All posts by keegan

Calorie Rich, Nutrient Poor: The Paradox of the Standard American Diet

By keegan On January 22, 2015 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

A study published this month in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition (JACN) supplies data to support what has long been suspected: that our Standard American Diet, also known as SAD, makes us fat and paradoxically leaves us nutrient deficient. Food Navigator USA provides a summary of the study findings here.

SAD really is, well, sad.

Recommendations for calorie intake in adults are 1800-2200 calories per day for women and 2200-3000 calories per day for men. Given that more that 67% of adults are overweight or obese in the United States currently, consuming enough calories clearly isn’t the problem; the problem is selecting which calories to consume.

Highly processed, convenience foods are a major culprit. However, the fact that poor quality food exists isn’t news and, therefore, isn’t what we should be most worried about. The problem we need to focus on is how difficult is it for many Americans to tell the difference between highly processed junk and quality health food. If we could all tell the difference, given the opportunity, I know we would make better choices.

That’s where the debates currently defining the Food Movement come into play. Whether it’s GMO labeling, “natural” claims or how we describe cane sugar, these issues can all be grouped under the theme of transparency. Without transparency we lack information, and without information we cannot educate. Ultimately, it is a lack of education and knowledge that, for many, perpetuates poor food choices.

I don’t believe the answer is to get rid of packaged, convenience foods. My stance is quite the opposite, actually. Convenience foods play a critical role in my own modern, multitasking, mom-of-two-kids life. However, I believe they should play a supporting role and choosing them shouldn’t require the intel that being an insider in the food industry and having a doctorate supply.

Whatever your stance may be on the details of any specific Food Movement issue, it’s hard to disagree that transparency is good for all. Because with transparency comes information and it is information that fuels better choices for ourselves and our families.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by Tony Alter

What a Day’s Worth of Fruits and Veggies Actually Looks Like

By keegan On January 7, 2015 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

If you’re like me, figuring out how to correctly consume a daily serving of each of the recommended food groups seems overly complicated. The official lingo we hear about “serving sizes” and “ounce equivalents” often isn’t helpful because it’s used without context to help us translate it into daily life. Honestly, figuring this stuff out often makes me feel the same way I feel when doing taxes. Not a good sign.

For example, if I search Google for “Daily recommended servings of grains?” I am taken to a chart on USDA’s ChooseMyPlate.gov website where I find that a woman, aged 31-50, should consume 6 ounce equivalents each day and that at least half of those grains should be whole grains. Because “ounce equivalent” means nothing to me in relation to a muffin, bagel or slice of bread, I do another search for “What is an ounce equivalent of grains?” and am taken to yet another chart on USDA’s ChooseMyPlate.gov website that explains, “In general, 1 slice of bread, 1 cup of ready-to-eat cereal, or ½ cup of cooked rice, cooked pasta, or cooked cereal can be considered as 1 ounce equivalent from the Grains Group.”

Geez. Do you see what I mean?

Wouldn’t it be nice to get rid of all the charts and long, detailed explanations and just see what a day’s worth of each food group looks like?

The Kitchn, a daily web magazine devoted to home cooking and kitchen design, wrote a great article recently that does just that, at least for fruits and vegetables. They share ten photos that provide a visual demonstration of a day’s worth of fruits and veg. What a concept!

What if USDA’s website transitioned its recommendations into visual collages based on age and sex? What if, instead of getting a chart and long written instructions, I could see what a serving of fruits or grains looked like? Food for thought.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Images by The Kitchn

A Big Idea Worth Sharing – My Would-Be TEDx Talk

By keegan On December 23, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

A few months ago, I got a call from an organizer of TEDx Seattle, asking if I would audition for their 2015 season. It took me a few weeks to get on board with the idea, but eventually I agreed as I decided it would be a good opportunity for me to work with some great speaking coaches and have a forum through which to crystallize some of my current thoughts about food and health. Long story short, I was not selected. Fortunately, I’m okay with it as the exercise still provided much of what I was looking to achieve. I got some great coaching and had an opportunity to draft a big idea worth sharing.

As a way to close the loop, I thought I would write out my big idea here. It’s not as polished as I like to think it could be, but I certainly believe it’s important and that’s why I’m sharing it. It’s about the way we define “healthy” in our society, specifically healthy food, why I think we’ve got it wrong and how I suggest we change it.

As a naturopathic doctor, I’ve found a rather non-conventional use for my training as a nutrition and health strategist to the food industry.

