, this is increasingly easy to do. Stirring up public indignation is often only a few keystrokes and clicks away.

And, importantly, we need to openly laud companies and organizations that practice truthful, clever, and savvy marketing that brings healthy products (particularly unprocessed produce) into more American households. It is only by commending moralistic actors that we can show a path of promise to aspiring change agents in the food system. Even if you don’t like the game, it behooves us all to celebrate the players whose play we admire. When Bolthouse says it wants to partner with customers to be “agents of social change” and put produce front and center in the national conversation about food, and then does so through campaigns like the Food Porn Index, we should stand up and applaud their success. By offering up carrots (pun intended) as well as sticks, we incentivize better corporate conduct.

An Alternative Marketing Model for Produce

One of the most promising innovations in healthy food marketing occurred long ago, but isn’t oft discussed. Collective marketing boards represent disparate crop growers and processors to the public, and are typically financed by a pennies-per-pound-sold tax on growers’ sales. They’ve been around for a long time, and Putman shared a heartening statistic during his talk: out of 68 different U.S.-based collective marketing boards Putman had researched, all 68 had conducted marketing campaigns that had shown a positive return on investment. And in industries like almonds and avocados, collective marketing boards have been wildly successful in selling more product.

The result has been positive for growers and citizens. Is this the type of marketing that we should castigate as well? Or should we be encouraging young marketing talent to take the reins at such organizations? Who knows how much more fresh produce we could sell if emotionally creative professionals working with collective marketing boards were winning advertising awards over the career stiffs at Kraft?

The excellent new documentary Fed Up points out that, for a time, the government mandated that each cigarette TV ad be followed by an anti-smoking ad.[i] Until junk food ads are banned (I won’t hold my breath), what if we demand flashy one-to-one ads for spinach and lentils to offset each junk food spot? If a produce company is willing to step up and market on Saturday morning, should we dissuade them? Or empower them?

What Are We To Think?

Those of us who would like to drive positive change (public health; environmental impact; social equity; you name it) in the food system should learn from the fact that effective marketing and emotional appeals work. Marketing builds markets. As my onetime employer and successful healthy food entrepreneur Stewart Resnick has said, “You must build demand ahead of supply.” Marketing – if practiced with both virtue and inventiveness – is not necessarily a tawdry practice. It’s a necessary plank of psychological attraction. If the war is to be won, we almost certainly must accept emotive appeals as a fact, and develop vigorous tactics to employ them.

More baby carrots, anyone?

____________________________________________

[i] Government could also ban all food marketing by fiat, but, in my opinion, this is impracticable. Even setting tighter standards on nutrition label content has been a massive political battle, one heavily shaped by lobbyist dollars from megalithic food enterprises. And those enterprises have a stalwart interest in perpetuating the system that put them on top.

[ii] And it’s a game with a big payoff: more than half of all food dollars spent in the U.S. are on meals at home, a.k.a. groceries.

[iii] The very word “consumer” connotes, to me, an inexhaustible, gnash-jawed automaton that just needs to be coaxed in the proper direction by the shiniest dangling lure.

[iv] Quotation approximated from my notes. I could not find audio, video, or a transcript of the event on the Internet.

[v] Nestle’s book Food Politics is, in my opinion, one of the most important works in the American food system reform movement. Nestle has also been a prolific and dauntless “public shamer” of food companies who practice sleazy marketing to kids.

[vi] Before cigarette ads were banned from TV altogether in 1971.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Flying Bird Botanicals: Tea with Integrity

tea_bag1The tea industry has been pulling the wool over consumers’ eyes. Unbeknownst to most drinkers, many of whom are choosing to drink tea for healing and soothing benefits, teas can be packed with pesticides, toxins, added flavors, and GMO ingredients. My best friend emailed me this tea exposé by the Food Babe, shocked by its contents. A few points from her article of note:

  • 91% of Celestial Seasonings tea tested had pesticide residues exceeding the U.S. limits
  • 100% of Teavana loose leaf tea tested was found to contain pesticides (77 percent of the teas would be banned from import into the EU)
  • Fancy mesh tea bags like those used in Mighty Leaf and Tea Forte are made of (likely GMO) corn-based material or plastics which may break down and leach in boiling water
  • Many paper tea bags are treated with epichlorohydrin, a potential carcinogen shown to cause cancer in animals

So, what to do amongst all these tea dangers? You can start by doing your research. The Food Babe provides a quick reference chart to compare brand-by-brand. You can glean a good amount from ingredient labels however they won’t necessarily tell you what the bags are made of or treated with, and what sort of glue they might be using to close them.

