Posts filed under 'food'
Avocados, ethics and supermarket histories
Alex Steer writes:
The avocado pear’s name is the product of selective memory. Our word for the South American vegetable comes originally from the Nahuatl word ahuacatl, which means ‘testicle’. This unfamiliar word was borrowed into Spanish, but mishearing and confusion with the easier-to-remember word for ‘advocate’ or ‘lawyer’, avocado, led to this being used for the pear. Avocado was borrowed into English in the late 17th century, and has stuck.
The avocado has in recent weeks found itself at the centre of a standoff between two supermarkets. Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer have launched TV adverts – commemorating their 140th and 125th anniversaries respectively – in which they each appear to take the credit for introducing the avocado to Britain. The avocado is now an advocate in supermarkets’ increasingly fierce battle for market share, but it is arguing the case for both sides.
There has been no shortage of ads harking back to the past recently – Sainsbury’s, M&S, Hovis, Persil – and no shortage of commentators noticing this. Most have identified that behind these campaigns lies a perceived yearning by consumers for the securities of nostalgia and tradition. Hovis’s strapline – ‘As good today as it’s always been’ – resonates with wary, recession-weary shoppers who are longing for a little sanity. Nostalgia brands are brands that have stayed the course; brands you can trust.
But Sainsbury’s and M&S are not just saying they are reliable retailers. They are saying they are responsible, ethical ones, and that they always were: employing women, helping the planet, doing their bit for the war effort. These campaigns are histories, written to appeal to the values and good citizenship modern consumers seek from brands.
The demand for corporate social responsibility is relatively new, and it’s hard for older brands not to look like they’re jumping on today’s bandwagon, compared to new brands who have built CSR into their blood and bone. By framing their histories in terms of modern values, retailers are telling consumers that, unlike the avocado, they were always advocates, representing quality and fairness. It remains to be seen if consumers will buy this, or conclude that it’s all a load of ahuacatls.
The picture at the top – a photograph of a painting – is borrowed, with thanks, from Betweenland on flickr.
1 comment 15 June 2009
The end of the line?
Camilla Parke writes:
I must admit that I sat a little uncomfortably through the opening minutes of The End of the Line, the documentary screened on World Oceans Day, in which violent shots of blood drenched waters were interplayed with images of bloated Europeans gorging on sushi. My guilt is not misplaced; as an unquestioning consumer I have contributed to the problem journalist Charles Clover uncovers in this film: the little known damage that overfishing is doing to the world’s oceans. Significant improvements in fishing technology, huge increases in consumer demand and poorly enforced, inadequate quotas have decimated our seas. The impact on biodiversity is alarming: if overfishing continues at its current rate, scientists predict we will be out of most fish by 2048.
The plight of one endangered species in particular – Bluefin tuna – was explored in the film, and the press this week have focused on those retailer and restaurateurs that have (and have not) responded to calls to find more sustainable alternatives. A number of places are getting it right, and have been for some time – Feng Sushi in London’s Borough market has been sustainably sourcing its fish for the last 10 years. But for larger companies, the challenges are more significant.
Japanese restaurant Nobu seem unfazed by petitions from its celebrity diners to remove Bluefin from its menus, content to mention its endangered status on the menu and discretely suggests diners choose an alternative. Others are responding more proactively: Marks and Spencer has committed to only using pole and line caught tuna in its entire range of products; Pret a Manger is making a similar commitment.
Alongside the statistics, one of the most powerful learnings from the film is the fact that it is still possible to reverse the fortune of our oceans – as Clover points out, the answer is ‘not rocket science’. Although one hurdle is the inadequacy of current policy, one of the most important things we can do as consumers is to make more noise. Ask shops and restaurants how fish is sourced, and avoid those that are unsustainable. This really means thinking more and consuming less – a challenge given our love affair with eating fish. But if we don’t want to go hungry in the future, do we really have any other choice?
The photo at the top is borrowed, with thanks, from the End Of The Line website.
Add comment 11 June 2009
Old and unimproved
Andy Stubbings writes:
Pessimism is an often underrated emotion. In this dismal economic climate, brands like Schweppes (with their series of woodcut style print ads that send up British political figures) and even the Evening Standard (with their “Sorry” bus and tube advertising) have sought to capitalise on consumer discontent and, most probably, a simmering resentment towards our political and economic institutions (for a wonderfully vitriolic example of this anger, see Matt Taibbi’s ‘The Big Takeover’).
