Podcasts about Food Marketing Institute

Do you pay attention to information printed on food labels? From eye-catching designs companies use to entice you to buy a product to nutrition facts panels to the tiny dates printed on packages. There's a lot going on to be sure. For policymakers, they hope that refining date labels on food packaging will help reduce the amount of uneaten food ending up in landfills. Food Waste is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service recently asked for public input on food date labels. So, we decided to gather some experts together to talk about this important policy tool. Roni Neff is a professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Senior Advisor at the School's Center for a Livable Future. Her research looks at the intersection of food waste policy, climate change, and food system resilience. Brian Roe is a professor at the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Developmental Economics. His work focuses on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics, and product quality. Ruiqing Miao is an associate professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology at Auburn University's College of Agriculture. His research emphasizes sustainability, innovation, and decision making. Interview Summary Brian, let's begin with you and let's make sure everyone's on the same page. Can you talk to us a little bit about what date labels are and where they are on packaging. And what is industry required to include in terms of these date labels? Yes, so date labels, we see them anytime we pick up a food package. Most packages are going to have some type of date label on them. Oddly, federal law doesn't regulate these or really require these other than the exception of infant formula, which is the only federal requirement domain out there. But in the absence of federal regulation, states have kind of done their own thing. About 40 different states require date labels on at least some food products. And about 20 states prohibit or restrict the sale or donation of food past the label date. And even though states that require date labels, manufacturers can still choose the dates. There are no real regulations on them. So, recognizing that confusion over date labels can lead to unnecessary food waste, Government and industry actors have made, you know, some efforts to try to standardize date labeling language. But nothing terribly authoritative. Now, some states have introduced bills that seek to standardize date labels, with the motivation to try to get rid of and reduce food waste. California being perhaps the most recent of these. In 2024, they passed a bill that prohibits the use of any date label other than 'Best if Used By,' the phrase that goes along with foods where the date represents kind of a quality indicator. And then the phrase 'Use By,", if that date has some implications for product safety. The bill doesn't go into effect until July of '26, so we're going to see if this is going to create a domino effect across other states, across the food manufacturing center or even bubble up and be dealt with at the federal legislation level. Now, industries tried to do things before. Back in 2017, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocers Manufacturers Association had a standardized date labeling suggestion that some firms bought into. FDA has given out some guidance about preferring 'Best if Used By' on certain food products to indicate quality. But again, we're all kind of waiting to see if there might be a federal legislation that kind of brings these state labels into check. Thanks, Brian. And it's really important to know about the policy landscape and the fact that there hasn't been a federal policy across all foods. And it's interesting to see the efforts of, say, in California. I think this begs the question; how do consumers actually process the information of date labels? This fascinated us too. A very clever person at Ohio State that I work with, Dr. Aishwarya Badiger, led a study I was part of. We enlisted consumers to come into the Consumer Evaluation Lab that we have here on campus and evaluate samples of milk. They were presented with the label of each milk. We gave them a little glass with a nose full of the milk that they could sniff. So, they're looking at the date label, they're given the sample they could smell, and then we kind of asked them, Hey, if this were in your fridge, would you keep it or toss it? But the entire time we actually had them fitted with special glasses that precisely track their eye movements so we could understand kind of which information they were looking at while they went through the whole process of evaluating and then making their decision. Consumers overwhelmingly looked at the date itself on the package and largely ignored the phrase or the words that go along with the date. In fact, for more than half of the evaluations, the consumer's eyes never went anywhere near the phrase. This is important. And actually, we'll talk about that a little bit more with some of our other guests. So, what are the implications of date label policies? So the eye tracking research really drove home to me that dates are much more salient than phrases. Although all the policies largely deal with the phrases. Dates give you actionable information. People can look at the date on the label, look at the calendar, and man, that's something they can do something about. They can act based upon that. The phrases are a little bit more ambiguous as Roni will talk about later. I think that people have a hard time interpreting what those phrases really mean. That doesn't mean we should not try to unify those phrases, but rather this is going to be a longer-term investment in educational infrastructure that until those phrases really become salient and actionable to consumers. And then become more of a critical component of the policies. But right now, policies are generally silent on dates. And dates seem to be the real action mover. Yeah. So why don't we just get rid of all of this? What would be the implications? Yes. We did this experiment too. Same kind of setup. Had people come in, they had the jug of the milk in front of them. They had a glass of milk that they could sniff. Same thing. And we had a bunch of different milks. We had some that were only like 15 days post pasteurization. Some that went out to like 40 days past pasteurization. So, the youngest or the freshest had about three days, quote unquote, left on its date label. The 40-day old milk was like two or three weeks past the date. And we did two things. We had them evaluate the milk with the dates on the jugs, and then we had ones where we took the dates and the labels off the milk. Not surprisingly, when they did not have the dates on the milk, they were much more likely to say that they would keep the milk. Even that 40-day old milk, about half of them said, yeah, I'd drink this. I'd keep this if it were in my fridge. But it wasn't a slam dunk. So, our youngest and freshest milk had an odd flavor note. You know, sometimes as the seasons change, feed sources change for cattle, you get an odd flavor note. It's not spoilage, it's just a slightly different note. And when people have the date label, they were much more willing to give that milk a second chance and say that they would keep it. But if the date label wasn't on there, they took that odd flavor note and said, I'm going to toss this milk. So, it's really kind of a nuanced thing. And if you would take those off, I think you're going to get some consumers who are going to kind of freak out without any guidance. And they might have kind of an itchy trigger finger when it comes to throwing away that milk or other products. So, it's compelling. We've seen England, the UK, do this; take dates off of certain products. But I would probably want to see a little more example of how consumers are responding to that before I fully endorse that as kind of a policy movement forward. Brian, thank you for that. And I have got to say, I was not expecting to have a conversation about the bouquet of a glass of milk. But this is really an interesting finding, and it does help us understand some other things that we're going to talk about. Roni, I want to turn our attention to you. And I know you are someone who's been involved in understanding date labels for a while. And I really appreciate it and I've said it before, but you're the reason I got into this work. I want to understand a little bit more about what are important things to understand about the misconceptions that consumers may have about food date labels? And why does it matter for policymakers? Well, I'll start with just saying that conceptions are what we know rationally. And it's not the whole picture because as Brian was alluding to a lot of our decision making is going on in our emotions. And like I can tell my son all day long the fact that that milk is okay, he's going to toss it because he doesn't trust it. There's a lot more going on than conceptions. But I want to talk about two misconceptions. The first one is that despite what Brian just said about the fact that these date labels other than infant formula aren't federally regulated, about two in five people think that they are. We just did a national consumer survey in January 2025, and this is one of the findings. And I did that along with Emily Broad Lieb from the Harvard Food Law and Policy Project and Akif Khan also from there, and then Dana Gunders from ReFED. And in addition to this idea that they're federally regulated, I'll say that these kinds of beliefs were most common among those who were 18 to 34, parents with children under age 18, and black and Hispanic consumers. Our earlier work also found that those who think that food date labels are federally regulated are more likely to discard food based on them. All this speaks to a real challenge. And, you know, it kind of makes sense, like if you see something and you trust it, that it's from the federal government. And of course, we all trust the federal government these days. If you trust it, then you're going to respond to it. So that's an implication for food policy. And then the next thing we did also is that we tested understanding of five different food date label phrases: a date with no text, and then two of those phrases accompanied by icon images. And since none of these actually have a federally recognized meaning the correct answer for all of them in terms of the meaning is like other. But we also accepted answers that were aligned with that voluntary industry standard, just to kind of see how people were perceiving it. And, across all of these labels, only an average of 53% of people answered correctly about what these labels meant. Now, consumers were pretty good at identifying 'Best if Used By' as a quality label. But the real challenge comes in with 'Use By' which under the voluntary industry standards should be a safety label. And more people thought it was a quality label than thought it was a safety label; 44% versus 49%. And so, we need to clear up these misconceptions in support of food safety, in support of food waste prevention. But in order to do that, we need to be able to tell people clearly what the labels mean. And we can't really do that if there's no standardized meaning of what they mean. So, we really need a national standard, and that is the policy implication. Thank you for that. And I know Ruiqing and I have done some work in this space and in part learning from what you all have done. I'm interested because you mentioned the 2025 survey, but of course you also mentioned the 2016 survey. Are there any big shifts or anything that you want to tell us about changes that you see from those two different surveys? We asked a number of the same or almost identical questions in those two surveys. And since that time, we've adopted a voluntary industry standard and there's been a lot of education and communication about wasted food. And yet in our survey we actually found that things were going in the wrong direction. Consumer misunderstandings of date labels increased. Those who quote always or usually discard food based on the label: in 2016, that was 37%, and this year it was 43%. And then in terms of belief that these are federally regulated: in 2016 it was 36% and now it's 44%. We're going in the wrong direction despite all these activities, and I don't know why. I think for those who are looking for future research questions, this would be a really interesting one. This is really disturbing because all of the information that's come out about date labels. I thought people would understand this. And that this is where we would be in a different place. So, this work is really important. So, how did people's response to date labels vary by food item? Did you see any differences? Because this is something that comes up often that people may be more responsive to some food products versus others? Yeah, indeed. We asked about five different foods, and we showed a bunch of different labels for each food. And the responses did vary both based