The Organic & Natural Health Association Scrap Natural Certification

Recently, the Organic and Natural Health Association held its first ever national conference. Among those that attended included thirty-five leaders in the industry of natural products. The CEO of the Association, Karen Howard, as well as former Senator Mark Pryor led the conference discussions on a new certification in the food industry.

 

The CEO set the tone of the conference by announcing the board’s conclusion after they had assessed the definition of “Natural.” The board’s decision is not what most of the industry would have liked to hear. It was concluded that the term “natural” could not and should not be used as a form of natural certification seal. More so, it should not be used on the product labels or even listed there. For most consumers, “natural” labeled products may soon be a thing of the past. However, the board did say that the term “natural” could be used in the description of particular attributes of the product in materials that are used for marketing and promotion.

Organic vs. Natural is Confusing Consumers

 

According to the research, it was assessed that the term “organic” and the term “natural” are quite confusing to the consumers. When the user is faced with a natural product, they would expect that it was automatically organic, and this is not the case. In the meeting, it was also noted that the consumer has a problem differentiating both of the products. It was this research among other factors that led to the conclusion that the board would not be considering a new “natural” certification seal. The primary reason was not to confuse consumers.

The director reiterated the necessity of increasing focus and encouraging people to go organic. For this, the institution would focus all their energy and resources to strengthen that program and the existing organic certification seal. The first order of business for this would be to support  Organic 3.0. The movement is being led by IFOAN Organics International. The intention is to have leading innovations that are geared towards providing people with sustainable agriculture and healthy products.

Since the public is more reliant on the labels that identify foods as natural, the CEO said that they would also try to make information more accessible to the public on how to identify foods that are organic.

At the same meeting, Howard announced the launch of the “Power of D” campaign which is a year-long outreach campaign that will focus on the benefits of Vitamin D. For this; they will also have an advisory board that helps to tear into the research backing the benefits of the vitamin.

At the close of the conference, the former US senator Mr. Pryor gave his two cents on how to reach out to the office of the attorney general regarding the adverse climate of the supplement industry. He went at length on how the office of the attorney general could help in the practice and how the interaction between the members of the attorney general’s offices and those of the Organic and Health Association would be beneficial.

Inspired by organicandnatural.org

Trader Joe’s Starting a Price War With Whole Foods

Trader Joe’s is looking to tip the scales according to findings by Deutsche Bank. In a recent price comparison that was conducted by the bank, it was found that Trader Joe’s had a basket of 77 items that were 26% cheaper than their primary competitor Whole Foods. It is expected that the looming war will continue as organics continue to warm their way into the hearts of most people. It is more than evident that Trader Joe’s has taken an early lead in that war with their bitter rival Whole Foods Market.

While you might be tempted to call this a foul cry, the bank had conducted previous visits to the stores, and while Trader Joe’s had maintained a lower price overall, it was never of such a high magnitude. This was when the bank realized we are in the middle of a price war.

Whole Food is in Trouble

Even worse for Whole Foods, the retail grocery hack on prices extends to the private label brands. Trader Joe’s private labels were found to be 15% less costly than Whole Foods. That is not the end of it. Whole Foods private labels have consistently tried to match up with Trader Joe’s over the years, but they will face difficulties matching the price because of the high-quality ingredients in their products.

Trader Joe’s is also growing and recently hit the 500 stores mark. The discrepancy in their pricing led one analyst from Deutsche Bank to deduce that this was the stores way of making a price investment. This is what equates to a discount in the world of grocery retail. This is not the first time that Trader Joe’s has slashed prices catching Whole Foods with their pants down. Just over three years ago, the organics foods store slashed prices of more than 200 of the items they sold. The effect might not have been as significant then considering that the store had only 300 stores. Another analyst shared her concern that Trader Joe’s might be trying to set up Whole Foods Market. In recent times, there has not been such disparity in the pricing of the store, and this could be a sign that they are trying to set up their rivals. According to the article in Fortune, the spokesperson for Whole Foods was unavailable for comment.