Naturopathic medicine is based on a set of principles, and there are two of these principles that I refer to most in my role. The first is docere, doctor as teacher, which is the idea that the role of a physician is to share information that empowers others to make healthy choices for themselves and their families. The other principle I frequently refer to is vis mediatrix naturae, also known as “the vis” or the healing power of nature, which is the idea that nature holds innate intelligence for how to be well.

It’s with this idea of “the vis” that I am struck by our current approach to health and nutrition science. Modern science allows us to drill down to amazing detail, seeing the microscopic elements of our world, and through this approach, identify and understand many important things. This approach has also led to the creation of a highly reductionistic framework where we understand things based on their individual elements versus the collective whole. In this way, the idea that the whole may somehow be greater than its parts…that there is an innate intelligence in the balance Mother Nature has created, is largely forgotten.

And from a food perspective, this is absolutely the case. Foods are largely seen as carriers for their elements: protein, omega 3 fatty acids, vitamins A, C and E. How these element naturally exist in relation to each other, or if they exist naturally at all in relation to each other is no longer something we seem to question or even have a context with which to understand.

A great example that brings this reductionistic philosophy to life is our government’s current definition of a “healthy” food which is defined by limits on fat, sodium and cholesterol plus the presence of specific levels of protein, fiber, iron, calcium, or vitamins A or C. Based on this approach, a jelly bean with added vitamin C could technically meet the definition of “healthy” while an almond does not.

It should be no surprise then that consumers are confused by this and it shows. Rates of obesity, diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that are largely influenced by dietary choices are at epidemic levels. As a nation we are sick and fat and clearly unable to make healthful choices for ourselves and our families. The principle of docere in the food industry is failing. As the saying goes, this reductionistic approach to food and nutrition has left us unable to see the forest for the trees.

So, what if instead of continuing to focus on the individual elements, we took a step back and started to prioritize the bigger picture, or in the case of food, the whole apple, the whole broccoli, and the whole soy bean? I believe we can re-frame our understanding and approach to healthy food by doing two things:

Reconnect with food in its natural state and understand what that means, especially from a nutrition perspective
Trust that there is innate intelligence in the way food is naturally made and honor that innate intelligence

Fortunately, people are beginning to ask some of these questions and re-frame the way we define nutrition and health. Due to our current Food Movement, people are beginning to ask questions about how their food is processed, why their packaged fruit snack has a two year shelf life and if 30g of protein in their snack bar is realistic. And people are connecting the dots on a bigger level as well, asking questions about humane treatment standards for animals, genetic modification in food, and large-scale mono-cropping approaches to farming.

As someone who proudly considers the food industry to be her number one patient, I believe we have reached a tipping point and are primed to create a new framework for food and nutrition. Let’s ditch our reductionistic approach of jumping from high-protein to low-fat to vitamin-fortified trends and instead start examining the innate intelligence of nature.

And who better to do this than the Whole Food Markets, Wal-Marts, PepsiCos and Kelloggs of the world? That’s why making the decision to leave private practice and join the food industry ultimately became an obvious decision for me. With the principle of docere, doctor as teacher, and the food industry as my patient, I can bring “the vis”, the healing power of nature, to them…an industry that when it makes a small change has the power to impact the health of millions. That is the healing power of nature.

Image by Bartek Kuzia

Trimming the Fat Off Obesity: Why Cutting 6 Trillion Calories Didn’t Work

By keegan On October 28, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

Earlier this month, I read an article titled, “Why the Food Industry’s 6 Trillion Calorie Cut Hasn’t Made a Dent”. 6 trillion calories is a compelling number and one that I would expect is big enough to create change in what one commenter to the article called America’s “fat diseases”. I was intrigued.

Perhaps some of you will remember that in 2010, the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF), a group of the biggest and most well-known food manufacturers, voluntarily pledged to collectively sell 1 trillion fewer calories in the U.S. marketplace by 2012 and 1.5 trillion fewer calories by 2015. Not only did they meet this pledge, they exceeded it, selling 6.4 trillion fewer calories, which translates to a reduction of 78 calories per US citizen per day.

If, as the director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) states, the entire obesity epidemic can be explained by 100-150 calories per day, then cutting 78 calories sounds pretty good. Given all of this we should see decreasing rates of overweight and obesity in our population. But, as you already know from the title of this piece, that’s not what happened, quite the contrary in fact.

Not a single state in the country experienced a decrease in obesity rates during this period, in fact, rates of adult obesity rose in six states in 2013 (Delaware, Tennessee, Alaska, Wyoming, New Jersey, and Idaho). Today one in every five people in every state in our nation meets the criteria for obese, leaving them at significant risk for other serious diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, certain types of cancer, and osteoarthritis.