on the item and based on what label was on it. And I'll start with where caution is needed. Deli meats are one example of where we really want people to pay attention to that label. And while there's no federal standard that label's the best piece of information people has, so they should use it. And we found that only 65% would throw out the deli meat before, on, or just after the 'Use By' label. And the number of people that would respond to it reduced with other labels that were used, and older adults were most likely to disregard those labels. And they may be particularly vulnerable in terms of foodborne illness. So that's when lack of caution leads to risk. On the other hand, when caution leads to waste, we looked at raw chicken, pasteurized milk, lettuce, and breakfast cereal. And for all of those there, like the label is really only telling you about quality, and consumers should use their senses to decide, and knowledge of how that was, stored to decide whether to eat it. And so, the most common out of all five foods, including the deli, the one that they responded the strongest to was raw chicken. And that chicken can be contaminated as we know, but if you cook it, you're killing those bacteria, so it's okay. And averaging across all those different date labels, we found 54% would discard these four foods based on the date. And the piece that was most striking to me was that for breakfast cereal, 43% said they were discarded based on the date. So, we've got some education to do. Yeah. In the earlier paper I did with colleagues at Cornell, we used breakfast cereal and we were surprised to see how much people willing to throw away breakfast cereal if it were passed to date. There is confirmation and we see this happen in many other products. And we'll definitely talk about some of those product differences with Ruiqing. The last question I'd like to ask you is you found that many consumers thought they knew the meanings of the various food date labels, but they were incorrect. And in some of the work that you've done in the past, you found that many people answered incorrectly even after viewing information about the labels. So even when you educated folks or gave people information, they still made incorrect choices. Why do you think this is, and what should we do about it? And some people's responses do improve when you show them the information, but it was striking in that study that seconds after having read the definition, according to the voluntary industry standard, people were giving the wrong answer. Even though they had previously said that they thought they understood it. So, to me, this suggests that they already think they know the answer and so they're not tuning in. And this speaks to a real challenge that we're going to have when we do standardize these date labels. How are we going to reach people and capture their attention. Like, if we just change the policy, that does nothing. We've got to reach people and we've got to do it in a sophisticated and well-planned way. And I think the education should also emphasize that misunderstandings are common because that might be something that would help wake people up. But beyond that, we've got to capture their attention. So, you know, dancing clowns, whatever it is that wakes people up. I have a fear of clowns, so I'm not sure if I want that as a policy recommendation. However... For the deli meats we want you to be afraid, so it's okay. Yes, I agree. I agree. One of the things that this conversation has helped us see is that there's some real concerns around whether or not people are paying attention to the label. Or there may be paying more attention to the dates. And even when people are taught or encouraged to think about the dates, there seems to be a mismatch. And Ruiqing, I want to now turn to you because one of the things in the study that we were a part of, there's some questions about differences among people. So, in the paper that we recently published on the relationship between date labels and anticipated food waste, and people's individual orientation to risk and loss, can you tell us a little bit about what some of the key findings of that paper are? Right. So, the paper is published recently in Applied Economics Perspective Policy. It's one of the official journals of Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). Norbert is the leading author. So, this paper built on the framework of prospect theory and is based on the data from a series of experiments we conducted in Alabama and also the state of New York. We find that consumers do adjust their anticipated food waste by date labels and by how much they tolerate risk and losses. In the experiment, we particularly measured their tolerance to risk and losses. We found that the 'Use By' date labels tend to lead to more anticipated food waste than 'Best Buy'. Maybe this echo what Roni has said. So, people may tend to link 'Use By' with quality and food safety. We also found that the consumers with low tolerance to losses and are associated with higher anticipated foot waste regardless of date labels and the products. So, we can see a heterogeneity of the responses of different consumers to date labels and food items based on their tolerance to losses and risks. Thank you for that. And I think this is a really important aspect of looking at this set of studies because we see that people are different. They respond differently. And they have different ideas about how they handle losses. This idea that it can be worse to lose a hundred dollars versus to gain a hundred dollars. Or the way we understand how we'll negatively respond versus how positively we respond. Using this economic framework of prospect theory, something that is drawn from actually the psychology literature to better understand how people react to food labels while shopping. What are some key features of this approach to explaining people's behaviors and why do you think it's a good choice? Why do you think it's important to do this? One of the key features of prospect theory is it divides the possible outcomes of a risky event into two domains. One is a gain domain and one is a loss domain. So, in terms of the food consumption, probably the most likely status quo is do not eat the food items. So, the gain domain might be gaining nutrition from the food item. The loss domain might be the loss of health if the food item is bad. So, I think this framework fits particularly well to describe the consumer's trade off in their mind when they face a food item with a date label that is maybe one day or two days past the expiration date. So, one possibility is you consume this food. If it is good, you get nutrition and if it is bad, you potentially get lost health or lose one day of work or so on. So, I think this model can capture the trade off or the decision-making procedure in a consumer's mind pretty well. And experiments data support the theoretical prediction that loss aversion may affect people's food waste decisions. Thank you for that. And I think what's one of the sort of take home messages that I've learned out of this process is this heterogeneity, the fact that people are different and may respond differently to these date labels, really does put the onus upon policymakers to think critically what date labels, if we were to use them, or if we think they have an effect, which are the right ones. And so I actually want to open up the question to all of you. In your view, what next steps make sense for date labels to help address the food waste challenges that we see in this country? Let's start with you, Brian. Ooh, yeah. So, to me a compelling issue that needs to be addressed is how do we get 'Use By' to really translate to be people to be about safety? Is it a different color? I know we don't want to mess with the phrases, but do we just call this safety date and put it in red or put a clown by it if that scares you. Something along those lines to make that stand out. And then on the relevance side, I think it might be out of policy, but perhaps, industry collaboration to really push printed dates to the end of that quality horizon. So that everybody has confidence that they're not going to get undercut by somebody else having an earlier date printed for cereals or for canned goods or something like that. To have a kind of a truce among commercial interests to say, okay, typically canned beans, has this type of 180 days or 360 days. Let's push it to the end of that acceptable horizon so that we don't have unwarranted waste happening as often. Those are two ideas that I've kind of chewed on a lot and think could be positive steps forward. But I'm fascinated to hear what others think. Thank you, Brian and I really don't like the idea of putting clowns anywhere near this. I want to go to you, Roni. All right, well first, I'll a thousand percent echo everything that Brian just said. And I'll note also in terms of the 'Use By' date, the label that was most commonly associated with food safety was 'Expires On' by consumers. But that isn't part of what has been under [policy] discussion. But anyway, in addition to echoing that, I'll just say we do need a standardized policy and it has to be accompanied by a well-designed education campaign. And this policy change, it's just a no-brainer. It's not controversial. It's fairly minimal cost. And given the high food prices and the struggles that consumers are having right now, they need every tool that they can to save money and food, and this is one of them. Great. Thank you, Roni. I'll give the last word to you, Ruiqing. Yeah. I will echo what Brian and Roni said. So, a well-designed policy and public education campaign. Particularly for the education campaign. I think regardless of if there is a policy change or not, I think it is time to do a public education campaign. Norbert, we have done the research on food waste for almost nine years, right? So, I learned a little bit about the date label's meaning. But still, I cannot change my wife's opinion. When she sees sell by yesterday for the milk, she would suggest we throw it away. But I said this is not for us, this is for sellers. But she wouldn't believe so because I cannot persuade her. But maybe an education campaign from more authoritative institutional federal government can change people's mind as a researcher or like even husband cannot change. Roni - And can I just add to that, just please. I think that the economics and psychology expertise that all of you have can really contribute to that. Because I think that's a really important point that you're making. And it's not just factual, it's emotional too. And so how do we, you know, get in there and change what people do beyond their knowledge? Bios Roni Neff is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Environmental Health & Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, an academic center focused on food systems and public health. Her research focuses on wasted food through the lens of equity and public health. She is a co-Director of the RECIPES national food waste research network, and she recently served on the National Academies of Science and Medicine consensus panel on consumer food waste. Brian Roe is the Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University. Roe has worked broadly in the areas of agricultural and environmental economics focusing on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics and product quality. He was recently named as a fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and has previously served as an editor for the Association's flagship journal, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. He currently leads the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative, a collection of researchers, practitioners, and students working together to promote the reduction and redirection of food waste as an integral part of a healthy and sustainable food system, and co-leads the RECIPES Network, a National Science Foundation Sustainable Regional System's Research Network focused on increasing food system sustainability, resilience and equity by addressing the issue of food waste.  In addition to research on food waste, his other recent research includes a USDA funded project focused on local foods and school lunch programs and participation in an NSF-funded multidisciplinary team seeking to understand human-ecosystem feedbacks in the Western Lake Erie basin, including understanding how farms and agribusinesses respond to voluntary environmental programs and how Ohio residents respond to different options to manage Lake Erie water quality. Ruiqing Miao is an agricultural economist at Auburn University. Miao is interested in sustainability, innovation, and decision-making. His research focuses on the interaction between agricultural production and its environment, aiming to understand and quantify 1) agriculture's impact on land use, water use, water quality, and biodiversity, and 2) how agricultural production is affected by farmers' behaviors, public policies, agricultural innovation, technology adoption, and climate change.