How Will Whole Foods Adapt?

After exposing that their comparable sales dropped by 1.8%  in the last quarter and expected to fall another 2% by the end of the year, the last thing that Whole Foods would need right now is a price war. On a lighter note, the store does expect to have its sales rise by 3% to 5% as a result of the increased number of stores.

Later in the year, the Whole Foods is expected to open their first 365 concept store. It would be the first in their cheaper chain of stores that are geared to targeting young customers that can’t afford to shop at organic retailers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s.

A positive move forward for Whole Foods will be to reign in the prices on perishable items like produce and dairy. The study by Deutsche Bank found that the price gap was larger than 25% for these items. Whole Foods will hope that the 365 concept store shows promise as they try to make it through the organic retailer price war in 2016.

Inspired by Fortune.com

Unhealthy Additives Are Transforming Gatorade

Consumers are now connecting their health to the food and beverages that they consume. PepsiCo, who owns Gatorade, is facing a backlash regarding the types of unhealthy additives used in making their signature drinks.

So what’s inside a 32-oz Gatorade? It contains 54.4 grams of sugar which are more than the recommended daily allowance of an average person. Although 50 grams of sugar provides energy for individuals who are always working out or on the go, an average person does not have a need for it.

gatorade-label-serving-size-sugarSugar is the Silent Killer in Sports Drinks

There are different types of sugar. In chemistry, sugar is categorized as sucrose, fructose, glucose, maltose, and lactose. They are carbohydrates that fuel the body by providing the energy that it needs to sustain daily activities. Many food experts believe that sugar is one of the unhealthy additives that we include in our diet. It is important to take note that there are different forms of sugars, but one of the dangerous types of sugar for our health is sucrose, also known as white sugar or table sugar. Sugar is made from plants, and they can come from sugar beets or sugar cane. The natural juices are extracted from both plants and are crystallized to form white sugar which is made up of 99% sucrose.

Sugar is not a low-calorie additive. In fact, it has a high glycemic index (GI) which is a measure of blood glucose response after eating a particular food. Since its GI is high, this means that your blood sugar level is immediately elevated just a few minutes after consuming a tablespoon of it.

 

The Fight Against Sugar & Unhealthy Additives 

The ability of table sugar to raise the blood sugar level within a few minutes of ingesting it is the reason why people want to avoid Gatorade and other beverages.  For this reason, beverage companies are now launching innovations to keep their customers not only happy but also healthy. Many beverage companies are now offering low-calorie drinks, but their marketing strategy does not end there. Many companies are now attempting to create natural drinks by cutting out synthetic ingredients from their beverage mixtures.

For instance, PepsiCo removed the brominated vegetable oil from Gatorade’s formula in addressing the call of a 15-year old activist who launched an online campaign against the unhealthy additive. Moreover, the company also developed a sports drink that does not have artificial coloring and is sweetened with natural cane sugar.

The new line of beverages looks promising, but consumers are seeking drinks that fit their nutritional needs. Sport drink companies are trying to capitalize on the opportunity by creating healthier drinks without sacrificing the taste. For instance, both PepsiCo and Coke are now investing in coconut water, Suja juice, and sparkling water after calls by nutritionists to switch from sports drinks to drinks with less sugar and unhealthy additives.

Today, beverage companies are not only looking into making low-calorie drinks, but they also want to deliver beverages that are healthy—to fit the lifestyles of its many health-conscious consumers.

Inspired by businessinsider.com

beverages from whole fruit and vegetables nutrients vitaminsWhere are the Nutrients?

How are we able to market a beverage as “sports nutrition” and there are ZERO nutrients in the drink? On the other hand, some of these “nutritious” drinks are using synthetic vitamins and minerals to fortify their products. How is that any better? We should be looking for ways to deliver whole food nutrients into beverages like Gatorade and Powerade.

NutriFusion® developed a  patented method for stabilizing the nutrients in whole fruits and vegetables. We are here to help sports nutrition brands bring healthy, nutritious products to market. If you are interested in learning more, please visit the Beverages page below for more information.