So, why didn’t the reduction in calories have the intended and expected effect? A 6 trillion dollar question perhaps and one that, sadly, the article didn’t answer.

I’ve long disagreed with the “calories in – calories out = weight” equation. I don’t think it’s that simple, and anyone who’s spent hours dieting and sweating on a treadmill will likely agree. Sleep, stress, hormonal function and balance and likely a variety of other factors need to be considered in this equation. I’m confident science will eventually catch up and confirm what I and many others have seen in practice.

But specific to this article, I believe the author missed a more obvious issue, one of food quality. Even if food manufactures reformulate food to decrease fat and total calories, many packaged foods are still full (if not more so after reformulation) of false ingredients that intensify flavor, optimize something called “mouth feel”…basically play tricks with science to give the sensation of food in the absence of actual real food ingredients.

As a society we have been trained to take a highly reductionistic approach to nutrition. The idea that we should be able to selectively remove a nutrient like fat or eliminate calories from a food all together is insane. Along the same lines, to blame a nutrient in isolation for our health issues is equally irrational. Yet, on every level, from the way we conduct research to our government’s nutrition regulations and education campaigns, we take a reductionistic approach. “Fat is bad. Eliminate fat.” No, wait, “Fat is good, carbs are bad. Eliminate carbs.”

Here’s a radical idea: what if we accept that the Earth developed food with ratios of nutrients for a specific purpose that is beneficial to people, animals and itself? And that, instead of trying to fuss with these ingredients, we just eat them the way they are made…fat, calories and all? I’m not surprised cutting 6 trillion calories didn’t make a dent. The saying, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” feels appropriate as an explanation in this case, although a slight change, “You can’t have your 100 calorie snack pack cake and still lose weight” may be an appropriate tweak.

Bottom line, until we become more realistic about what food is, what it isn’t and the ratio of calories, fat and other nutrients (both good and bad) that come along with those real ingredients, we will continue to try to cheat the system and in the process cheat our own health.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by Candy.org

The Parent-Child Relationship: Why Annie’s and General Mills Will Work

By keegan On September 11, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

When I read the news Monday of the purchase of Annie’s Homegrown (NYSE: BNNY) to General Mills (NYSE: GIS) for $820 million I was stunned. Quickly, however, my surprise shifted to disbelief with myself that I didn’t see it coming given the path of Annie’s over recent years. Of course selling to a larger company was part of the grand plan, and thus, another parent-child relationship begins.

Working on the Kashi brand (acquired by Kellogg in 2000) for many years, I learned a few things about navigating these kinds of relationships. Today, as a consultant to the food and beverage industry, I’ve identified a pattern in the parent-child relationship and have come to understand that despite best intentions by all, the pitfalls and missteps are less about the specific attributes of the companies in question and more about the larger influencing factors of today’s marketplace that are all too often given priority. Unfortunately, Annie’s now faces the challenge of avoiding a stereotypic experience in the arc of acquisition, expanded distribution and profit, brand dilution (largely due to operational streamlining and decreased risk tolerance) and ultimate failure.

Act like a Bull Not an Ostrich in Today’s Food Climate

Individually, both Annie’s and General Mills are at the top of my list of companies who are doing it right in today’s food climate. Figuring out how to maintain relevance and leadership in the midst of the food awakening that is our country’s current Food Movement, Annie’s and General Mills have taken a bullish approach in their own size-appropriate way, maintaining a strong voice in the debate (Annie’s mostly) and making strategic changes in business practices that have been rewarded by shareholders in today’s tough climate (General Mills). Given this behavior and spirit, both companies bring compelling factors to their new relationship:

With other natural and organic brand acquisitions (Cascadian Farm, Muir Glen, LARABAR, Food Should Taste Good), General Mills demonstrates an awareness and acceptance of where packaged food is heading. Spending well over a million dollars to block GMO labeling initiatives may seem at odds (even hypocritical) to this behavior, but that’s where those “larger influencing factors of today’s marketplace” come into play and the saying, “the best defense is a good offense” rings true. To their credit, they are evolving their business in the right direction even if they are hedging their bet through financial contributions along the way.
Annie’s has a strong foundation of 25 years from which to solidify its reason for being in the world. Its philosophy in the areas of nutrition and people/planet health is established and, maybe more importantly, are clear keys to their success in market.
Annie’s is positioned for massive growth. From a successful VC incubation period that ultimately led to going public and the steady increases in product distribution and consumer awareness, short of a major mistake (and I don’t believe this is it), they really can’t fail right now.
From a timing perspective, we are years in at this point to the modern Food Movement debate and, as a result, both companies have had a good amount of time to demonstrate their positions on the big issues. If nothing else, this should provide all of the skeptics with some comfort in that both companies are less apt to do an about face on their stance and behavior.