The CPG Guys are joined in this episode by Mark Baum, Chief Commercial Office at the Food Marketing Institute and Liz Buchanan, North America President of NielsenIQ. FMI & NielsenIQ are collectively performing a joint research along with Thinkblue LLC - a consulting powerhouse that includes our co-host Sri, on the latest in retail media. They are interviewing brands, retailers and service providers to determine where this RMN topic evolves. The firest iteration of results is to be published at FMI mid winter in late Jan 2025.Follow Mark Baum on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-baum-28b8822/Follow FMI on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/fmithefoodindustryassociation/Follow FMI online here: https://www.fmi.org/Follow Liz Buchanan on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/liz-buchanan-35b2007/Follow NIQ on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/nielseniq/Follow NIQ online here: https://nielseniq.com/global/en/We asked Liz & Mark these questions:1) Why partner on retail media, why now? Mark follows Liz.2) What can the industry expect in a partnership between your organizations? Is it a one time effort to land an opinion or will we see an evolution? Mark goes first.3) Who is the desired audience for the research? Where can the industry broadly find the results? Will there be a learning component or is it a white paper only?4) what is NIQ's offerings on retail media? How does this complement what you do5) why partner on retail media, why now? 6) What can the industry expect in a partnership between your organizations? Is it a one time effort to land an opinion or will we see an evolution? 7) Who is the desired audience for the research? Where can the industry broadly find the results? Will there be a learning component or is it a white paper only?8) what is NIQ's offerings on retail media? How does this complement what you do?CPG Guys Website: http://CPGguys.comFMCG Guys Website: http://FMCGguys.comCPG Scoop Website: http://CPGscoop.comRhea Raj's Website: http://rhearaj.comLara Raj on PopStar Academy: https://www.netflix.com/us/title/81587828?s=i&trkid=258593161&vlang=enDISCLAIMER: The content in this podcast episode is provided for general informational purposes only. By listening to our episode, you understand that no information contained in this episode should be construed as advice from CPGGUYS, LLC or the individual author, hosts, or guests, nor is it intended to be a substitute for research on any subject matter. Reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by CPGGUYS, LLC. The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. CPGGUYS LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability or responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or other damages arising out of any individual's use of, reference to, or inability to use this podcast or the information we presented in this podcast.

The CPG Guys are joined in this episode by Doug Baker, VP of Industry Relations at the Food Marketing Institute. As the food industry association, FMI works with and on behalf of the entire industry to advance a safer, healthier and more efficient consumer food supply. FMI is a champion for the food industry and the issues that make a difference to our members' fundamental mission of feeding and enriching society. The reach and impact of our work is extensive, ultimately touching the lives of over 100 million households in the United States and representing an $800 billion industry with nearly 6 million employees.Follow Doug Baker on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/debaker/                         Follow FMI on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/fmithefoodindustryassociation/Follow FMI online at: https://www.fmi.org/CPG Guys Website: http://CPGguys.comFMCG Guys Website: http://FMCGguys.comCPG Scoop Website: http://CPGscoop.comNextUp Website: http://NextUpisnow.org/cpgguysRetailWit Website: http://retailwit.comRhea Raj's Website: http://rhearaj.comDISCLAIMER: The content in this podcast episode is provided for general informational purposes only. By listening to our episode, you understand that no information contained in this episode should be construed as advice from CPGGUYS, LLC or the individual author, hosts, or guests, nor is it intended to be a substitute for research on any subject matter. Reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by CPGGUYS, LLC. The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent.  CPGGUYS LLC expressly disclaims any and all liability or responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or other damages arising out of any individual's use of, reference to, or inability to use this podcast or the information we presented in this podcast.

