It’s official: Refined sugar has replaced fat as healthy eaters’ “big bad.” On the one hand, Euromonitor International's 2020 Voice of the Consumer: Health and Nutrition Survey found 53% of respondents said eating less sugar was their chosen method of weight loss. On the other, cutting sugar seems to be about more than slimming down. 

When asked why they wanted to avoid sugar, the top consumer responses were that it is “better for me to avoid it” and it “makes me feel healthier.” These results suggest consumers are choosing to avoid sugar for the benefit of more than just their waistlines. For many, cutting down on the sweet stuff also means taking a proactive approach to health. 

Brands need to be cognizant that artificial sweeteners aren’t the automatic answer, as 31% of respondents look for ingredients lists without them. In response, manufacturers and brands are investing time and money into formulating with the best natural sweeteners that can cut sugar and maintain a delicious taste profile. 

Food & Beverage Insider spoke with experts from Good to Go, Kill Cliff and Lily’s Sweets about top trends and future opportunities in this space. 

Food & Beverage Insider: Which clean label sweeteners are trending, and why do they appeal to consumers and brands? 

Jerry Barker, vice president of operations and innovation, Kill Cliff: From what I see in the market, erythritol continues to grow in both usage and consumer understanding. It is an ingredient that really has a lot of benefits as it relates to some of the most recent health trends. For individuals following a keto-focused approach to food, as an example, erythritol carbs can be removed from the net carb content of a product. This allows consumers to benefit from the sweetness profile of erythritol, while also maintaining adherence to their keto lifestyle. 

Food & Beverage Insider: What do you know now about clean label sweeteners that you wish you knew when you started? 

Lauren Start, senior director of marketing, Lily’s Sweets: For stevia, we have learned the importance of using the right type of stevia and the right amount, otherwise it can have a negative aftertaste for some consumers. Because it is also up to 300 times sweeter than sugar, you also need to think about the fact that the stevia will take up less volume in a recipe than sugar and you have to adjust accordingly. For allulose, it has been great for Lily’s to work with, but there are some retailers that do not currently allow its use, so that can be challenging. 

Food & Beverage Insider: What can we look forward to in this space? 

Wade Crouch, senior director of marketing, Good to Go: Technology is helping deliver new non-nutritive sweeteners at scale for manufacturers. There are new fibers, rare sugars (d-tagatose), designer proteins and patented technologies to enhance sweetness perception all looming on the horizon. These new products have interesting properties and functions, and are very exciting for food scientists. These advancements do pose a challenge for brand owners on how well they will be accepted by consumers. Brands will need to invest in communicating and educating consumers about these novel ingredients, their benefits and safety profiles. 

The full version of this article can be found in the “Sweet innovation: Natural solutions in sugar reduction” digital magazine. Click the link to access both. 

Melissa Kvidahl Reilly is a freelance writer and editor with 10 years of experience covering news and trends in the natural, organic and supplement markets. She lives and works in New Jersey. 

A top law-enforcement official in New York on Friday warned more than 30 online and brick-and-mortar retailers selling baby formula to stop engaging in “price gouging.”

In cease-and-desist letters, New York Attorney General Letitia James ordered businesses to stop overcharging consumers for baby formula, according to a news release from her office.

In an earlier consumer alert, James warned retailers price gouging is unlawful and her office is aware of reports of baby formula being sold online for prices far surpassing its retail value. For instance, one consumer reported a retailer in Erie County, New York, was selling a 19.8-ounce can of Enfamil Nutramigen formula for $59.99, even though it typically sells for $44.99.

“It’s unconscionable that some retailers are taking advantage of the national baby formula shortage while parents are struggling to find food for their children,” James said in the news release. “Amid this crisis, families already have enough to worry about and should not have to worry about being price gouged. We are warning all retailers that New York will not tolerate price gouging of baby formula, and I encourage anyone who sees this to continue reporting it to my office.”

Over the last several weeks, the Biden administration, FDA and U.S. lawmakers all have taken steps to address a nationwide shortage in infant formula.

For instance, FDA this week announced measures that it said will result in tens of millions of additional bottles of infant formula. That includes specialty infant formula in short supply for infants with particular allergies or grave health conditions.

“We continue to work around the clock with our government partners and industry to ensure there’s adequate infant formula available wherever and whenever parents and caregivers need it,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf said in a news release Friday.