Mom/Dad, You Don’t Always Know What’s Best

Purely from a business perspective, the parent-child relationship is all about diversifying the portfolio and mitigating risk. If you’ve ever worked with a financial advisor, you know that it’s just not smart to have all your money in bonds or in aggressive growth stocks. Spreading your money around is the safe bet, and so it is with large food companies. To a large degree, Annie’s represents an aggressive growth stock opportunity for General Mills, and from this perspective, it’s just business…no people and planet health aspirations required.

Taking the financial planning analogy a step further; being a successful financial advisor requires understanding where the market is heading. Identifying what’s big today is easy, real success happens when you are able to predict what will be big tomorrow. And that, General Mills (and all you other really big companies gobbling up the little guys), is what you need to keep in mind when you get your hands on Annie’s and start looking for opportunities to streamline processes and optimize systems.

Annie’s was born out of the beliefs that are leading the evolution of food and health in our culture today. Their philosophy was not adopted based on market trends and consumer insights data, it is part of their DNA, and when something is part of your DNA, you intuitively use it to guide every decision. It cannot be wrong because it exists from a consciousness that has evolved and survived through generations and across cultures.

On paper the Annie’s business looks a bit risky because they have chosen to do things that are not yet proven out in the market. They are attractive because their bets to date may payout big, but their aggressive behavior may also lead them to fail.

General Mills, I Challenge You to Parent Differently

So, Parent Company, this is where you have an opportunity to parent differently. Instead of guiding your child to be more conservative, more like her peers, more like you, stop. Expand your perspective to not only prioritize financial strategy but moral ethics as well. Honor the unique beliefs and attributes of your child and consider if their perspective isn’t just sweet innocence but inherent intelligence.

Taking this approach with Annie’s will be hard for General Mills. I’m sure there will be pushback internally within the business, it will mean living with complication, taking more risks and getting comfortable with a greater degree of uncertainty. It will mean going against tradition, instead of molding the child to fit the parent, it will mean changing the parent to emulate the child.

I think General Mills has what it takes. We’ll all just have to wait and see.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by QUARTZ

Sales of Packaged, Processed Foods are Declining. Here’s Why…

By keegan On August 13, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

Reading industry news this morning, I saw the title of a blog post from Marion Nestle, an expert I respect and follow closely, “Sales of packaged, processed foods are declining: Three reasons why”. Marion Nestle is a dynamo as far as I’m concerned, so of course I clicked to read more.

You can read the article for yourself here, but to save you time, here’s a topline of the three reasons Nestle listed:

Old-style packaging makes foods seem unnatural. Clear packaging works better for sales.
Taste preferences are changing. Consumers are seeking complex flavor profiles imported from more sophisticated food cultures.
Consumers want companies to pay more attention to their effects on climate change.

What?

I suppose all of these things are true and may even provide some helpful guidance to brands seeking to stay relevant in our rapidly changing food culture. But clear packaging and more complex flavor offerings hardly seem like the remedy for brands who are struggling. (I intentionally ignored her item on climate change as I agree with that point.)

There’s a food movement happening in our country, or as I like to see it, a food awakening. Sure, clear packaging does look clean and crisp (and gives a literal sense of transparency…something consumers are really looking for). But, the reason I think packaged food sales are declining is because consumers are skeptical of packaged food. How the food looks and tastes are bare minimums, and they are no longer enough. Not even close.

Consumers may be largely confused (e.g. I heard a statistic recently that the majority of consumers believe the claims “local” and “organic” mean the same thing), but that doesn’t mean they aren’t able to vote with their shopper dollars as they figure it all out. They are reconnecting to real food and realizing that the food they’ve been buying for the last few decades doesn’t make sense. Limitless levels of protein and zero fat? Fluorescent colors? Two-year shelf life? They may not yet understand how these things are possible, but they are learning quickly and not liking what they learn. I am hopeful that consumers will soon understand that they need to re-frame their expectations for packaged food.