The average American family of four loses roughly $1,500 annually, not eating the foods they purchased. This uneaten food, at best, ends up in a compost heap or goes to household pets, or worst, this wasted food ends up in the trash, a total loss. Of course, no one wants to waste food, but there is often a disconnect between what people know they should do, as opposed to what they would do. This podcast is part of a series on food waste. My colleagues, Agricultural Economist, Brenna Ellison of Purdue University, and Penn State's Applied Economist, Linlin Fan, and I, asked people to tell us what food waste prevention measures they would support. And we asked which strategies they thought would work. The study was published recently in the "Journal of Cleaner Production." Interview Summary   Norbert - Brenna, I'll start with you. What are some common reasons that households waste food?   Brenna - Thanks for the question, Norbert. As we all know, because we've been working on this topic for quite some time together, there are lots of reasons why a household might waste food. Some of the big ones that we know contribute to household waste, are misunderstanding date labels. So Norbert, I know you've done some research separate on this, but if you're a consumer in the grocery store you might see "used by," "sell by," "best by," "best if used by." Lots of different terminology, none of it particularly well regulated. Only baby formula has regulations on how date labels are used. So there is definitely misunderstanding on how to apply those date labels and if they are signaling something as unsafe to eat. We also know that households struggle with planning and food inventory management. So often, I am even guilty of this. I'm a very optimistic planner when it comes to cooking for the week. But the reality is, when it's Wednesday and I'm tired and just want takeout, then you over optimistically planned your food. We also know that US households in particular, are sometimes guilty of over purchasing because they have a good host mentality. You always want more to less. You definitely don't want the issue of running out. And then similar to misunderstanding date labels, there's often concerns over food safety. And so, you know, when we think about people and their personal cost-benefit calculations, if there's a concern that something might make you sick, you might prefer to throw that out rather than incur the cost of missing work or childcare or things like that. So those are just some of the reasons. Certainly there are plenty more but I think that's probably a good starting point.   Norbert - Brenna, I really do appreciate this. I am the food safety person in my household. That is really my title. And there are just times when I have thrown things out because I just didn't know. I wasn't going to risk it. So I appreciate those comments and it seems like this is a challenge that all of us are facing. There are probably some ways that we can actually help manage this. So Linlin, I want to turn it to you now. In your view, how can we begin to reduce some of this food waste at the household level?   Linlin - There are some research showing there are ways to effectively reduce the food waste. For example, like Brenna just mentioned, we can streamline the date labeling terminology, and the industry have begun to take steps to address that. For example, the Consumers Brand Association, representing the major food manufacturers in the US, and Food Marketing Institute, representing food retailers, have begun to encourage their industry members to adopt "best if used by" for food quality, and "used by" for food safety. Another effective way to reduce food waste is larger-scale consumer education campaigns to inform consumers on issue of food waste, and also how to reduce their own food waste. Improve household planning behaviors around shopping, meal preparation, using a shopping list before you go, eat before you shop, these are all effective ways to help reduce food waste and better prepare for shopping. There are more opportunities offered for diversions, for example, composting. Those are several ways that could help with household food waste.   Norbert - Linlin, thank you so much for that. What I hear from you is this idea that there can be things at the macro level or at the governmental level, where we could change some things about how we regulate date labels. You said that industry is already doing some of this work, but there have been a couple of instances where Congress has introduced bills to actually regulate those labels for all products, not just for infant formula. There are things that we as individuals can do. So I'm really appreciative of you sharing the wide variety of ways that we can see a reduction in food waste, looking at the household, all the way up to actual federal law. Linlin, I want to continue on with you and ask you to share with our listeners more about our recent study on what food waste reduction efforts US consumers support? Could you tell us a little bit more about that?   Linlin - Sure. Our study assessed the public support for nine food waste solutions, including changes in food packaging, portion size, standardizing the data labeling system, selling imperfect produce in retail stores, making donations easier, using uneaten food to feed animals, implementing composting in communities, consumer education campaigns on food waste, and tax food waste. So we sent an online survey to a nationally representative sample of US respondents, and asked them about their support for, and perception of effectiveness, of each food waste solution I just mentioned. We found that making donations easier and the standardization of data labels, were the most supported food waste solutions.   Norbert - I must admit, I was really intrigued when we looked at the numbers. Very few people wanted to see taxes on food so I'm not surprised by that. It was interesting to see the things that they would be willing to accept as possible policy. Brenna, I'm intrigued because there was another part of this study. Will you tell us a little bit more about how support for a particular strategy relates to the belief that that strategy will work?   Brenna - So in general, we found pretty high levels of support for most food waste reduction options. To the tune that large majorities, with the exception of taxes, said that they might or definitely would support those policies. However, there is a bit of a gap when they say these same policies will be effective. If we look at just the most supporting and the people who believe the policies will be most effective, we're talking in the range of like, 15 percent-ish difference. People are generally more willing to support a policy than they believe it will be effective. There is a bit of a gap. This isn't too surprising if we look at practical examples we've already seen. Particularly as it relates to animal welfare, we see a lot of policies being passed where people want better animal welfare regulations, for, let's say, chickens related to living space. But then, when it comes to practice and we have to buy more expensive eggs, people are less willing to do that. That is something that we saw when California passed their Animal Welfare regulations. At least from an academic perspective, we call this the vote-buy gap or the claim-action gap. In general, we want to support things like reducing food waste because we all know it's undesirable. But in terms of our willingness to change behavior, that's a little bit harder to shift.   Norbert - Thank you for that. I think it's really important for us to appreciate this. I realize that we get really excited and we can be very passionate about certain causes. But when we actually have to do it, when we have to live that out, it's sometimes hard. I know that's true for all of us and so I'm grateful to hear that. I think it's something that, as policymakers begin thinking about these issues, need to take that into consideration. I'm hopeful for what we can do further. That's my question for both of you. As you watch the evolution of research on food waste, especially at the household level, take place, you know, what are some important questions that remain? What do we need to do more research on? Linlin, why don't you start?   Linlin - Yes, sure. There are a lot of questions to be answered. This is still a active area of research. So first, how can we better measure food waste at the household level on a large scale? There are several models, but still people are trying to figure out a better, more accurate, and easier way to track the food waste at the household level on a large scale. Second, I've mentioned several ways to reduce the food waste, but what's the most effective way to reduce food waste at the household level, and how does it vary with household circumstances and attributes? Those are all interesting questions for future research.   Norbert - Great. Brenna, what about you?   Brenna - Well, I definitely agree with the things that Linlin said, and I would just add the personal space that I'm increasingly interested in, is the intersection between food waste and nutrition. So we know that the US generally has a food waste problem, and we also have an obesity problem that are both linked to maybe having surplus or excess food. Yet when we think about them from a policy perspective, we don't generally talk about them together. I think we need to spend a little bit more time thinking about the nutritional consequences associated with food waste, and how do we get people to kind of behave in a way that's optimal to both nutrition outcomes as well as waste outcomes.   Norbert - I do believe that both of these topics are really ones that are important to us. I appreciate the challenge of trying to evaluate what actual food waste happens and trying to understand the interventions that are most effective, and particularly ones that don't cost as much but also leads to the greatest outcome. And then Brenna, the work that you're talking about, linking food waste and concerns around nutrition and wellbeing, are also really critical. So thank you both for all of those responses, and really, thank you for participating in this podcast.   Bios   Brenna Ellison is an Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Coordinator in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University. Dr. Ellison's research focuses on how people make food choices, particularly how information and other environmental factors impact those choices.   Linlin Fan is an applied economist at Pennsylvania State University with interests in food policy and nutrition. The overall objective of her research is to understand how various food policies affect people's food choice, health and welfare. The findings of her research provide important insights into current policy debate on food prices, food security and food waste.  

As we kick off 2023, we're looking at emerging retail and consumer trends and ideas that convenience stores can take advantage of. Hosted by: Jeff Lenard About our Guests: Anne-Marie Roerink, Principal, 210 Analytics LLC Anne-Marie is principal and founder of 210 Analytics, where she specializes in quantitative and qualitative market research. She previously held research positions with the Food Marketing Institute, Green Charge Network and the American Society of Travel Agents.

This episode takes us back in time to September 2018 for a talk from our Acton Lecture Series.Students of 20th century American history know of the importance of the Marshall Plan to the effort to rebuild Europe after World War II, as well as the leading role taken by the United States in building international institutions and alliances that would be central to maintaining peace and checking the expansionist desires of the communist world. What you may not know is that a central figure in the creation of those institutions was a United States Senator from Michigan who, prior to the war, had been a leader of the isolationist faction in Congress. The story of how Arthur Vandenberg came to be one of the founders of modern American foreign policy is recounted in the book Arthur Vandenberg: The Man in the Middle of the American Century, from Hank Meijer.Hank Meijer is co-chairman and CEO of Meijer, Inc. in Grand Rapids and vice-chairman of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation. He serves on the executive committee of the Food Marketing Institute and is a trustee of the National Constitution Center and The Henry Ford. He is a member of the University of Michigan's President's Advisory Group and the Ford School of Public Policy board of advisors and chairs the board of the Kettering Foundation.His biography of Senator Vandenberg was published in 2017 by the University of Chicago Press.Subscribe to our podcastsArthur Vandenberg: The Man in the Middle of the American Century | Amazon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Episode #45, we speak with Nathan Castellano from Jenner & Block about a very important topic to contractors who enter into agreements with the Federal Government.   In May 2022 issue of "Briefing Papers" Published by Thomson Reuters, Nathan discusses in length Exemption 4 where in 2019 the Supreme Court decided a case in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media on that topic.   In FPS Podcast Episode #45, Nathan walks listeners through the importance of Exemption 4 and what contractors should do to protect against the release of commercial confidential information .  