FB_Logo12v2Luckily, I don’t have to invest the time researching because I have a favorite tea brand I trust entirely. Flying Bird Botanicals is a Bellingham, Washington-based, family-run, organic and wild-harvested tea producer. Full disclosure: Its founder, Scout Urling, is my husband’s step-sister (my step-sister-in-law?) but I’m guessing I’d be pretty obsessed with the company even if I didn’t know her. I’m especially excited because Flying Bird recently reached the point where it’s ready to scale. Until now I was hesitant to promote the business so as to not over-burden Scout. Now she’s ready so here I go. Here’s why I’m obsessed with Flying Bird Botanicals (or hear it from Scout directly via this video interview):

They choose their ingredients carefully: Most of their ingredients are organic, with a few exceptions that are intentionally sourced wild because, “sometimes the wild version is just better.” They source ingredients as locally as possible, with 80%+ coming from local farms. What they can’t get locally they source from fair trade and organically-certified farms around the world. Scout has apprenticed for herbalists, taken courses in herbal studies, attended many an herbal conference, and graduated from a midwifery program. She knows her stuff and won’t settle for less-than-the-best in terms of freshness, quality, and sustainability.

They’re on the forefront of technology: In 2013, Flying Bird began bagging their teas via a partnership with Seattle-based Motovotano. To preserve the integrity of its blends while employing the tea bag format, Flying Bird worked with Motovotano to produce the first ever “synchronized real-time blended tea bag,” which means each ingredient in a blend is individually dosed by weight so the blend is consistent from cup-to-cup (as opposed to manufacturers parsing out tea bags from a massive mixture where the bag-to-bag ratios may vary). As Scout puts it, “you’re getting exactly what we intended the cup to taste like in each bag.”

Flying Bird Botanicals tea offering

Flying Bird Botanicals tea offering

The packaging is beautiful and sustainable: The labels are lovingly designed by Carly James of Bison Bookbinding & Letterpress and printed on unbleached recycled-backed paper. They’re adhered to tins of recycled steel made in the USA. The bags are made of fully biodegradable low-GMO biomesh (the best that’s available right now), sealed ultrasonically without glue. Flying Bird is currently working with a company in Japan to source a completely non-GMO plant fiber to use in their tea bags which at this point does not exist. Luckily other like-minded tea companies are also looking to source certified non-GMO biomesh (including Rishi and Two Leave and a Bud), raising overall demand and the likelihood a product will be released.

The products are awesome: A story and strong ethics can only take a business so far if the product doesn’t deliver. Her blends are like nothing else. I’ve been drinking the Bluebird Morning for the past month and loving it. It’s delicious and I love that it promotes circulation and gives me energy without any caffeine.

Scout serving tea at the San Francisco International Gift Fair in February

Scout serving tea at the San Francisco International Gift Fair in February

Scout and her team pour their hearts and souls into the business: I love this quote from the video, “Thought and intention goes into everything we create…Even if tomorrow Flying Bird Botanicals as a business didn’t exist it would always exist for us because this is just what we do.”

To find Flying Bird Botanicals teas along with their fair trade drinking chocolates and personal care products (I love the rosewater toner), visit their Etsy shop, browse a collection of products on Rodale’s, or ask your local natural foods store to get in touch with Scout and start carrying her products.

Wholesome Cleanse detox tea featuring organic red raspberry leaf, wild & organic nettles, organic oat tops and straw, organic alfalfa, organic red clover tops, organic sage, organic calendula flower, organic lemon balm, organic dandelion root, wild oregon grape root, organic burdock root, organic fennel and organic spearmint

Wholesome Cleanse detox tea featuring organic red raspberry leaf, wild & organic nettles, organic oat tops and straw, organic alfalfa, organic red clover tops, organic sage, organic calendula flower, organic lemon balm, organic dandelion root, wild Oregon grape root, organic burdock root, organic fennel and organic spearmint

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Rising to the Food Waste Challenge: Panel Recap

In December, Local Food Lab and Edible Startups hosted a panel highlighting innovative approaches to food waste entitled, “Rising to the Food Waste Challenge.” It was a fascinating conversation and, given it felt like we barely scratched the surface, is a topic we’ll address again in future events. Stay tuned!