Here’s my list for why packaged, processed food sales are declining:

Consumers want minimally processed, natural ingredients even if that means a shorter shelf life.
Even packaged food should follow the nutritional constraints of Mother Nature. No more extremes in nutritional profiles, colors or flavors.
Everyone should do their part to support the health of people and the planet, especially big food companies. All food brands should be thoughtful in how they source, create and sell their food and should transparently share this information as a way to inform and educate consumers.

I heard another expert group predicting retail “Armageddon” for food brands that are unable or unwilling to make big changes to their product portfolios and positions. I really believe this is true and hope that big food brands will harness their immense power and influence to help lead our food system to a place that is better for people and planet health.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by Scorpions and Centaurs

Natural – The “False Advertising Industry”’s Biggest Breakthrough

By keegan On June 30, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

When it comes to claims on food products is Organic the “real natural”? That’s what Organic Voices, a non-profit organization largely composed of USDA Certified Organic food brands, wants you to believe and their latest communication effort is using humor to prove its point.

You need look no further than an issue of USA Today or The New York Times to know that natural product claims have entered the Top 10 Most Wanted list for the Food Movement, right up there with McDonald’s Happy Meals and sugar sweetened beverages. It’s a drastic change from just a decade ago, when the term was a meaningful badge of quality and healthfulness. Unfortunately for devoted natural foodies, the cache of “natural” caught on a bit too well and as a result has been adopted by a seemingly infinite number of products out to cash in on the term and exploit the lack of criteria provided by our regulatory bodies for how to responsibly use it.

It’s unlikely Organic is the fix for the majority of natural food products on the market today. A more likely answer is the adoption of new labels (i.e. Non-GMO Project Verified, Gluten-Free, Top 8 Allergen-Free) to fill-in the grey space created by natural claims and, ultimately, a continued responsibility of the consumer to read the fine print (and then verify it).

But, as “natural” gets its vigilante justice in a process that is, at times, painful to watch, at least we can take a break to laugh about it.

The Natural Effect

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by Organic Voices

Too Much of a Good Thing or Good at All? Kids’ Cereal Overloaded With Vitamins Says EWG Report.

By keegan On June 26, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

A new report issued by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) says nearly half of kids age eight or younger in the United States are consuming potentially harmful amounts of vitamin A, zinc and niacin from foods with added vitamins and minerals. The report also cautions that pregnant women and seniors are at risk for excessive consumption.

The report, released this week, has stimulated a swift response from manufacturers of cereals and snacks heavily invested in the practice of fortification. A spokesperson from Kellogg, a company mentioned in the report, released a statement that likely echoes the public position of many brands who fortify, “without fortification of foods such as ready-to-eat cereals, many children would not get enough vitamins and minerals in their diets”.

I don’t disagree that this is true as well I shouldn’t. A robust body of published science exists to demonstrate this point. However, this same data paints a more complicated and somewhat ironic picture of a society that over-consumes to the point of obesity and even after all those calories is still under-nourished. From what I see in the data, I question if we aren’t missing the bigger picture…is spraying on our nutrients really the best route to take? Could our time and money be better spent elsewhere, perhaps in improving education and access to whole foods…you know, the ones that are inherently full of vitamins and minerals?

Even researchers involved in the EWG report are quick to point out flaws in the nutritional framework used to base its conclusions. One such researcher, Louise Berner, PhD, states, “the EWG report is worrisome to me in several respects… the report fails to mention uncertainty surrounding the ‘tolerable upper intake level,’ or UL, the highest level of daily nutrient intake likely to pose no risk of harm. The UL is the cutoff the report uses when it makes such statements as ‘45% of 2- to 8-year-old children consume too much zinc’.” Researchers have widely noted that the UL values are too low for some nutrients, such as zinc, and the criteria, such as UL and Daily Values (DV) listed on nutrient labels are woefully due for re-assessment and updating.

Other factors playing against fortification include a lack of research around the bioavailabilty of fortificants, i.e., the ability of the body to absorb and correctly utilize these manufactured nutrients. Another tick against fortified vitamins and minerals is that they are highly processed ingredients and largely derived from GMO corn. These issues are not mentioned in the report.

The wide-spread use and acceptance of fortificants in food (they are even allowed in certified organic foods although they themselves are not organic) is because our country takes a public health approach to the issue. Avoiding nutrient deficiencies in our society is given higher priority than how the food is grown and processed.

Overall, I appreciate the issues presented in this report and especially the recommendations to, among other things; update nutrition labels to make them more useful to consumers, limit fortification as a marketing tool for manufacturers and ask manufacturers to be more thoughtful and conservative in their approach to fortification.