However, no mainstream brands appear to have done this as explicitly as Shredded Wheat in the US. The “Progress is Overrated” print ad above is part of a campaign by cereal manufacturer Post to publicise the simple, unchanged origins of their product. As you would expect, the long-copy form and type-setting feel of the print ad are wantonly old-fashioned, conveying “back-to-basics” message (although the slapstick tone of other campaign media feels at odds with this). What is especially interesting about the copy, however, is that it namechecks waste concerns, resource shortages and the impact of climate change as evidence that we have not progressed (though curiously no mention of the financial crisis. The people who buy Shredded Wheat are mainstream American consumers, many of them mums buying for their kids. The tone of the campaign (by Ogilvy & Mather in New York) implies that research has found this attitude reasonably prevalent in the target audience, which suggests that consumer discontent may be quite widespread.
While it may be difficult for established brands like Schweppes and Shredded Wheat to reinvent themselves as the Voice of Discontent, I think there is a substantial opportunity for less well-known brands to take this on, in the way that Mountain Dew reinvented itself as the ’slacker’ brand in the midst of the corporate greed of the 1980s. With so many brands offering similar messages of solidarity and empathy with consumers at the moment, it might be that pessimism proves a smarter and more distinctive position.
The picture is borrowed, with thanks, from Noise Between Stations.
1 comment 13 May 2009
Everyday toxins
Rachel Claydon writes:
Momentum around the issue of toxic-free consumption seems to be building. New research released recently by the principal investigator at the Medical Research Council’s Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, Professor Richard Sharpe, provides further evidence of links between the toxic chemicals contained in many everyday products and major heath issues. This recent study warns that chemicals found in many cosmetics can damage the reproductive system in male foetuses, especially during the eight to twelve week stage of a pregnancy.
While the research was based on tests with rats and does not provide conclusive proof of harm, it nonetheless resonates with previous studies which point to a link between infertility problems and testicular cancer, pollution and chemicals in everyday products, and pregnant women are nevertheless being advised to avoid using perfume and scented creams.
Cosmetics are not the only products causing concern. Carpet, bedding, cling film, air fresheners and non-stick pans are among a number of household goods containing chemicals that campaigners believe have not been adequately safety tested. And American research published this week suggested an association between Bisphenol A – a chemical found in plastic packaging for food and drink – and the incidence of heart disease and diabetes, although it is a ‘preliminary’ stidy and it didn’t show a causal connection.
Toxic accumulation has been on environmentalists’ radar since the 1960s, and there is a growing body of regulation to try to tackle it. The issue is increasingly reaching the general public through media coverage of this kind of research – “Perfumes linked to infertility” screamed the front page of London’s Metro in response to Richard Sharpe’s research. Increasing consumer awareness of toxins in everyday goods is an important emerging trend, and we are seeing growing interest in toxic-free products such as Ecover and organic cotton. Producers who want to stay ahead of the trend would do well to check for poisons in their supply chains – before campaigners or researchers do.
Add comment 17 September 2008
Growing support
Jo Phillips writes:
This weekend I bought 20 lettuce seedlings for a £1 from a country market. Should even a few of these grow into healthy sized lollo rosso, I reckon I will have saved a few pounds on the cost of equivalent produce at the supermarket, even taking into account the cost of compost and water. But perhaps more interesting than the potential to save money on food at a time when food costs are escalating and consumers are feeling the pinch, is the intrinsic value of homegrown produce to the grower. As Monty Don pointed out recently in his session at Hay, a person who grows food from seed wouldn’t even consider wasting it.
In his role as the new President of the Soil Association Don has been smart to encourage all growers, great and small, to consider themselves as part of a sustainable food movement. He clearly appreciates that those who have narrowed the gap between soil to plate to its minimum could, if connected to each other, be a powerful network for change. Linking small steps to big effects and harnessing the power of the collective may be a powerful way to address concerns about food security and food footprints and encourage behaviour change. And with sales of vegetable seeds overtaking those of flowers this year, the movement shows signs of burgeoning.
The greatest challenge perhaps will be in cities –people living within view of farms at least have a regular reminder of the provenance of food, but in urban spaces the mental gap is greater, and the knowledge less intuitive. But with the return of Victory Gardens in London and San Francisco, and vertical farms on the horizon, we are moving closer to the Soil Association’s vision of “a national policy of self-sufficiency in staple foods.”
1 comment 6 August 2008
Water : the new carbon
Rachel Claydon writes:
Carbon consciousness is now here to stay. However the CO2 intensity of different activities isn’t the only issue concerning environmentalists. We’ve been aware of water shortages in many parts of the world for many years, but as these become more acute, the ‘water intensity’ of various products and processes is moving into the spotlight, particularly those relating to food and drink production. This is not about turning off the tap to save water when you brush your teeth, rather understanding how much water has been used to make the items that we consume every day, or what’s known as ‘embedded water’ (opens in pdf). The data are pretty staggering – it takes 35 litres to produce a cup of tea; 170 to produce a glass of orange juice; and 2400 to produce a hamburger – and are much easier to visualise than grams or tonnes of carbon.