World Food Prices Fell to Seven Year Low in January 2016

Since January 2016, world food prices dropped to a seven-year low, going down as much as 1.9% below that of December 2015’s food prices. The Food Price Index was at 150.4 points, 16% lower than the previous year.

The FAO Food Prices Index

world food pricesSo what is the Food Price Index and why is it important? It is a trade-weighted index that tracks the prices of basic commodity groups like cereals, dairy, oilseeds, sugar, and meat in the international market.  It measures the monthly changes in the international prices of the common food commodities consumed worldwide.

The value of the world food prices is affected largely by different factors including:

(1) conditions of the global economy
(2) strengthening or weakening of the US dollar
(3) supply conditions in agriculture
(4) the micro-conditions of different countries

All of the basic commodities are affected differently by these factors.

For instance, the price of dairy products in the international market fell by as much as 28.5% because the industry was hit by a surplus of supplies alongside falling demand. This trend was also noted for meat products which are 15.1% cheaper since January 2015 because of the high supply of pork meat. On the other hand, the positive situation of wheat production led FAO to increase its estimate of the world cereal output in 2015. However, this increased estimate was still 1.2% below the recorded harvest of the previous year.

Although there is a seven-year downward trend of the food prices in the international market, this does not mean that there is a huge surplus of the five basic commodities. The food price index is an average measurement and does not us  give the total picture of what is going on in the commodity production. For instance, the micro conditions such as El Niño have a direct effect on agriculture which leads to a low production of commodities like dairy and wheat.

In a specific example, the crop prospects in Southern Africa have been weakened by the El Niño phenomenon which resulted in the prediction by FAO that wheat output in the region can go down by as much as 25%.  Moreover, the dry weather in Ukraine and Brazil also impaired the planting season of the farmers.

Agriculture in the different regions of the world is unique from one country to  another. Some places are experiencing severe weather conditions that are unfavorable for planting while agriculture conditions in places like Russia compensate for the low production of other countries. This has created a buffer for the world food prices.

World Food Prices Shopping Consumer

What Does This Indicate

Just like the other price indices (stock and commodities), the international world food price index is entering the bear market and it can be a sign of the presence of mild inflation. While it might be a cause of alarm for producers as the high supply meets the low demand, consumers can use this opportunity to buy more of the five basic commodities to help improve agriculture, the flow of products, and the market as well.

Inspired by reuters.com

New Study: Splenda Linked to Cancer

Whether or not sugar can have a substitute has been an often-debated topic. Consumers to reduce chances of sugar related diseases turned towards alternative sweeteners. One such product that was popularized as an alternative is Splenda. Splenda contains sucralose, a sweetener deemed harmless up until now.

The Problem with Sucralose

The Ramazinni Institute in Italy published a new study that revealed the dangers of sucralose. The risks include cancer and leukemia. Findings of the study do not align with the claims made by Splenda and their testing methods. Earlier studies on sucralose intake resulted in the conclusion that it remains “biologically inert”. Splenda products were marketed with a heavy emphasis on rigorous testing.  Consumers perceived the product to be much healthier than sugar, which helped raise Splenda’s sales to $177 million.

Here are the findings put forward by Ramazinni Institute in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health:

The test subjects included 457 male mice and 396 female mice. The subjects were administered with sucralose of varying dosages added to their food from 12 days of growth till they died. Sucralose dosage resulted in a raised level of cancer in the male rodents since the amount of Splenda in their diets was higher as compared to those of the female rodents. Also, researchers found the occurrence of leukemia among the male mice who were given a dosage level of 2,000 to 16,000 ppm.

Splenda is Still a Sweetener 

These revelations demand a further explanation on whether Splenda, even in small quantities can pose health risks. Additionally, the two human trials that got published and approved by the FDA lasted only four days and only tested Splenda regarding tooth decay. However, Splenda’s spokespersons claim that the research and its results are unreliable. The company is focusing on the data produced over a period of two decades which includes 100 research studies and experiments stating that “Extensive research strongly supports that sucralose is safe for everyone and does not cause cancer.”