Context

From left to right, Patricia, Kelly, Stu, and moderator Austin Kiessig

From left to right, Patricia, Kelly, Stu, and moderator Austin Kiessig

According to an August 2012 report by the National Resources Defense Council (“Wasted”), in the US we waste a whopping 40% of our food each year. An estimated 64 billion pounds of surplus food is dumped into landfills each year, valued at $165 billion, and disposed of at a cost of $750 million per year. A typical American family of four throws away $1,600 in food every year – a number that’s especially interesting when compared to the incremental cost to a family of four of eating healthy every year: $2,016 a year. The purpose of this panel was to bring together and highlight organizations which are tackling this astonishing amount of waste via a range of strategies. Our panel featured:

  1. Roger Gordon, Co-Founder, Food Cowboy: DC-based startup which works with truckers, caterers, and supply chain companies to divert food from landfills to food banks
  2. Kelly Ernst Friedman, Program Director, Food Shift: Oakland-based nonprofit which works collaboratively with communities to develop long-term sustainable solutions to reduce food waste, most known for their fall 2013 education campaign via ads on BART
  3. Stu Rudick, Social Impact Investor, Mindfull Investors and Co-Founder, FoodStar Partners: Bay Area startup which works with retailers to sell soon-to-be-discarded food or produce which don’t meet aesthetic standards via flash sales
  4. Patricia Kelly, Business Development, Lean Path: Portland-based supplier of automated food waste tracking systems for hospitals, colleges, and restaurants
  5. Anea Botton, Founder, Valley Girls Foodstuffs: Seller of value-added food products made with gleaned produce and employing at-risk teens in Sonoma County (previously profiled in Edible Startups as part of an early Local Food Lab incubator class)
  6. Ashley Beleny, PR, Zero Waste Energy: Bay Area organization operating the world’s largest dry fermentation anaerobic digestion facility in San Jose to convert compost into energy (estimated to process ~90K tons per year of organic waste into 1.6MW of renewable energy and 32,000 tons of compost)

The barriers to reducing food waste

Food waste ecosystemClearly the amount of food wasted is huge. Waste spans the food value chain (shown above), with the highest share attributable to consumer losses (55% of total waste – food thrown out at home, unfinished dishes at restaurants i.e., “plate waste”) though a material amount of waste also occurs at the production, processing, and retail steps. Why does this waste occur? There are a few key barriers to more efficient usage of food that are important to understand when thinking about solutions:

1) Logistics and information: The ability to match supply and demand of food is a significant challenge. Across the value chain, organizations and individuals faced with excess food often do not have an outlet for selling or donating that food. Roger highlighted that, “the supply chain is 24/7 while most food banks operate Monday through Friday from 9-5. They don’t have adequate resources to staff volunteers beyond that.” He also cited that total food bank donations in a year are equal to the amount our supply chain wastes in 19 days (!). Stu agreed, “What’s missing is information – what can you do with food that’s going to be thrown out?” Both Food Cowboy and FoodStar are trying to provide that information, to truckers and retailers respectively.

Another interesting information challenge is the fact that many organizations aren’t aware of the scale of food they’re wasting. LeanPath is helping food service organizations like hospitals, colleges, hotels, and casinos gain transparency into their own waste. As Patricia noted, “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

2) Economics: Food waste seems to be a straightforward enemy – something most people would agree is a bad thing. However, like any systemic issue, there are incentives in place which support the status quo. The profitability of the grocery industry depends upon food waste. If consumers were to suddenly rationalize their grocery purchases to achieve near-zero waste, the grocery industry would take a massive hit. Roger cited that, “adjusting the supply of produce to meet demand [in terms of what is actually consumed] would take the grocery industry from a 1.5% average profit margin to a 0.7% loss—waste is essential to our economy.” How essential? $165B is about 1% of the US’s ~$17T nominal GDP; we’re not talking about the lifeblood of our economy, but the hit wouldn’t be immaterial either.