Califf’s agency has faced tough questions on Capitol Hill and elsewhere over the shortage of infant formula, including its purportedly sluggish response to a whistleblower report alleging food safety problems at a plant owned by Abbott Nutrition. In prepared testimony released this week, FDA officials said the whistleblower report didn’t reach the agency’s highest rungs until mid-February even though it was mailed in October, POLITICO reported.

“It wasn’t sent to me, and it wasn’t shared with me internally. How does this happen?” Frank Yiannas, FDA deputy commissioner for food policy and response, recently told The Washington Post. “There were early signals, and in any safety profession you want to take those seriously to stop the domino effect. That didn’t happen.”

In a Feb. 28 update advising consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula, FDA said it was aware of five reported illnesses that led to hospitalization, including two deaths.

Abbott Nutrition, which recently reached an agreement with the U.S. government that would allow it to resume making infant formula, said there were no findings of a nexus between its infant formulas and the reported illnesses in infants, based on an investigation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

 

Online grocery sales declined 3.8% in April compared to the previous year to reach $8.1 billion, according to a new survey by Brick Meets Click.

Declining order volume, combined with a smaller shopper base, is driving the drop in sales.

The survey, conducted by Brick Meets Click and sponsored by Mercatus, included 1,746 adults who handle the household’s grocery shopping in April.

Delivery-related sales saw the steepest declines—nearly 6% compared to last year—and accounted for nearly half of the decline in total year-over-year sales. The category, which includes orders received from a first- or third-party provider like Instacart or the retailer itself, was responsible for about one-third of total online grocery sales in April.

Pickup, the largest online grocery segment with almost half of total sales, declined by less than 3% versus the prior year. Pickup, or curbside, includes orders that are received by customers inside or outside a store or at a designated location/locker.

Ship-to-home orders, which are received via common or contract carriers like UPS or FedEx, represented the smallest category, clocking in at just over one-fifth of sales in April. Ship-to-home sales declined 3% in April compared to last year.

"It’s no surprise that inflation is affecting where and how people shop online for groceries," David Bishop, partner at Brick Meets Click, said. "Some customers may now find pickup a more attractive service since it can help them avoid the higher incremental costs associated with delivery, and others may choose to simply move more of their transactions back into the store."

The survey found total order volume dropped 5.8% in April compared to the previous year, caused by declines in order frequency and a modest drop in the monthly active user (MAU) base.

All categories—delivery, pickup and ship-to-home—saw drops in order volume.

In delivery and ship-to-home categories, increases in average order value (AOV) helped to mitigate declines in order volume. Delivery order volume declined 11% in April compared to the previous year, while the segment’s AOV jumped 6% to $84. Ship-to-home order volume dropped nearly 6%, while the AOV increased by almost 3% to $47.

Volume decline in both categories was the result of fewer monthly users, the survey found. The MAU base for delivery and ship-to-home shrunk 9% and 2%, respectively, over the past year. MAUs also received 4% fewer ship-to-home orders during April.

Pickup also saw a drop in order volume of 2% in April compared to the previous year. But, unlike the other two segments, pickup reported a nominal drop in AOV of approximately 70 basis points to $81.

The MAU base for pickup, too, shrunk by about 3%, the survey found. Order frequency among pickup MAUs was unchanged. 

Cost, the survey results suggest, is a key factor driving declining online grocery sales. Mass retail customers were 34% more likely than grocery customers to cite cost (i.e., not paying more than necessary) as the most important factor when deciding where to buy groceries online. When selecting how to receive online orders, pickup customers who used grocery or mass retail were 18% and 11%, respectively, more likely to prioritize cost compared to delivery customers.

Certain food product categories sold online, such as ready-to-eat cereals, have also been hit by the impacts of inflation.

Rachel Adams joined Informa’s Health & Nutrition Network in 2013. Her career in the natural products industry started with a food and beverage focus before transitioning into her role as managing editor of Natural Products INSIDER, where she covered the dietary supplement industry. Adams left Informa Markets in 2019.

Unilever and Hostess in April announced updated marketing strategies that limit advertising of food and beverages to children.

As part of its “enhanced principles,” Unilever will stop marketing food and beverages to children under 16 years old across traditional media and social media. Unilever’s family of brands includes such names as Ben & Jerry’s, Hellmann’s and Wall’s.

Hostess, as part of a new partnership with the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), pledged not to advertise to children under 13 years old, unless advertising supports products that comply with CFBAI's Uniform Nutrition Criteria.