Sucralose is an artificial ingredient. The major concern is whether the body can completely metabolize the ingredient. The Center for Science in the Public Interest strongly advises against the consumption of other artificial sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, and acesulfame potassium. Sucralose is a lot sweeter than aspartame and has found its way into several food and beverages.

Inspired by techtimes.com

Fortified Premixes: Fundamental Considerations

Research by the International Food Information Council Foundation on Food and Health revealed that 47% consumers prefer food with added nutrients. Consumers are now more aware of the food they eat. They read labels carefully and are informed enough to know the difference between what’s right for them and what isn’t. The massive demand for nutrient-rich food with added vitamins and minerals has given way to food fortification.

Food Fortification is the process of incorporating essential vitamins and minerals such as folic acid, iodine, vitamin A and iron into food products. These are blended into powdered premixes which are then added to products.

Fortified food was a breakthrough for disease elimination. Fortification is now used for filling nutrition gaps and balancing nutrient loss in the storing process of goods. Manufacturers are on the lookout for partners to launch their own fortified premixes and give their products additional features. However, it’s the process of formulating fortified premixes that pose the challenge. Here are the aspects that need to be considered regarding fortified premixes:

  • The fortification process relies heavily on the kind of food product that’s being fortified
  • Manufacturers need to chart a profile for the desired nutritional value.
  • The size of serving and shelf life must be considered.
  • Manufacturers will have to change the entire packaging and present the product as a new brand before the consumers.
  • The cycle of production will go through a significant change.
  • Cost-effectiveness is a major aspect of consideration for manufacturers.

The Desired Amount of Nutrients in Fortified Premixes

Manufacturers will have to chalk down the quantities of natural vitamins and other nutrients that are already present in the food and then decide what kind of nutrients must be added and in what quantities so as to meet the claim the product is looking to make. This is a critical decision when using GrandFusion® products in your premixes. GrandFusion® is heavily concentrated nutrients from whole fruits and vegetables. 112 mg of the GrandFusion® fruit mix is equivalent to 25% daily value in 6 essential vitamins including vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin B1, and vitamin B6.

Loss of Nutrients in Food Processing

To hold true to the labels, formulators will have to ensure that nutrient loss in the production processes and treatment of the product is calculated in advance and taken into consideration while creating the formula for the premixes. Nutrient loss in processing has caused problems for formulators and food manufacturers for a long a time. NutriFusion® is the solution to this problem. Our stabilized nutrients are capable of withstanding the intensive heating and cooling of modern day food processing. Our GrandFusion® products also have a minimum two-year shelf life to keep your nutrients stable through distribution and retail.

Adding the Right Elements

Vitamins and minerals that are to be added must blend in with the distinct taste, color, and aroma of the product recipe.

Fortified premixes do nothing to change the texture or taste of the food product. Therefore, manufacturers get to introduce a new product that isn’t very different from other items their brand is known for. But, it will have all the nutritional perks consumers are looking for.

The push for NutriFusion® nutrient fortification is simple: the difference is natural. Our GrandFusion® products are blends of whole fruits and vegetables so that we can deliver complete nutrition in a variety of products. The big difference between NutriFusion® nutrient fortification and synthetic nutrient fortification is bioavailability. Our products have 100% bioavailability versus 10% to 20% bioavailability for synthetic vitamins. Why? Our bodies need complete nutrients from fruits and vegetables to function properly, so we easily absorb these natural vitamins. On the other hand, synthetics are chemical formulations trying to resemble nature, and are bodies do not entirely recognize them. If you are building a non-GMO or Organic food product, please reach out to learn more about our nutrient fortification process. Also, please visit your respective category below to learn more about our products!

The Problem with American Diets: Ultra-Processed Foods

With all the food fads rallying for healthier food, the emphasis on “natural” foods and ingredients is now more important than ever. However, the changing food trends have done little to affect the diet of the average American. 58% of the calorie intake of Americans comes from ultra-processed foods according to a study was featured in BJM Open, a medical journal.