Today, we're going to talk salt with Dr. Michael Jacobson, former president and co-founder of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Dr. Jacobson is one of the authors of an important article published recently in the journal Hypertension. The article comes to a startling conclusion that delays in implementing voluntary sodium reduction targets by the food and restaurant industry may result in nearly 265,000 preventable deaths between 2017 and 2031. Interview Summary   So Mike, you've been a hero of mine for decades and I really admire the work you've done on so many different topics. And you and I have written a thing or two over the years which has been a great pleasure for me to do, but on things like soda taxes and nutrition policy, but you've also had a really long standing deep interest in the issue of salt. So let's start with the following question. Tell us why salt is a problem.   The main concern about too much salt is that it contributes to high blood pressure. That's a major cause of heart attacks and strokes, kidney disease, and probably some other problems both here in the United States and throughout the world. In almost all cultures, people are drinking/eating excessive amounts of salt far more than what the World Health Organization or the Department of Health and Human Services here in the United States recommends. Hypertension experts have been concerned about excess salt for decades and decades. Back in 1969, there was a White House conference on food, nutrition, and health and one of the recommendations was to reduce sodium intake. Mostly sodium chloride, but also some other ingredients in food besides salt and nothing was done. I first got involved in this in 1977 when a newly minted nutritionist came to Center for Science in the Public Interest, Bonnie Leaman. And I asked her to look into salt and what she found was very disconcerting. It seemed like a wide range of hypertension experts was encouraging people to consume less salt and some people were urgent government action. So in 1978, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to restrict levels of sodium and packaged in restaurant foods and require warnings on foods that contained excessive amounts of sodium. Almost nothing was done and the next 45 years or so is just a history of inaction by the most responsible health officials in the country. And similar inaction was occurring worldwide. And there've been Institute of Medicine reports, World Health Organization reports and a whole bunch of things like that. But Americans are consuming today just about the same amount of sodium as we were consuming 10, 20, 30 or more years ago. It's really a sad tale about government in action and we can talk about some of the reasons why that's happened.   I'd love to hear some of that and boy, it's pretty disheartening that the scientific evidence has been around so lot, but so is the inaction. So I'd like to get to the why of this in a minute, but let me ask you a question first. Does the problem mainly come from how you and I, and everyone else, uses a salt shaker on foods at home or in restaurants, or is it salt added by the industry to foods that people buy?   Well 100 years ago, it probably would've been the salt shaker, but now the vast majority of foods that we eat come in boxes and cans. They come in freezer cases at grocery stores and restaurants. We get about a third of our food from restaurants and that's really the culprit - and it should make it easier to solve this problem. But instead of having to persuade 330 million people to put down the salt shaker, the government could set limits on the amount of sodium in different packaged foods. Or it could require warning notices on foods to contain excessive amounts of sodium and let me just give you a few examples. This is from my book, Salt Wars, of some restaurant meals and to give you just a benchmark. The government recommends that people consume no more than 2300 milligrams of sodium per day, 2300 milligrams. It's about a teaspoon worth of salt. So compared to the 2300 milligrams, if you get a spicy chicken sandwich with fries and chicken soup at Chick-fil-A, you're getting 50% more than that. You're getting 3,800 milligrams of sodium. A roasted turkey breast sandwich at Jason's Deli, 4,200. At Chili's restaurant, honey chipotle crispers and waffles, 4,700, twice as much as the recommendation. At an AMC movie theater, you can get a soft pretzel with more than three times as much sodium. So the amounts are just outrageous and that reflects that it's cheap and easy to add salt to a food and most people like the taste of salt, it's built into us genetically and the portions at restaurants are gargantuan. So that's turned restaurant food into a major problem for sodium.   Mike, I think you've started to answer the question about why these changes haven't been made. It sounds like industry is probably having pretty powerful sway over the lack of action that legislators have had in the past on this issue. Is that true? Are they just thinking we don't want to make this change because people will like our products more if they're high in sodium?   Yes, and they're afraid that if their company lowers sodium, a competitor might not lower sodium. And that's actually an advantage of having mandatory limits but the issue is the same as getting lead out of gasoline, getting DDT off of farms. Anytime there's a big corporate interest, big financial interest in the status quo, those companies, those industries don't want to change. It can be expensive to change - maybe you need new machinery, a new processes. In the case of salt, though, you hardly need to do anything. Obviously, if a company wants to lower sodium, it needs to taste the food before it sends it out on the marketplace. And it might have to replace some of the salt with other seasonings, add or more vegetables or more chicken, depending on the food. But it's not rocket science at all. It should be something that companies can do and some companies have really made an effort. Remember, nobody's saying get rid of all the salt. The government recommends that we reduce sodium intake from about 3,400 milligrams a day down to about 2,300. So that's a one third reduction in intake. And some companies are meeting the FDA's recommended limits right now, other companies are not. But it's something that companies just need to say “we're going to do it.” And usually they can change the food so that there's no difference in taste whatsoever. And there's one little trick that more and more companies are using is to replace table salt with potassium salt. Replace sodium chloride with potassium chloride, which isn't quite as salty as sodium chloride, regular salt. It's a great replacement and you can replace maybe a third of the sodium in a packaged food simply by using potassium chloride, and that extra potassium is really beneficial in reducing blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular disease, especially for people who already have high blood pressure.   So Mike, help me understand something. If it's pretty easy to make these changes for the industry and you say that you can do it in ways that don't make taste of the foods deteriorate, why in the heck aren't the companies doing it? You think for no other reason to stay out of the way to litigation might be a good reason to do this, but certainly they could score some public health points by doing this. Why aren't they doing it?   They certainly could. It takes an effort. They have to assign people. At a big company like ConAgra or General Mills that makes hundreds of products, that means they have to do it methodically. It's going to take some time and time is money. So maybe they have to hire some extra food technologists, extra dieticians, extra chefs to figure out the right combinations. So there is some expense, it's not totally free. I talked to ConAgra many years ago about trans fat and they said, when they got rid of trans fat from their foods, partially hydrogenated oil, they also looked at sodium. They found out that in some of their foods, they were using far too much salt and the extra salt wasn't even detectable. It wasn't making foods saltier. It was just a waste. And so they were able to cut back on sodium in some of their products like Chef Boyardee. No effect on taste and they saved a little bit of money to boot. And I mentioned potassium salt. Campbell has been using potassium salt in tomato soup. Their regular red label, condensed tomato soup probably their number one seller over the decades, and they didn't tell anybody. Nobody noticed, they just reduced sodium by I think it was about a third. So the government has known this. Everybody's known that companies could lower sodium, but the government, I think, was afraid to act because of members of Congress who are so anti-regulatory. And then food and restaurant companies in their districts might lobby them to stop the government from interfering with their businesses and that's all happened. They put pressure on legislators. It happened in the 1980s, it happened in the 2010s very recently. I can't emphasize this enough. Excess sodium is causing as many as 100,000 premature deaths every year. That's an unbelievable number, year after year after year, but it's silent. Obituaries don't say he died from eating too much salt, people just accept it and that a heart attack might occur one year or 10 years earlier than it might otherwise have done, but it's just happening in the background so silently.   So Mike let's loop back to your paper and hypertension and also your book, Salt Wars. I'm happy you mentioned that and I'll mention it again at the end. So it sounds like there's a clear case for action and that the government has done something on this. The FDA has proposed some voluntary targets. Could you talk to us about that and what's kind of the history of the FDA and what the heck's taken so long?   First, the major health authorities around the world have said for decades people are eating too much sodium. You've got to cut back, especially in packaged foods. So that's the World Health Organization, American Heart Association and others, but that's indisputable and you're right. The government has done something. We have nutrition labels now so people can compare one food to another. And I urge listeners go to the grocery store, look at salad dressings or soups or breakfast cereals or packaged meats. Almost every category of food will show a range of sodium levels. And in most categories, you can lower sodium by 25% or more simply by switching from one good tasting brand to another. So we got nutrition labels but that hasn't had an overall effect on sodium consumption and probably hasn't had much effect on industry. So in 2010, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report saying that past efforts to lower sodium intake have been a failure. And now it was time for the Food and Drug Administration to set mandatory limits on sodium in packaged foods in 2010. The Food and Drug Administration immediately said it wasn't going to do mandatory limits, but would come out with some voluntary targets. It took six years for the FDA to come out with voluntary targets in 2016. That was near the end of the Obama Administration and the administration wasn't able to finalize the proposed targets. So we go into the Trump years and that's when Congress stepped in and they told the FDA that it could not move forward with some of the targets that it was proposing or it would lose its funding. So that had an effect, but surprisingly, although the Trump Administration was vehemently anti-regulatory, but the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Scott Gottlieb, was in touch with reality. He was probably the only regulator in the government who was, and in 2018, he said the single most important thing to improve nutrition is to lower sodium levels and that the FDA was going to finalize those voluntary targets in 2019. Well, a few months later, Commissioner Gottlieb quit and the FDA under Trump didn't do anything. It took the Biden Administration not quite a year in October 2021 to finalize those voluntary targets. And so now we have to see will they work? And I'm skeptical that even these modest targets, which give industry two and a half years to lower sodium by an average of about 12%, I'm skeptical that they're going to have much of an impact. I don't see any real effort by the Food and Drug Administration to educate the public or to pound on industry's door and say, you got to lower sodium. I don't know if they're meeting with the big food companies and trade associations, but at least there's some movement and we should be grateful. But that over four year delay in finalizing the proposed voluntary targets has been deadly and that's what our paper calculates how many unnecessary deaths will have been caused by that four and a third year delay in finalizing those targets. And as you said earlier, it's roughly a quarter of a million unnecessary deaths between 2017 and 2031.   It's so discouraging to hear that. Now we face another period of some years that will be necessary to prove that the voluntary guidelines won't be met by the industry and then there will be a long process of talking about whether government should do anything, that'll depend of course, on who's in the White House. So, oh boy, it doesn't sound like anything's going to happen soon.   Not going to happen soon. So the FDA set targets for April 2024. It won't get the data on the effectiveness of the targets until probably 2025, 2026. And then what's it going to do if industry didn't do much? Then surely that would set the stage for mandatory limits, but to get those mandatory regulations will take many more years, probably five more years. And it's distressing how long it takes government to act on anything that touches somebody's interests, landowners, banks, food manufacturers. I've urged the Food and Drug Administration to immediately start developing mandatory limits and or warning notices for food packages so that if the targets are not met in 2024 or 2025, the FDA could immediately propose these stricter regulations and hopefully get them adopted within a couple of years, but to wait three years or four years before building that hammer to require action is naive.   So let me ask you this. So often the case that public health innovation does not begin in the United States and other countries are way out ahead of us on some of these things, is that true in the case of sodium and are there examples from other countries of things that have been done?   Well, the Britains consume about as much sodium as we do, but back in 2005 or so, the British government said people are consuming too much salt. And so it came up with voluntary targets that served as a model for the Food and Drug Administration 10 years later. And so the British government published these voluntary targets and it simultaneously mounted a major public health campaign, urging the public to read labels and reduce their sodium intakes to choose the lower sodium brands. And it also called out major companies that were lowering sodium and major companies that were not lowering sodium. So it really created an issue. And then it more quietly met with the big companies and tried to persuade them to lower sodium. And when the government looked five years later or so, it discovered that there'd been a 10 or 15% reduction in sodium intake. And remember, we don't have to stop consuming sodium, we need to make a about a one third reduction in sodium. And so that the British government got people down about one third of the way that they wanted to go. But then the government changed hands, there's been a conservative government in there and the campaign has just fallen by the wayside, but you could look at other countries. Turkey of all countries has set limits on sodium in bread, one of the major sources of sodium. South Africa has set limits on sodium, mandatory limits in bread, breakfast cereals, potato chips, cured meats, and a bunch of other categories. Israel and Chile have taken a different route. In Mexico, they require warning notices on foods that are high in sodium. So you can go around the world and at least 30 countries, maybe more have adopted either voluntary or mandatory programs to reduce sodium intake and that's partly because of the World Health Organization taking a very strong stand on this and other countries are looking at a place like Britain. Finland has achieved very significant reductions in sodium. So the examples from around the world show that it's feasible to make these really modest reductions in sodium levels and in packaged foods and people are perfectly content. I don't know if any consumer outrage about lowering sodium because people don't know the difference. It tastes just the same.   It's nice to hear some optimism in your voice when you talk about what's happened in other countries and let's hope that they will form models for the US to follow when the political will finally comes. So right now, what can consumers do? Is there anything?   Yes. The easiest thing is when you're shopping, look for lower sodium brands of just about any category of food. Jesus, there's a huge difference between Swiss cheese that's rated really low in sodium and Muenster and mozzarella and other cheeses, cheddar cheese. So just read labels carefully and you could make major reductions. At restaurants though, it's really tough because just about every meal is loaded with sodium. So the main trick I think is to use less condiments, less salad dressing, don't eat salt, avoid soup, which is just a salt bomb and then bring half of your meal home. Split the high sodium meal at least over two days, rather than eating it all at once. And then at home just when you're cooking, use less salt, use light salt where the sodium content is about half the usual and Martin and other companies make light salt. So it's within somebody's control, but it takes so much effort to compare all these labels when you're going to the store to always be adjusting the recipes that we use from cookbooks. So it'd be so much easier, so much more helpful if the food industry said, okay, we're going to really take this on, make a major public health contribution to the country.   Bio   Michael Jacobson holds a Ph.D. in microbiology from MIT and has dedicated his life to advocating sound nutrition and food safety policies. He co-founded the Center for Science in the Public Interest, was its long-time executive director, and now serves as Senior Scientist. He has written numerous books and reports. He's been honored with such awards as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hero Award (2010), the American Public Health Association's David P. Rall award for advocacy in public health (2011), and the Food Marketing Institute's Esther Peterson Consumer Service Award (1992).  