What I wish to see is a discussion and prioritization of the bigger picture. The reason fortification is a common practice in the United States is because we largely exist on processed, packaged foods that lack inherent nutrition. Our society not only lacks the knowledge of what a healthy, plant-based diet looks like, but the access to create it even if we did. Instead of debating and focusing on how to improve our fortification system, what if we instead used that energy to invest in education and access to fresh food?

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by EWG

Dr. Oz: It’s Time to Hand Over the Megaphone

By keegan On June 19, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

I often describe the dietary supplement industry as the Wild West and it looks like Dr. Mehmet Oz has become its latest outlaw. The celebrity cardiothoracic surgeon and daytime television celebrity of the show, Dr. Oz, took a turn in the hot seat before the Senate’s consumer protection panel Tuesday, defending his endorsement of lose weight quick ingredients and “magic weight loss cure” claims.

It’s about time.

As a naturopathic physician and strategist to the natural and organic products industry, I’ve dedicated my life to the study and practice of natural medicine and to educating others about its benefits and role within our larger health system. As someone who is so invested in this area, I’ve been especially disappointed in the way Oz has abused the platform his show provides for many years.

More than 1/3 of adults in our country are obese, leaving them at risk for deadly conditions like heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes. Even though research is clear that the most effective way to lose weight is through long-term and consistent diet and lifestyle changes, a weight loss industry consisting largely of lose weight quick products and programs with little to no evidence of efficacy makes an average of $60.9 billion each year.

When paired together these statistics paint a clear picture. We have a crisis on our hands and a society of people who are desperate for tools to improve their health. Right or wrong, our society looks to television, internet and inexpensive and easy-to-access sources of information for guidance.

If there was someone on television with the credentials and endorsements to trust, you would think it would be Oz. A licensed cardiovascular surgeon, professor in the Department of Surgery at Columbia University and go-to health expert for Oprah, he has all the elements to be regarded as a trusted advisor. That’s what makes his misleading and inaccurate claims so stunning.

As Senator McCaskill said to Oz on Tuesday,

I can’t figure this out, Dr. Oz. I get that you do a lot of good on your show. I understand that you give a lot of information that’s great information… you’re very talented and you’re obviously very bright. You’ve been trained in science-based medicine… I don’t get why you need to say this stuff when you know it’s not true. When you have this amazing megaphone, why would you cheapen your show?… With power comes a great deal of responsibility.

I can only hope that Dr. Oz will hand over his megaphone to someone else who has the conviction and ability to use it properly.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by The Gardens Mall

It’s Time to Change Tack Navigating “Natural” Claims

By keegan On June 10, 2014 In Blog With No Comments

Permalink

Reading the news this morning, I came across an industry article about yet another class action suit over natural claims, this one against Whole Foods Market and their use of a leavening agent, sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), in some of their baked goods.

Honestly, my immediate reaction was to feel badly for Whole Foods. They are an organization who has consistently shown leadership on this topic. In the face of confusion from food manufacturers, lack of guidance from government and mountains of technical details, Whole Foods has done the hard work to set standards (and the bar) for the natural food industry for years. Their Unacceptable Ingredients List which dictates what is and is not allowed in foods sold on their store shelves has had an immeasurable benefit on shaping the natural products industry. (The fact that a list like this is even necessary should be a major indicator as to the state of food today.) Not to mention additional trailblazing efforts such as their 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating system and their announcement last year regarding GMO labeling.

Unfortunately, whether or not you are doing the right thing doesn’t seem to be a consideration factor for getting pulled into a class action lawsuit. Prominence and the resulting amount of publicity and chances for a large settlement seem to be the only criteria to consider.

Having experienced firsthand the toll these suits take on a business in terms of hours worked, money spent and, most importantly, focus and energy taken away from making food better for people and planet, I really believe it’s time to change tack. Instead of working in isolation as brands and businesses, trying to get a handle on the quickly evolving natural and organic landscape behind closed doors while simultaneously hoping we aren’t the next ones to be made an example of in court, what if we pooled our resources and learnings on this issue? If my experience is any indication, we’ve all learned a lot and together should be able to connect the missing dots, solve the mysteries of modern food production once and for all and move the definition of natural forward in a productive, collaborative way. Waiting around for government to tell us what to do clearly isn’t wise, so let’s get together and get ourselves sorted so we can prove to our consumers that we really do know what’s going on and that we have their health and best interests at heart.

Like this post? Follow @KeeganSheridan

Image by Counse