Chemicals In the Food Chain

The current epidemic of obesity has inspired what some might characterize as a witch hunt mentality with blame going to a wide and growing list of "villains," including the fast food industry, HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup), watching too much TV and even school lunches. Now researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine think they may have found a clue: endocrine disruptors such as phthalates used in food packaging. Kids in New York City’s East Harlem are 3x more likely than other children in the U.S. to be overweight, and perhaps not coincidentally high levels of these chemicals have turned up in their urine. The researchers think the mechanism for promoting obesity may be caused by disruptions in the hormones controlling growth and development. A study of 400 girls found the heaviest had the highest concentration of phthalates metabolites in the urine samples tested. A second study of East Harlem residents 6-8 years old showed higher levels of phthalates than the national average.

Phthalates are primarily used as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyvinyliden chloride (PVDC) polymers to increase flexibility in a variety of food packaging products, including films. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is conducting research into phthalates, but so far has said "there are no studies in humans that are adequate to serve as the basis for regulatory decision-making."

Not exactly a ringing safety endorsement.

Phthalates aren't the only chemicals on the scientific community’s radar screens: perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), found in grease-resistant microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes have been linked to infertility. Bisphenol A (BPA) has even been banned from use in infant formula bottles. BPA is component of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins used in the manufacture of reusable beverage containers, as well as the linings to soda cans. Green Century Capital Management, an investment group that targets environmentally-friendly companies for its financial services clients, has issued a report on 20 large publicly-traded manufacturers that denounces their inaction in removing BPA or in implementing meaningful reductions. Of the fourteen companies queried by Green Century that responded, only four had implemented alternative formulations with less BPA, and only one had found a substitute. Hain Celestial, Heinz, and Nestle all received top scores. The other companies contacted included Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Chiquita, Dean Foods, Del Monte, General Mills, Hershey, Hormel, J.M. Smucker, Kellogg's, Kraft, McCormick, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, Sysco, and Unilever.

Chemical industry lobbyists concede that "small" amounts of BPA leach into foods and beverages from polycarbonate bottles and can liners, but insist there is no reason for alarm. And so far the National Institute of Health (NIH) has not shown more than "some concern" (an official level of watchfulness) about the chemical, and that only for its possible deleterious effects in baby bottles.

While it's good that most baby bottle manufacturers have vowed to phase out BPA usage, they are only doing so for bottles sold in the U.S.

Just How Green IS My Valley?

(steak photo courtesy of The Perfect Steak)

Debate about "local sourcing" and "sustainability" generally favors reducing the carbon footprint of food distribution by relying on locally-grown and raised foods, rather than the current supply chain that brings foods from around the world to your local grocery store. For example, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University estimates food travels on average 1,500 miles from producer to consumer within the U.S. However, this argument has been denounced by Third World countries as another form of Western arrogance, since the globalization of the food supply chain has brought prosperity to poorer regions who account for an increasing portion of the West’s food consumption as Chilean peppers find their way to produce aisles in the depth of Winter and apples stored in gigantic warehouses are available year-round.

A new argument claims that shifting consumption away from red meats and dairy— even for as little as one day/week— might have a greater salutary impact on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than cutting down the time foods are en-route. Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews, analysts for the Carnegie Mellon Institute, argue it is virtually impossible to reduce transportation costs equivalent to the change on the environment by reducing the consumption of meat and dairy. “Replacing red meat and dairy with chicken, fish, or eggs for one day per week would save the equivalent of driving 760 miles per year. "Replacing red meat and dairy with vegetables one day a week would be like driving 1,160 miles less." Analysts admit their estimates are mostly theoretical in nature. Further meat producers argue that organic farming would be impossible without the manure produced by feed and dairy animals.

Other "green" initiatives include the one by Kraft to increase its use of Rainforest Alliance-certified coffee farms by 50%. As part of the company's sustainability goals it has targeted reducing plant energy use by 25%, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount, slashing production plant water consumption by 15%, reducing plant waste by 15%, and eliminating 150 million lbs. of packaging. A flurry of such announcements from major companies will likely result at some point in a wave of audits by skeptical media outlets.

Stay tuned.