Do you have a love affair with the salt shaker? Having trouble breaking yourself of the pre-packaged food addiction? Do you have a ballpark guess for the recommended amount of sodium you should be consuming on a daily basis? What about the devastating consequences of too much salt in your diet?  Don’t be alarmed or ashamed with any of your answers if you just don’t know. It’s not your fault. We all fall prey to marketing and the lure of salty foods and today Rip speaks with researcher and author, Michael Jacobson, about his recent book, “Salt Wars - The Battle over the Biggest Killer in the American Diet.”  Michael Jacobson is one of the preeminent scientists who has been fighting on the front lines in Washington DC - literally going to political battle for our health for more than 50 years. He is co-founder of the Center for Science and the Public Interest, which was developed in 1971 as a Health Advocacy Group for Food Safety and Nutrition. The CSPI may not sound familiar to you, but their work will - they are responsible for nutrition facts labeling on food products, getting junk foods out of schools, and removing trans fat out of the food supply -- to name a few of their landmark efforts.  Today, though, he speaks with Rip about our love affair with salt. Why has it become so prevalent in our diet (much of it without us even realizing!)? What are the impacts on our health? And, most importantly, how can we ditch the desire for that extra dash at every meal?  Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. is a co-founder and long-time Executive Director of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CPSI), now serving as a Senior Scientist. Jacobson has written numerous books and reports, including Salt Wars: The Battle Over the Biggest Killer in the American Diet; Eater’s Digest: the Consumer’s Fact Book of Food Additives, Nutrition Scoreboard; Salt: the Forgotten Killer; and Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans’ Health. He has also been honored with such awards as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Hero Award (2010), the American Public Health Association’s David P. Rall award for advocacy in public health (2011), and the Food Marketing Institute’s Esther Peterson Consumer Service Award (1992). His Ph.D. in microbiology is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Episode and PLANTSTRONG Resources: PLANTSTRONG Meal Planner - use code: STARTFRESH for a 14-Day Free Trial. Yes, you have to enter a credit card - but you won’t be charged if you cancel before the trial ends and that’s a click of a button. Enjoy the test drive and get cooking! Learn More About our In-Person Sedona Retreat - October 11th-16th, 2021 Center for Science in the Public Interest Website Theme Music for Episode Promo Theme Music

The impact of the COVID outbreak and subsequent lockdowns vastly impacted consumers' eating, shopping, and cooking patterns. In a preview of his Potato Expo 2021 presentation, long-time senior vice president of the Food Marketing Institute and author, Michael Sansolo sits down with Eye on Potatoes to talk about some of the changes the pandemic brought about in 2020 and their potential lasting impacts for the food industry. PLUS Kam Quarles, National Potato Council CEO, provides an update on the latest news coming out of D.C., including the nomination of former Secretary Tom Vilsack to return to USDA, new leadership in the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, ongoing trade access issues, and the latest government funding extension and a potential COVID relief package.

The panel considers exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act which protects financial and business information. Does this create a right to privacy for corporations? Should business information be protected from disclosure, when the business is doing work for the government? The article discussed is: Jane E. Kirtley, Scott Memmel, and Jonathan Anderson, More Substantial Harm than Good: Recrafting FOIA's Exemption 4 after Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 46 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev 497.Host: Tony FernandoPanel: Nailah Graves-Manns, Seth Trott, Courtney BuechlerAudio: Mohammed SaleemProducer: Tony Fernando

Kroger แบรนด์ยักษ์ใหญ่ของอเมริกา ซึ่งเป็นแบรนด์ร้านขายของชำที่ใหญ่ที่สุด ได้ตัดสินใจที่จะยอมรับเทคโนโลยีเพื่อช่วยให้บริษัทของพวกเขาอยู่รอดและเจริญเติบโตในการปฏิวัติอุตสาหกรรมครั้งที่ 4  ด้วยร้านค้าของชำ 2,782 ร้าน ภายใต้ชื่อเกือบสองโหลใน 35 รัฐ Kroger วางแผนที่จะใช้ประโยชน์จากข้อมูลเชิงลึกของนักช้อปเพื่อช่วยให้ยังคงเป็นผู้นำในตลาดแห่งอนาคต  ซึ่งจากการศึกษาของFood Marketing Institute พบว่าร้านขายของชำออนไลน์ คาดว่าจะมีสัดส่วน 20% ของการค้าปลีกร้านขายของชำทั้งหมดภายในปี 2565 และมียอดขายสูงถึง 100 พันล้านเหรียญสหรัฐ ดังนั้น Kroger และคู่แข่งจึงคิดวิธีการใช้เทคโนโลยีให้เป็นประโยชน์กับพวกเขา เลือกฟังกันได้เลยนะครับ อย่าลืมกด Follow ติดตาม PodCast ช่อง Geek Forever’s Podcast ของผมกันด้วยนะครับ References : https://finance.yahoo.com/news/krogers-restock-strategy-product-lines-135901689.html https://www.producebluebook.com/2020/03/20/restock-kroger-a-look-inside/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kroger-Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroger ติดตาม ด.ดล Blog เพิ่มเติมได้ที่Fanpage :facebook.com/tharadhol.blogBlockdit :blockdit.com/tharadhol.blogTwitter :twitter.com/tharadholInstragram :instragram.com/tharadhol