Across the food value chain, economics work in both directions – producers, distributors, and retailers profit from their customers continuing to over-purchase and waste, but all these groups would benefit if they were able to reduce the waste that hits their own bottom line (i.e., if retailers were able to reduce the amount of unsold food they throw out, or if consumers could save the money they spend on food they don’t eat). The fact that economics aren’t working entirely against change makes solutions to this problem more feasible than in other food areas.

3) Culture/norms: Our norms promote a degree of food waste in the retail and consumer stages of the value chain. Ideas about the aesthetics of foods as well as confusion around “sell by” dates cause both retailers and consumers to discard good food. We are quick to dismiss bruised apples, brown bananas, wilted greens, etc. when taste and nutritional value may be perfectly good. Anea deals with this issue on-the-ground in Sonoma where she regularly procures produce that can’t be sold due to aesthetic reasons to use in her jams, pickled goods, and dried fruits. She explains, “Reeducation around produce aesthetics is hard.” Her secret weapon: empowered teenagers. “Get teenagers on board and behind a cause and they’ll tell everyone. They’ll change the attitudes of those around them because they’re influential.” I love Anea’s approach to making change in her community.

An obvious strategy to overcome the cultural barrier is discounting. If we go back to economics, at some point the price can be low enough that the demand for bruised, past-date, or otherwise sub-optimal food would meet supply. This is what Doug Rauch, the former President of Trader Joe’s, is doing with his new concept Daily Table, set to launch this May in Boston. Daily Table will take blemished food, use it to prepare meals, and sell those hot meals along with grocery staples (eggs, milk, bread, produce) at “junk food prices.” However this approach raises controversy: Roger protests that, “it’s not the duty of the poor to consume discarded food. This would institutionalize the problem of food waste and excuse it.” I understand his point, but the economist in me can’t help thinking that matching willing buyers with willing sellers at the right price is a good alternative to letting resources go to waste.

Opportunities, not problems

IMG_4750In a sector packed with trade-offs (big food vs. local producers, organics vs. GMOs, carbs vs. fats), few issues are win-win-win. Reducing food wastes offers the holy grail – environmental benefits, economic benefits (to an extent), and health benefits (improved nutrition by getting good food to those who need it). Beyond that, there’s something visceral about food waste. As Anea pointed out, “yes there are environmental and economic reasons to not waste food but beyond that there’s an innate feeling of sadness we all experience when we see food wasted.” So we can add emotional benefits to that list.

As the panel pointed out, the food waste conversation should be about opportunities, not about problems. So what are the opportunities? Food Shift is working to add employment to the list of benefits from reduced waste. They’re working to create jobs in food recovery, similar to what SF’s Food Runners do: they pick up excess food from businesses (restaurants, caterers, bakeries, hospitals, event planners, corporate cafeterias, and hotels) and deliver it (15+ tons per week) to neighborhood food programs. The challenge is to create paid jobs and not volunteer positions. I’ll be curious to see how Food Shift manages to sustainably fund paid positions, beyond using grant dollars.

There are also abundant opportunities in new sectors and technologies. To name a few:

  • Technologies which postpone spoilage by reducing oxygen: BluApple and FreshPaper both sell products which prolong fruit and vegetable shelf-life within the fridge; Organic Girl salad greens, along with many pre-rinsed salad producers, use technology to remove oxygen from their packaging
  • Innovation which reduces time from field to fridge
  • Companies which dis-intermediate retail altogether (Good Eggs, Quinciple, other online food delivery startups) to remove a step (and the corresponding waste) from the value chain
  • Anaerobic digestion technology for turning food waste into energy, like that created by Zero Waste Energy
  • One idea I loved from the panel is a branding/conscious consumerism campaign around food waste similar to “Eat Local” – some way to denote brands which perform above average in terms of waste so consumers can reward them with their dollars

A big thank you to our panelists, our hosts at the Dutch Consulate, and Kama Food Lab for providing tasty snacks at the event.

Note: The panel was recorded and broadcast by C-SPAN, and an online video of the event is available here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FoodW.

02

From left to right, Patricia, Kelly, Stu, moderator Austin Kiessig, Roger, Anea and Ashley

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments