food politics « blogging for burgers

Archive for the 'food politics' Category

Page 2 of 3

Update: Feel free to poison yourself at will.

Published on in food politics. Closed

After major outcry on the FDAs ban on raw Gulf oysters in the summer, the organization is now delaying its decision until further studies are done.

Although the initial proposal would not have gone into effect for some time, this gives ample time for a realistic solution to be developed in conjunction with local Gulf Coast fisheries (I hope, at least).  Since when did food politics get so one-sided, anyway?
BB was in Chicago for the weekend– a food update to come shortly.  I also owe all of you guys a much-delayed entry on Minetta Tavern.  Mea culpa, mea culpa.

Tags: .

The world may not be your oyster.

Published on in food politics. 1 Comment

According to an article in today’s The Los Angeles Times, Louisiana legislature may ban the consumption of raw oysters harvested during the warm months.  Don’t they listen to the old “no oysters in months without an ‘r’?” adage?  Why does uncle sam need to tell them how to live their lives?

I’m certainly no fan of getting poisoned by a bivalve mollusk.  You eat a raw oyster in July, you’re potentially asking for it.  Eat one in September, and you’re singin’ a tune.

The legislation is meeting opposition among locals, who say that the machinery required to “treat” raw oysters is expensive and it’s going to harm more than it’s going to help.  To quote a man from the article: “To protect everybody from everything, we’d stop driving in cars. We’d stop driving in planes. We’d stop getting out of bed.’

I’d like him to find me a plane in which one can drive, because I think that would be pretty cool.  But I have to disagree that I would stop getting out of bed in order to stay protected from things.  After all, my roof could collapse, I could get bed sores, I could even look dumb because of bed-head.  Basically, nowhere is safe.

That said, I applaud Louisiana for making people follow age-old expressions.  Those rhymes were invented for a reason– to save lives.  Next time you’re at the grocery store or rummaging through your fridge, remember these little ditties:

– “A bulging can can kill you, man.”

– “Mayonnaise in the sun, that’ll be no fun.”

– “If fish smells fishy, your tummy might feel squishy.”

– “Don’t eat that raw chicken, it’ll give you the shits.”

You’re welcome.

Tags: .

Food marketers really can't catch a break.

Published on in food marketing and food politics. 1 Comment

As cited in an article in AdAge today, Kellogg’s is removing anti-oxidant claims from its Rice Krispies cereals– another move following the elimination of the “Smart Choices” food labeling system.  The FDA is also now going to also create its own front-of-pack labeling system, which will surely be as easy to read as the USDA’s food pyramid.

 

What about some new food sourcing guidelines??

Tags: , .

Smart choices no longer so smart.

Published on in food marketing and food politics. Closed

After being in market for under a year, the FDA has ordered food companies to discontinue the usage of the “Smart Choices” food labels, citing concerns over the standards used to choose products that are included in the program.

My feelings on the issue are mixed– at its heart, I dont’ think the program was meant to do harm to consumers, and perhaps, even if included on a box of Trix, it made people more conscious of food nutritional values.  Or maybe it just made them buy more and think they were being “healthy.”  In either case, the program will be no-more for a while.

I am sure that many in the industry are happy (especially Marion Nestle), but hopefully a meaningful and nutritionally-beneficial program will come out of this.  I think the idea is there and is good– it’s time for the food companies and the FDA to make it a reality.

 

PS: I know that I owe you all a few entries on Paris.  It’s been nuts here, so I apologize.

Tags: , , .

Is Michael Pollan Sustainable?

Published on in food politics and Greenmarkets. Closed

In an article today in the Los Angeles Times, it’s been highlighted that Michael Pollan is encoutering some serious pressure from agribusiness about his speaking tour, most recently at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.  The university was basically forced to convert the solo speaking arrangement into a panel discussion because of threats from CA agribusiness companies threatening to pull monetary donations from the school.  Really?  This is what it’s come to?

Now, you all know that I am not the biggest fan of MP (and I say this every time I write about him), but I think that the guy’s message still needs to be heard, and censoring him in his speaking tours is not the way to go.  I understand that it is a sensitive issue, and films such as Food, Inc, have brought to light the amount of sensitivity that exists, all the way up through Washington.  However, I think that there needs to a bit more “holding hands across the water” and on both sides.  MP needs to work with agribusiness to get the changes done, and the big agri-giants need to work like this giant and be a little friendlier to the guys who want to make some meaningful changes in the industry.

MP is not a monster, so don’t treat him like one.  Even Ahmadinejad gets to speak at the UN without censorship.

Hes a nice guy, see?

He's a nice guy, see?

Tags: .

Sustainability, Inc.

Published on in food marketing and food politics. Closed

So it’s Advertising Week here in NYC, and amidst all of the marketing jargon being thrown around, there was an event entitled “Team Earth: Empowering a Sustainability Movement.”  AdAge called it “an event to seek out,” and a last-minute scheduling snafu did not get the even as much publicity as it probably deserved, but it did allow me a seat.

And, it nicely commenced at 5pm, getting me out of the office and on my way to Locanda Verde to meet BG for dinner.

Anyway, the panel was led by some guy at CNBC that I’ve never heard of.  The panel consisted of the Chairman of Conservation International, Peter Seligmann, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, and the Chairman of Wal-mart, Rob Walton.  These heavy hitters in the conservation movement were talking about sustainability and how it has to play a crucial role in business moving forward.

Seligmann threw out a few interesting points.  His first point was that the quality of the environment is going down.  I guess we all knew that anyway, but he reiterated it.  But, he said that engagement, awareness, and understanding is up, and that’s a good thing.  The public only really dedicates something like 17% of its interest to the sustainability movement, which is shockingly low, considering that every person on this planet is directly affected by what we’re talking about here.  He also stressed the importance of including corporations, hence his sitting on a panel with C-suite execs from two huge global brands.

Schultz, who can’t seem to catch a break these days, despite all of the advertising efforts (did anyone see the Businessweek brand rankings this week– they’re down 16% in brand value), echoed Seligmann’s sentiments, saying that sustainability will simply be part of the rules of engagement moving ahead.  There is a balance needed, he said, between making money and having a social conscience.  Since everyone refers to coffee as “tall” and “grande” these days, maybe he should have had a social conscience back then when he made us sound like losers when we want a small coffee.

He went on to talk about how people are willing to pay to support it and it has to be a real business change, and not just a marketing ploy.  It has to be a truly integrated strategy, part of the company’s DNA, and so on.  Now, coming from him, who convinced the country that four bucks is a perfectly acceptable price for a cup of coffee, I’m not sure that he can speak to “willing to pay for it” from the right perspective.  If people are willing to pay $4 for a cup of coffee, they will probably still pay $4 for a very slightly smaller cup of free trade coffee.  Or $4 for a smaller cup of coffee and a series of about 40 advertising panels in the tunnel between Times Square and the Port Authority.  Either way, people do have a social conscience, and by paying a little extra, they think they are helping.

Lastly, Rob Walton talked about Wal-mart’s commitment to sustainability.  The thing about Wal-mart is that when they talk, people listen.  I personally am not a huge fan of Wal-mart. I’ve been to one once, and I didn’t enjoy the experience.  I think their business practices are questionable, and I think they ruin neighborhoods.  All of that aside, I do applaud them for what they are doing to drive the food industry around the world to embark upon a path to more environmentally conscious production (remember that whole “when they speak…” bit?).

Now, being the businessman he is, Walton said that what got Wal-mart involved was the opportunity to make a difference… in a profitable way. Wal-mart got you again!  But, seriously, that’s the only way to make big business change their tune.  At the end of the day, a business is there to make money.  For any of this sustainability stuff to stick, it’s going to have to make someone some Benjamins.  Even Seligmann admitted that you’ve gotta keep your feet on the ground and not keep your head in the clouds with some pipe dream.  For the big guys to get involved, you’ve gotta tell them what it’s going to mean for them business wise.  It it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense.

Anyway, interesting stuff.  Check out Team Earth.  It’s like a feel-good forum for big companies.

Tags: , , , .