Broad Street Licensing Group One of Top 20 Agencies

License! Global magazine has taken a comprehensive look at the top licensing agencies representing the biggest brands and creating industry buzz, and Montclair, Broad Street Licensing Group was named to the top twenty agencies worldwide, with retails sales of licensed products brokered by the NJ-based agency topping $93MM and climbing.

The magazine's profile of us (click here) says: "The agency’s portfolio of clients has grown to include Burger King, The Culinary Institute of America, Unilever, BIC USA, Cutty Sark, Rich Foods, Bruegger's Bagels, Helene Curtis, Elizabeth Arden, Breyers Ice Cream, Popsicle and Fabergé. Key achievements include the Burger King salty snacks line, sold in the U.S. through vending, club, mass, drug, c-stores and grocery, and now in distribution in Asia, South America, Europe and the Middle East, and recently nominated for “Best Corporate Licensee” by LIMA, the licensing industry trade association. During 2008, The Culinary Institute of America achieved record sales with its CIA Masters Collection of cookware, bakeware and cutlery from Robinson Home Products, as well as expanded product lines such as the Instant Gourmet Kitchen Sets and the Professional Series food processors. BSLG also expanded BIC USA’s leadership in disposable lighters with a line of NASCAR drivers, such as Dale Earnhardt Jr., Jeff Gordon, and Kasey Kahne. For 2009, the agency will continue to build strategic and innovative brand extension opportunities for current and new clients in the U.S. and international markets.”

Death to the Capitalist Roaders!

The Chinese have an expression that roughly translates as "kill the chicken to teach the monkey a lesson."

When I was in China in the early 1980s, the residue of the Cultural Revolution was palpable. Not only was the country impoverished, its cities run down and its people scraping by, but group-think and the secret police ruled the lives of most people. I got a call from the hotel manager once after the maid found a list of Chinese curse words and their English equivalents in my room. She promptly informed on me.

The advent of Chinese-style capitalism has meant that individual lives are better, though human rights continue to be something Chinese leaders say the country can't afford. I was sad to read how film star Jackie Chan thinks his countrymen and women are too emotional to have freedom and democracy. Jackie can say that because he's rich and lives wherever he wants.

One legacy of China's totalitarian history is a rough justice system known to mete out harsh punishments in order to elicit group adherence to the party line through fear and intimidation. Forced labor for those who think (and especially those who do) differently is common, along with executing those who damage the public welfare. The usual method is a bullet to the back of the head; a bill for said bullet is then sent to the executed's family.

This has been a bad period for unfettered free market Capitalism in many parts of the world from Wall Street to Tiananmen Square. The recent milk scandal in China showed their particular style of Capitalism run amok, with execs from several Chinese companies adding the plastic component melamine to various products from pet food to dairy items in order to bump up the protein content (melamine fools crude tests into registering a higher in quality). This wasn't a case of accidental contamination: the executives Geng Jinping, Zhang Yujun and Tian Wenhua, former Chairwoman of the dairy company Sanlu, deliberately added the melamine in order to juice their profits. The baby formula in particular sickened over 50,000 children and killed at least four of them.

As bad as the illness and deaths were, the resulting recall of Chinese dairy products and other foods made with Chinese milk by-products (chocolate, for one) has devastated China's commercial reputation and sent the world dairy market down at a time when milk-based drinks were being embraced all over Asia (a remarkable event, since most Asians are lactose-intolerant). So to send a message to other rogue capitalists ("teach the monkey a lesson"), Chinese courts have sentenced both men to death and the woman executive to hard time.

See above: the usual means of execution is a bullet in the back of the head. A bill for the bullet is then sent to the family of the deceased.

In this country, executives who commit these kinds of callous acts usually end up as consultants with golden parachutes.

photo courtesy of Capital Punishment UK

Do-It-Yourself Food Licensing

Cartoon courtesy of CT Yoon

Pitching a major restaurant brand the other day, I ended up speaking with their "licensing maven." It turns out the chain has been dipping their toe in the water by extending their brand through some non-core menu items at retail. The lady was very bright, but clearly was learning on the job, having come over to the brand from the financial services sector (no comment you wags!). As we discussed leveraging the chain's equity to retail and my firm's interest in representing them, it was immediately obvious she knows little or nothing about the food industry and was trying to pump me for information about how Burger King was doing this with their hugely successful chip license. Were we using brokers or trade reps to place the products? How did we get the chips into vending machines?