The frozen food and dairy sections drive more sales and store traffic than you think. Just ask Jeff Rumachik, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the National Frozen & Refrigerated Foods Association (NFRA). Harrisburg, Pa.-based NFRA recently released its annual State of the Industry Report, which takes a deep dive into frozen and refrigerated food shopping and retail trends. Combined, frozen and dairy accounted for $125 billion in sales for 2019. On average, shoppers last year made 70 store trips to buy frozen and dairy items, and they spent $13.44 per trip. Frozen continues to experience a rebirth, generating two years of back-to-back growth with sales of $54.6 billion, a gain of $918 million. The department accounts for 31 trips per buying household annually and adds $10.90 to the shopping basket per trip. More growth is expected for the category, according to NFRA, which noted that half of U.S. households have access to more than one freezer, giving them extra capacity to stock up. Dairy, the second-largest edible department in the supermarket (excluding alcoholic beverages), tallied 2019 sales of $71 billion, delivering $550 million in year-over-year growth. NFRA said the dairy section drives 47 trips per buying household per year, with milk and cheese at the top of shoppers’ lists. NFRA represents all segments of the frozen and refrigerated foods industry, including manufacturers, retailers/wholesalers, distributors, sales agents, logistics providers and other suppliers. Rumachik has been with NFRA for 11 years. In his current role, he oversees marketing and promotional activities, including the NFRA Convention. His 40-year career in the food industry includes experience at all levels of store management in midsize and high-volume food stores, as well as in supervisory and advisory roles at wholesalers, independent supermarkets and chain stores. Prior to joining NFRA, he spent 18 years at the Food Marketing Institute, most recently as vice president of the wholesaler division. In this podcast with Supermarket News, Rumachik sheds more light on the latest trends in the frozen, dairy and packaged deli categories. He also addresses how the frozen and refrigerated foods sector is being impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

A new study finds grocery shopping in the U.S. is evolving. According to the 2019 U.S. Grocery Shopping Trends report by the Hartman Group for the Food Marketing Institute, baby boomers, millennials, gen Z and gen X all have their own unique shopping habits and preferences. K-State Research and Extension nutrition specialist Sandy Procter finds the study particularly interesting because it details shopping trends for a wide range of consumers. Sound Living is a weekly public affairs program addressing issues related to families and consumers. It is hosted by Jeff Wichman. Each episode shares the expertise of K-State specialists in fields such as child nutrition, food safety, adult development and aging, youth development, family resource management, physical fitness and more. Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu. K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan.  

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court reviews Monday’s Supreme Court orders and opinions. The justices released their decisions in four argued cases: Iancu v. Brunetti, United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and The Dutra Group v. Batterton. The justices also granted review in eight cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument. The Supreme Court will release decisions in more of its eight remaining cases on Wednesday, June 26. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A case in which the Court held that where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media | 04/22/19 | Docket #: 18-481

A case in which the Court held that where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

Today’s guest is PepsiCo North America CEO, Al Carey. Al is a 35-year PepsiCo veteran. He is responsible for leading PepsiCo Beverages, Frito-Lay and Quaker Foods in North America. Al Carey is well-known for his passion for customers and frontline associates, and has practiced servant leadership throughout his career. He is on the board of directors of The Home Depot and the Food Marketing Institute. Connect with David on Twitter: twitter.com/DavidNovakOGO See more Podcasts: davidnovakleadership.com/leadership-podcast/ Take our Free Recognition Survey: davidnovakleadership.com/survey

Transparency into how products are made, what is in them and how they impact society is no longer simply ‘nice to have’ – rather a new report from the Food Marketing Institute made possible with help from Label Insight shows that it is a ‘must-have’ for consumers, many of whom say they will walk away from a brand that doesn’t share sufficient information.

Transparency into how products are made, what is in them and how they impact society is no longer simply ‘nice to have’ – rather a new report from the Food Marketing Institute made possible with help from Label Insight shows that it is a ‘must-have’ for consumers, many of whom say they will walk away from a brand that doesn’t share sufficient information.

Julie Pryor, Director, Emerging Brands at Food Marketing Institute, joins the Real Food Brands Marketing Podcast to discuss FMI Emerge and helping emerging food and beverage brands gain more shelf space.    In This Episode:  Why FMI Emerge was developed and how it can help emerging food and beverage brands  Common struggles and opportunities facing emerging brands  How FMI Emerge brings the industry together to ultimately benefit consumers  Resources available through FMI Emerge  Ideal subscribers for FMI Emerge  Resources:  FMI Emerge (including the 5-minute FMI Emerge Company Sales Assessment)  Real Food Brands Marketing Roundtable Facebook Group  Real Food Brands Brand Checkup Scorecard   

On this week's show, we're celebrating National Family Meals Month with tips for gathering your family around the table more often and simple ways to get more seafood onto your weekly meal plan. Eating seafood at least two times a week is the recommendation from the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and on this episode, I've got tips for making that recommendation an easy reality. I also have a brand new recipe for Parmesan Salmon Sticks with Zesty Avocado Dipping Sauce that's sure to get you one tasty step closer to that goal. My salmon sticks recipe is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and on the show, I'll tell you why omega-3s are considered an essential fat that plays a vital role in heart, eye, and brain health. What you’ll hear in this episode: Benefits of eating family meals together. For more info, visit the Food Marketing Institute's Family Meals Month page. Why engaging kids in food shopping, prep and meal planning boosts family mealtime. Why removing distractions from family meals is important. Flexibility with family meals is key. Breakfast together counts as a family meal. The importance of incorporating seafood into your diet - It's rich in protein and healthy omega-3 fats. Recipe inspiration for adding more seafood to your diet: Canned tuna or salmon salad with shredded carrot, light mayo, and Dijon mustard stuffed inside a pita pocket or served on top of halved avocados Wild halibut Baked in Parchment with Cilantro and Ginger Omelet with leftover baked tilapia or lox (smoked salmon) with sauteed baby spinach and the cheese of your choice. Fish tacos. The benefits of incorporating omega-3s in your diet (read on for Omega-3 Smarts). My son Josh is moving to a new apartment in New York near Russ & Daughters. Read more about this iconic "appetizer" shop in the Lower East Side of NYC. Corny salmon cakes and Teriyaki Salmon, Snow Peas, and Carrots on the LHT blog. Parmesan Salmon Sticks with Zesty Avocado Dipping Sauce. - EPA and DHA omega-3s are nutrients that play a key role in heart, brain and eye health throughout life.  - According to PubMed, there are more than 30,000 studies on EPA and DHA omega-3s, including more than 3,000 human clinical trials, making EPA and DHA among the most studied nutrients in the world. - EPA and DHA omega-3s may help maintain healthy blood pressure and healthy triglyceride levels and improved blood vessel function. - Just as calcium is essential for building strong bones, DHA is a building block for the brain. DHA not only is important for brain development – it actually is a significant percentage of the fatty tissue that makes up the brain. - Pregnant moms pass DHA to their growing babies through the placenta, and in breast milk after birth. Therefore, it’s important that pregnant and nursing mothers eat enough fatty fish or take an omega-3 supplement not only for themselves, but for their growing babies. - The body’s highest concentration of DHA is found in the retina of the eye. Therefore, DHA plays an essential role in eye health, especially for infant eye development. - There are three simple ways to get recommended amounts of EPA and DHA: eating fatty fish such as salmon, consuming EPA and DHA-fortified foods and beverages, or taking omega-3 supplements. Plant-based sources of omega-3s do not provide the same benefit. You need to get EPA and DHA directly from the diet (such as by eating fatty fish and by taking an omega-3 supplement). FYI: 3 ounces of salmon has 1, 670 milligrams of omega-3 fats while 3 ounces of tuna has 325 milligrams. You should aim to get 250mg to 500mg of EPA and DHA per day.  Resources: Liz’s healthy Table Website Liz’s Healthy Table Blog Liz’s Color, Cook, Eat! coloring book series Super Healthy Kids  The Parents On Demand Network GOED Omega-3 - Global Organization for EPA and DHA Food Marketing Institute Fish in Parchment Recipe, by Pamela Salzman Family Dinner Projects Kids Cook Monday  

The Food Marketing Institute estimates online grocery sales will reach some $100 billion by 2025. That’s about 20% of the grocery retail market, which today only accounts for about 2 to 4%. While online grocery shopping is definitely a growth market, opportunities also exist for brick-and-mortar stores to make the in-store grocery shopping experience better. K-State Research and Extension nutrition specialist Sandy Procter says consumers may ultimately want a blend of online and in-person grocery shopping options. Sound Living is a weekly public affairs program addressing issues related to families and consumers. It is hosted by Jeff Wichman. Each episode shares the expertise of K-State specialists in fields such as child nutrition, food safety, adult development and aging, youth development, family resource management, physical fitness and more. Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu. K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan.