CFBAI’s nutrition criteria sets limits on calories, saturated fat, sodium and added sugars, as well as minimum contribution levels for important food groups, like fruits and vegetables, or key nutrients, like calcium and vitamin D.

Hostess launched its first national advertising campaign in almost a decade—"Live Your Mostess"— in 2021. The campaign is part of the company’s growth and transformation strategy, which will bring a double-digit increase in marketing spend in coming years, the company said in a press release.

"We've experienced accelerated business growth over the past two years and are proud to join CFBAI," Dan O'Leary, chief growth officer of Hostess Brands, said in the release. "This pledge marks an important milestone in our transformation journey as we demonstrate our commitment to building a socially responsible snacking powerhouse."

In addition to restricting marketing efforts to exclude children under 16 years old, Unilever’s revised marketing efforts impose limits on influencer marketing as it relates to children.

The new marketing strategy will exclude using influencers, celebrities or social media stars who are under the age of 16 and those who primarily appeal to children under the age of 16. The company also pledged to provide clear and prominent disclosure of provisions to influencers and to limit child appeal to influencer content.

“Recognizing the power that social media and influencer marketing can have on children’s choices, we believe it’s important to raise the bar on responsible marketing to a minimum age of 16 years old across both traditional and social media,” Matt Close, president ice cream, Unilever, said in a press release.

The strategy further prohibits Unilever and its brands from collecting or storing data on children under 16 years old and from promoting its brands or products in schools, unless its participation is requested as part of educational campaigns.

The goal, Close said, is to “reduce children’s exposure to advertising from the food and beverage industry, and instead support parents to select appropriate treats, to be enjoyed from time to time.”

Brands across Unilever’s food and refreshment portfolio are required to comply with the enhanced principles by January 2023.

Rachel Adams joined Informa’s Health & Nutrition Network in 2013. Her career in the natural products industry started with a food and beverage focus before transitioning into her role as managing editor of Natural Products INSIDER, where she covered the dietary supplement industry. Adams left Informa Markets in 2019.

 

In the first quarter, Elopak, owner of Pure-Pak cartons and other sustainable packaging solutions, faced “rough waters,” including “unprecedented” raw material costs and stalled production in Russia and Ukraine, according to the company’s CEO.

Elopak garnered €2.4 billion in revenue in Q1—a 9% increase compared to Q1 2021—but expects the negative impact of current events on the company’s performance will continue, according to its quarterly report. 

The company’s CEO, Thomas Körmendi, said Elopak suspended production in Russia in Q1. Some of the company’s domestic production in Ukraine was resumed to maintain supplies of essential goods in the country, he said.

The Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. also suspended certain business activities in Russia in Q1.

“The financial impact from the crisis was limited in Q1, but we have made an impairment of €22 million and expect to see further effects in the near term,” Körmendi said in a press release.

Elopak has continued to pay the salaries of its 336 employees in Ukraine and Russia, despite stalled production, which the company will continue “until further notice,” Körmendi said.

“We are deeply concerned by the suffering caused as a result of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and our overriding priority remains the personal safety and security of our employees in the country,” he said in the release.

Increased raw material prices also impacted Q1 performance. The company cited a financial impact of approximately €9 million caused by what Körmendi called “unprecedented high raw material prices” and “inflationary pressure.”

To combat rising raw materials costs, the company said it will increase prices in June, and expects margins to recover in the latter half of 2022. The negative impact of high raw material costs is expected to continue in Q2.

Despite Q1 challenges, the company plans to continue its growth strategy, which included the acquisition of Naturepak in March and recent agreements that will expand its reach in Oceanian and Indian markets.

“With the integration of Naturepak into Elopak financials and continued growth in the [Middle East and North Africa] region, we expect to strengthen our position and deliver improved margins for the group in the second half of 2022. Our strategic priorities in the near future will be to capitalize on the opportunities coming from the Naturepak integration and a stronger footprint in India, and at the same manage the uncertainties around Russia and Ukraine and raw material prices,” Körmendi said.

Rachel Adams joined Informa’s Health & Nutrition Network in 2013. Her career in the natural products industry started with a food and beverage focus before transitioning into her role as managing editor of Natural Products INSIDER, where she covered the dietary supplement industry. Adams left Informa Markets in 2019.

On February 4, 2021, a congressional report exposed four major baby food companies, and parents of infants and toddlers were outraged. The Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi led throughout the investigation, found the manufacturers' raw ingredients to exceed the safe arsenic limit by 91 times, the maximum lead limit 177 times, and the safe cadmium limit by 69 times.