First of all, I can't give you free consultation in an area where Broad Street Licensing Group has its breand & butter business. Our firm has an extensive list of proprietary contacts, information sources, and years of doing this sort of thing every day. It reminds me of the in-house counsels who think because they've put together a few licensing agreements they know how to do licensing.

Sorry, but unless you've come out of one of the studios or TV networks where licensing is a major component of their business, you likely have only the most limited knowledge of the industry and licensing contracts.

But I digress.

When it comes to food licensing, the licensor is never responsable for product placement unless you're using a co-packer to extend your brand directly as some companies do, mostly because they only want a few close-in products on retail shelves. But if you're looking to do a really impactful leveraging of your brand to retail, what the hell do you know about the grocery business? Do you understand slotting fees, ANSI, DSD, ACV, trade deductions, forward buys, FIFO, COOL, bunkers, branch houses, transfers, or application identifiers? If not, you might want to re-think doing it yourself.

Remember the old legal adage how a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

So when she purred how "we're going slowly so we do it right," I thought in my head "you're going slowly because you don't have a clue."

Just How Bad IS Meat?

There is an increasing body of evidence that meat is bad.

Not just bad for your body, but possibly bad for the planet.

A study by the National Cancer Institute indicates those who ate even 4 oz. of red meat a day (which includes pork) had increased rates for some cancers up to 20%, and were in general more likely to die earlier. This wasn't one of those studies involving mice or with 2 1/2 participants. No, the NCI studied a half-million subjects over a decade. Scientists aren't sure why eating meat increases cancer risk, but point to things like possible carcinogens produced during cooking, or the high fat content of meat. Those in the study who ate chicken or fish were less likely to die.

The connection between meat consumption and heart disease has already been established, so the study has added more pressure on the meat industry.

Now it turns out meat production may be bad for the environment. For one thing, the amount of resources required to produce meat is huge. Not only do livestock raised for human consumption require lots of feed themselves (which "eats up" fertilizer and demands pest control measures), but they soak up medical resources, since confining large herds of them in industrial feed lots makes them more susceptible to disease. This doesn't take into account the residue of the antibiotics and hormones given to raise bigger, healthier, more-profitable livestock that ends up in our bodies when we eat industrial food farmed meat.

The other issue is the impact meat farming has on the planet in general and on global warming in particular. A 2006 United Nations report claimed that 18% of greenhouse gases could be attributed to meat and meat production. Now as you can well imagine, the meat industry doesn't think too much of these studies. When they're not fighting PETA, the animal rights crazies, they're trying to undercut scientists who have tried to argue that meat eating is just plain bad for you.

One mouthpiece for the meat industry is the Center for Consumer Freedom, a phantom "think tank" devoted to serving the interest of restaurants and food companies. They have focused their wrath on Dr. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, hardly a fly-by-night diploma mill. Dr. Popkin has written that meat production "in the United States accounts for 55% of the erosion process, 37% of pesticides applied, 50% of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water." Nitrogen and phosphates in rivers, lakes and streams nourishes algae blooms which can suck the oxygen out of the water and kill off fish stocks.

It may surprise you to learn that China produces the greatest total volume of meat (28.5% of the annual global volume), but is outstripped by the U.S. per capita meat consumption (270 lbs./123 kg vs. 119 lbs/54 kg).

The CCF insists Dr. Popkin has stretched his research, and the good professor says the meat industry is obfuscating the situation with the same tactics the tobacco lobby employed in the past. In fact, some are calling the food industry dangerous in the same way that Big Tobacco once was.

I find that sort of hyperbole contributes not only to a hardening of opinion on both sides, but clouds that debate. The food business has some blame for the current problems associated with the American diet, including putting too many things in processed foods that don't belong there, among them salt and preservatives. But Americans have to take some measure of responsibility for what they eat and not expect those who enable their obesity, diabetes and heart disease to look out for their interests.