This episode's FREE download Your brand's selling story is the cornerstone of all effective business building strategies. Learn How To Get Your Brand On The Shelf and What Retailers REALLY Want.  This Is Your Roadmap To Success.  CLICK HERE TO GAIN INSTANT ACCESS TO MY FREE TURNKEY SALES STORY STRATEGIES COURSE Thank you for listening. I really appreciate you listening to this podcast. This podcast is about you and it's for you. I'm working hard to provide actionable insights and strategic solutions to get your brand on more retailer shelves and in the hands of more shoppers with simple, easy to use and adopt strategies to give you an equal seat at the table with big brands, in addition to exclusive interviews with leading industry thought leaders. If you like the podcast, please share with a friend, subscribe, and leave a review on iTunes. This podcast is about you and for you, meaning everyone listening, this podcast is built around those core principles. It's about helping brands get their products on more retail shelves and in the hands of more shoppers. It's about teaching those best practices.  I am here to support you and provide you with a roadmap for your success. Here is Julie Pryor at Food Marketing Institute FMI Download the show notes:  brandsecretsandstrategies.com/session67

More and more of us want to know everything we can about the products we buy--especially when it comes to the food we consume with our friends and families. Whether motivated by worry, mistrust or just curiosity, consumers expect that they can rev up their search engines and find everything.  Food producers and retailers alike realize that while in the old days taste and price were what primarily mattered, today and from now on trust through transparency is essential. To facilitate this emerging demand, food industry leaders have created a "platform" that provides consumers with a an online path to practically everything they would ever want to know, from farm to table.  The new vehicle for this road to food knowledge is "Smart Label" and Mark Baum, Chief Collaboration Officer and Senior Vice President of Industry Relations for the Washington DC based Food Marketing Institute takes us on this journey to ultimate transparency on Farm To Table Talk. www.smartlabel.org  

For more than 25 years, Lempert, an expert analyst on consumer behavior, marketing trends, new products and the changing retail landscape, has identified and explained impending trends to consumers and some of the most prestigious companies worldwide. Known as The Supermarket Guru® Lempert is a distinguished author and speaker who alerts customers and business leaders to impending corporate and consumer trends, and empowers them to make educated purchasing and marketing decisions. As one of America’s leading consumer trend-watchers and analysts, Phil Lempert is recognized on television, radio and in print. For twenty plus years Phil has served as food trends editor and correspondent for NBC News’ Today show, reporting on consumer trends, food safety and money-saving tips, as well as showcasing new products, as well as regular appearances on ABC’s The View, FOX Business, Dr. Oz, The Oprah Winfrey Show, 20/20, CNN, CNBC, FOX, as well as on local television morning and news programs throughout the country. For almost two decades, he hosted the syndicated show Shopping Smart on the WOR Radio Network and now co-hosts the weekly Lost in the Supermarket podcast on iTunes. Phil Lempert was one of the pioneers of the new information media, founding SupermarketGuru.com in 1994. The website is now one of the leading food and health resources on the Internet, visited by more than 9 million people each year. SupermarketGuru.com offers thorough food ratings, analyzes trends in food marketing and retail, and features health advice, unique recipes, nutrition analysis, allergy alerts and many other resources to help consumers understand their food, health, lifestyle and shopping options. Phil is the founder and editor of The Lempert Report, Food, Nutrition & Science, Facts, Figures & the Future, and The Food Journal. He is contributing editor of Progressive Grocer, which exclusively runs his trade columns and videos both in its magazine and on its website as well as a strategic alliance to develop and manage industry initiatives. He has been profiled and interviewed by USA Today, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Newsweek and Ad Age, and is interviewed by hundreds of publications each year. He is also a columnist for Forbes.com and manages the Food Reference site on about.com. He has served on the Executive Committee of Michelle Obama's Chefs Move to School program. He is the founder and CEO of the Retail Dietitians Business Alliance; and has developed and manages Retail Foodservice: The Great Grocerant educational program for the National Restaurant Association, hosts and manages the Most Innovative Product Awards for the National Confectioners Association, developed the Supermarket Chef Showdown for the Food Marketing Institute, created and managed the Spud Nation Throwdown Competition for the National Potato Council. Lempert is the author of Being the Shopper and Healthy, Wealthy & Wise. His previous books include: Phil Lempert’s Supermarket Shopping & Value Guide, Top Ten Trends for Baby Boomers and Crisis Management: A Workbook for Survival. He is currently working on his next book which documents the important relationship between Millennials and food - YOLO, The Intersection of The Jazz Age with The Millennials' Passion for Food. Phil is a spokesperson for National Frozen & Refrigerated Association and their retail partners to help communicate strategies on saving money, healthier eating and food trend information to America's shoppers; and had been the corporate spokesperson for ConAgra Foods for ten years. Phil Lempert graduated from Drexel University with degrees in Marketing and Retail Management and did his Post-Graduate at Pratt Institute. He worked at McDonald’s and Howard Johnson’s before joining his family’s food brokerage firm. Lempert went on to create Lempert Advertising, a full-service, award-winning advertising agency that specialized in food and retail branding, marketing and public relations. A resident of California, Lempert’s roots are in the Belleville, New Jersey dairy farm started by his grandfather. The family food tradition carried on through his father’s work as a food manufacturer, distributor and broker and then to Phil Lempert, The Supermarket Guru®.

Demand for locally-grown and served foods has surged in the past few years across various segments within the food industry. On this episode, host Jenna Liut speaks with Rick Stein, VP of Fresh Foods at the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), about the degree to which demand has risen, why the market continues to shift in this direction and how both major food retailers and farmers are responding to this demand.

The majority of Americans have no clear idea what “sell by” labels are trying to tell them. But after 40 years of letting us guess, the grocery industry has made moves to clear up the confusion. The Food Marketing Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the two largest trade groups for the grocery industry, announced that they’ve adopted standardized, voluntary regulations to clear up what product date labels mean. Jeff and Anthony discuss their stance on eating past-date food, and when something should be thrown away. GET BONUS EPISODES, VIDEO HANGOUTS AND MORE. VISIT: http://patreon.com/wehaveconcerns Get all your sweet We Have Concerns merch by swinging by http://wehaveconcerns.com/shop Hey! If you’re enjoying the show, please take a moment to rate/review it on whatever service you use to listen. Here’s the iTunes link: http://bit.ly/wehaveconcerns And here’s the Stitcher link: http://bit.ly/stitcherwhc Jeff on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jeffcannata Anthony on Twitter: http://twitter.com/acarboni Today’s story was sent in by atomlinson89: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/a-barely-noticeable-change-to-how-food-is-labeled-could-save-americans-millions/?utm_term=.ec936d4b6063 If you’ve seen a story you think belongs on the show, send it to wehaveconcernsshow@gmail.com or leave it on the subreddit:http://reddit.com/r/wehaveconcern

Regular listeners of Through the Noise may recall that Ernesto Glueksmann was about to be a father for the second time and he is now enjoying some much needed paternity leave with his lovely new baby. While Ernesto is away, we are pleased to welcome guest host, Stephanie Cerulo. Today Blake and Stephanie chat with Stacy Fitzgerald-Redd, the Director of Marketing and Communications for the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association. NAIMA is a trade organization representing nine companies involved in all facets of fiberglass and mineral wool insulation. Though not always considered the most glamorous of topics in housing renovations, Ms. Fitzgerald-Redd walks us through several reasons why insulation ought to be on the top of your home care list whether buying, selling, or simply staying put. Did you know, for example, that insulation is one of the very few improvements that boast a 100% (or more) return on investment? If you want to save money today and tomorrow, with the side benefit of reducing your carbon footprint, check out this episode so you don't miss an opportunity to start saving 30% on your energy costs. Stacy Fitzgerald-Redd is Director, Marketing and Communications for the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA). Fitzgerald-Redd is responsible for developing and implementing marketing and communications initiatives designed in support of the mission of NAIMA for fiberglass, rock and slag wool insulation products. Fitzgerald-Redd earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Administration from Virginia State University. She and her family reside Springfield, Virginia. Prior to joining NAIMA in 2013, Fitzgerald-Redd was with the USA Rice Federation, where she spent six years developing and implementing communications strategies, writing and editing, reports, publications and newsletters, implementing and managing social media outreach and serving as a media and crisis communications spokesperson. She also worked in employee and customer communications at AMTRAK and spent 13 years working in research, communications and education for the Food Marketing Institute, the international trade association of the supermarket industry. 

Recent studies by the NPD Group, Food Marketing Institute and others show us that families will eat at home more in the year ahead due to the uncertain economy. But cooking at home can become expensive if you cannot manage your grocery bills. This is where an online meal planner like Aviva’s Six O’Clock Scramble can help. The cost for a six month subscription is less than two pizza deliveries! Aviva is discussing time-saving tips for planning your dinnertime meals in advance, how to maximize your time and budget at the grocery store and how to waste less food each week.

Recent studies by the NPD Group, Food Marketing Institute and others show us that families will eat at home more in the year ahead due to the uncertain economy. But cooking at home can become expensive if you cannot manage your grocery bills. This is where an online meal planner like Aviva’s Six O’Clock Scramble can help. The cost for a six month subscription is less than two pizza deliveries! Aviva is discussing time-saving tips for planning your dinnertime meals in advance, how to maximize your time and budget at the grocery store and how to waste less food each week.