Exposure to such tremendous concentrations of toxic metals is strongly linked to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders and other issues, such as cognitive damage, lower IQ, cerebral palsy, ADHD, learning disabilities, behavioral abnormalities, and speech, vision and hearing impairment. Therefore, parents had a good reason to be appalled upon hearing the news and, understandably, expected FDA to take action immediately.

However, the agency developed the Closer to Zero plan, a strategy to "reduce exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury from foods eaten by babies and young children to as low as possible." Unfortunately, there are many problematic aspects of FDA's approach to solving the acute issue of toxic metals in baby food. Perhaps the most severe one is that it would not come to fruition in its entirety until 2024 or even later.

Why is FDA taking so long to address the problem?

The Closer to Zero plan entails four steps, at least two of which are unnecessary. More specifically, the first two steps of the strategy—"evaluating the scientific basis for action levels" and "proposing action levels"—are redundant since the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021, a bill proposed by Rep. Krishnamoorthi on March 25, 2021, has already determined the safe limits for each of the heavy metals of concern by consulting with medical experts and health agencies. The maximum allowable limits are 10 ppb for arsenic, 5 ppb for cadmium, 5 ppb for lead and 2 ppb for mercury. Consequently, FDA no longer needs to determine the safe limits for the toxic metals in baby food.

Only the third step of the Closer to Zero plan implies worthwhile action, namely evaluating the "achievability and feasibility of action levels," which FDA must do so that it makes sure all baby food manufacturers in the U.S. have the necessary measures to keep the concentration of toxic metals in their products below the maximum allowable limit. Baby food companies can take a number of practical steps to drastically lower the level of heavy metals in their finished products, such as selecting rice only from crops grown on soil with a reduced concentration of arsenic, growing crops with natural soil additives instead of chemical, and using food strains unlikely to absorb toxic metals.

The Closer to Zero plan is so lengthy because it addresses one toxic metal in one type of baby food at a time, setting timelines accordingly. For instance, the agency's deadline to propose draft action levels for arsenic is April 2024. Yet, there is no deadline for cadmium and mercury. This is a big problem. Nevertheless, FDA's strategy to tackle the issue of heavy metals in baby food has a lot more shortcomings, such as failing to consider the cumulative health impact of toxic metals on neurodevelopment when setting limits, not being transparent by updating its website with new testing data promptly, failing to define what the terms "as low as possible" and "children's food" mean, not being consistent in informing parents there is no safe concentration of lead in children's blood, and failing to move up deadlines for arsenic and cadmium action levels.

Practical advice for baby food companies on toxic metals in their products

Unless the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021 becomes effective, FDA will take a while to implement safe limits for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury in infant and toddler food. Therefore, baby food company owners who want to keep their business ethical by manufacturing clean, safe products for children can enforce a series of effective practices, such as:

• Periodically test for heavy metals in both ingredients and finished products if this is not already a practice of their company. While the cost of testing a sample ranges between $50 and $100, they can sign a great agreement with a laboratory that will offer regular quality toxic metals testing for a much lower price.

• Alternatively, they can choose to test the baby food their company produces by using the method approved by FDA.

• Testing the packaging of products is also very important, so baby food company owners should make sure they implement this practice, too. They should test the packaging that comes in contact with food anywhere along the supply chain for heavy metals regularly through a CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission)-accepted, third-party certified lab that checks for all toxic metals that could exist in a large concentration in the material the packaging is made of.

Every baby food facility that must comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) must also implement the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and undergo preventive controls. As a management system recognized internationally that addresses food safety through the analysis and control of biological, chemical and physical hazards, HACCP ensures the safety of consumers—in this case, infants,and toddlers—by helping companies avoid toxic agents such as heavy metals in their food.

More practical advice for baby food company owners includes:

• Putting clear labels on the products, even if they contain ingredients that are not very healthy, which will gain the trust of consumers.

• Ensuring the facility is kept clean 24/7 by hiring the right people to take care of this job.

• Recalling a line of baby food products as soon as they receive the positive test results for one or multiple toxic metals, which will most likely spare the baby food company liability if the owner willingly takes the affected lots of food off the market.

• Working with trustworthy and competent people who are licensed or accredited to do their job will help baby food company owners make sure no foul play will take place.

Jonathan Sharp is CFO at Environmental Litigation Group P.C., headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Among many other clients, the law firm specializes in toxic exposure and assists parents whose children developed autism due to eating tainted baby food.