Unlike carbon, the water issue has not yet reached mainstream consciousness, but this isn’t far off. Individuals can now calculate their personal ‘water footprint’ thanks to a collaboration between UNESCO and the University of Twente, and manufacturers are also starting to respond. The Coca Cola Company announced a new partnership with WWF in June last year around water conservation, and was already talking about reducing the water intensity of its products at the time. It may take a while to convince the British consumer that the world is short of water, even though the South East of England has less water per head than Istanbul. In many other markets, from Spain to China to Australia, consumers are already acutely aware of shortages. Without doubt companies need to actively scrutinise their supply chains and implement water saving strategies. This said, water footprinting may prompt people to move away from certain ‘water heavy’ categories altogether – meat, especially red meat, is a prime candidate.
The chart at the top is from the Australian news site crikey – perhaps not surprisingly, given Australia’s acute water shortage.
Add comment 21 June 2008
A dog’s breakfast?
Alastair Morton writes:
In recent years cookery shows have picked up and amplified a wide range of consumer trends, from Gary Rhodes’ rock-chef rebelliousness of the mid ’90s to the apparent ‘authenticity’ of Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares providing, at times, gripping viewing.
This thought was brought home to me by Delia’s latest offering – more a case of ‘How to Cheat at Tapping into Trends’ than a food heaven. The premise is clearly to help out the ‘time-starved’ consumer, but there’s more than a pinch of ‘community connections’ with both family and tribal (Norwich City FC) references, topped off last week by a good slug of Catholicism to tap into the search for meaning. And let’s not forget about ‘health and wellness’ – tinned food as nutritious as its fresh counterpart? Well, I could go on.
I know that different trends play out in different ways for different people, and that Delia’s trying to stand out in a crowded market where there’s also a significant movement towards ethical food and slow food, with Hugh and Jamie’s respective chicken liberation fronts leading the charge. But beyond the fact that not all trends pull in the same direction, Delia’s approach comes unstuck, at least for me, because I think the joy in cooking is in the dream of what you’re going to create, from start to finish, and not just opening the relevant cans or defrosting the right pellets.
Image courtesy of http://www.joe-ks.com
Add comment 25 March 2008
Barbie knows no bounds
Sarah Davies writes:
On a recent visit to the US I was stopped in my tracks by an enormous pile of Barbie branded cereal boxes, on offer at 2 for $5. I was so mesmerised by this spectacle that I felt compelled to purchase a box. To the disappointment of my two daughters, I didn’t buy the cereal as a gift to add to their burgeoning collection of Barbie merchandise, but rather as an example of what can only be described as irresponsible marketing to children.
Does a brand like Kellogg’s need to go to such lengths to sell its products? Close inspection of the box reveals a long list of additives and general ‘nutritional’ profile of the product. The pieces of ‘cereal’ and marshmallow bits look more like sweets than breakfast food.
In an age where childhood obesity and diabetes are on the increase, it seems hard to justify using Barbie to encourage children to eat such things for breakfast. But on second thoughts, perhaps this is all a storm in a teacup? Reassuringly, on the back of pack, Barbie is able to share her ‘fab tips’ with children, telling them to “Live active” and “Keep it green”. So that’s alright, then. But it’s hard to tell which brand is being damaged more by this co-marketing venture.
Add comment 19 March 2008
Eating the planet
Trevor Harvey writes:
I contributed to an event run by one of our food retail clients this week, and one of the other speakers showed some pictures from Hungry Planet, a photo-essay (”30 families, 24 countries, 600 meals”) about who eats what around the world.
Time magazine did a selection of the families, with some data on their food budgets and their favourite meals, and there’s also a audio feature from the US National Public Radio show All Things Considered with an associated web page which has the full weekly food shops from four of the 30 families (Darfur, Gemany, the USA, and China).
Looking through the pictures, it seems as if – with the obvious exception of the very poor – that those with more money for their food budgets are likely to have worse nutrition, at least judging by the amount of processed foods on display. They have less fresh food and an awful lot more packaging. In contrast, those with smaller budgets tend to have favourite family meals (the richer families talk about ‘favourite foods’ – processed again – rather than favourite meals). At risk of romanticising, the poorer families also seem to be smiling a lot more.
One of the trends we’re noticing at the moment is that the proportion of income spent on food is going up, for the first time in three decades. This is partly because basic prices are going up. Although it’s a complex story, it’s possible to imagine that a combination of price increases, the pursuit of wellbeing, and a desire for the more authentic might mean that the more affluent will start shifting their food budgets to more natural foodstuffs – with the health benefits that would follow.
The photo above by Peter Menzel, taken from The Hungry Planet, shows the Melander family, from Bargteheide, Germany, with a week’s worth of food.
Add comment 14 March 2008