The Average American Diet

While the government has done its best to introduce guidelines, consumers continue to choose processed snacks, frozen foods, artificially sweetened desserts, and drinks. The Centre for Disease Control conducted a National Health and Nutrition Examination survey to record the food eating patterns of Americans. The research involved tracking the food items the candidates had eaten in the last 24 hours. It was found that out of all the calories consumed by the survey-takers, three from every five calories consumed came from ultra-processed food. Almost 30% of calories came from unprocessed and partially processed foods, ingredients like oil and salt made up 2.9% of the whole, and 10% came from canned and packaged food like cheese, meat, and vegetables. The statistics suggest that the consumption of ultra-processed foods is far greater and forms a significant chunk of the average American diet.

The Link Between Sugar & Ultra-Processed Foods

A recent dietary guideline introduced by the government suggested limiting the intake of added sugar in the American diet. Ultra-processed foods contain artificial flavors, colors, aromas, and sweeteners. 14% of the overall calories in ultra-processed foods come from sugar and added sweeteners. An increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods leads to an increase in the use of sugar too. Therefore, ultra-processed foods are primarily responsible for Americans crossing the suggested 10% limit on added sugar in the diet.

 

The Problem With Consumer Choices

While “healthy” and “natural” foods are in popular demand, consumers’ food choices in the market don’t reflect that need. Manufacturers continue to introduce healthy alternatives of food products to appeal to the health conscious, but consumers continue to pick salty snacks and products loaded with sweeteners. Many food brands have created new profiles and products to appeal to the new health-conscious consumer. However, if the food choices continue to lean towards ultra-processed foods, have any of the new products, and new guidelines helped Americans eat more healthy and nutritious food?

Inspired by latimes.com

New Dietary Guidelines Suggest 20% Reduction in Sugar

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced a drastic cut down on sugar. New dietary guidelines suggest a 20% drop in consumption of sugar-based calories.

The USDA and HHS added yet another diet restriction to the Dietary Guidelines that are renewed every five years. With an aim of reducing obesity and chronic diseases, the new diet rule seeks to limit the amount of sugar Americans have in food and beverages. Studies state that the average American consumes 270 sugar-based calories (or more than 13% of calories) on a daily basis.

Following the guidelines would mean a 60 calories reduction and on a national average, the numbers will go as high as 2.2 tonnes of sugar and corn syrup. Here’s how the implementation of the dietary guidelines will work out.

New Dietary Guidelines for Consumers

USDA Dietary Guidelines 2015 2020 SugarAs a step towards tackling the problem of obesity and health related issues, the 2015-2020 dietary guidelines draw attention to not just sugar, but caloric content of added sweeteners in food and beverage as well. The fitness-oriented consumer has a lot to gain regarding a better handle on diet plans. However, consumers will now have to be extra cautious about their purchases. Although limiting sugar intake helps consumer health goals, reading through product labels will become a challenge to the authenticity of alternatives. Meanwhile, health advocates believe that very few Americans will abide by the dietary guidelines.

 

Impact on Manufacturers

FDA New Nutrition Label 2016

On top of the new sugar guidelines, the FDA is proposing a new nutrition label for food products.

Introducing a decline in sugar consumption has a direct link with losses incurred by an entire industry dedicated to food and beverage manufacturers, especially soda and candy brands. On a larger scale, sugar and corn companies are in for a major setback. Manufacturers are beginning to react to the dietary guidelines in their own way. Just recently, The Sugar Association that represents several manufacturing companies dismissed the guidelines claiming that it has its basis in “weak science”. The American Beverage Association has funded multiple initiatives to fight tax and labelling laws. Coca-Cola took a different route and began promoting exercise regimes over diet plans for fitness. On the other hand, companies like Cargill have created low-sugar and non-sugar alternatives.

For the guidelines to be successful, the U.S government will have to conduct a lot more research and bring more awareness of sugar content on food labels.

Inspired by reuters.com