I am ever in awe of the creative ways in which marketers sell—water.

George Kent sends me this brilliant example from Hawai’i: Kona Deep.

This, according to the website, is mined from deep ocean waters off the coast of that state.

Kona Deep offers a very different hydration experience because of its unique blend of naturally occurring deep ocean electrolytes.

Professor Kent did not mention how much this costs.

Translation: Kona Deep is desalinated ocean water.

Water, let me remind you, costs pennies from the tap.  Most tap water in the United States is safe to drink and tastes just fine.

• If you are worried about the chlorine taste, pour some tap water into a pitcher, stir it up a bit, and leave it out overnight.  The chlorine will vanish.
• If you are worried about contaminants, use a filter.
• If you need convenience, use a water bottle and fill it with tap water.

Bottled water may be handy, but it raises at least three issues:

• Financial
• Environmental: energy cost, waste, and litter removal
• Political: Bottled water reduces public trust and advocacy for municipal water supplies

Caveat emptor.

Jonathan K. Crane.  Eating Ethically: Religion and Science for a Better Diet.  Columbia University Press, 2017.

I did a blurb for this one:

This entertaining and provocative book draws on biblical and philosophical sources to argue that eating is an act of ethics, and that we would all be happier and healthier if we adhered to the Bible’s dietary advice—eat enough, but not too much.  Anyone interested in food will be fascinated by the stories Jonathan Crane tells here.

Here’s an excerpt, to give you a taste of what it’s about:

I call this kind of discussion eating ethics.  Its ethics are not confined to philosophical schools of consequentialism (where the ends justify the means) or deontology (where an act is moral to the degree it complies with a preconceived duty or principle).  Rather, its ethics lie in the truth that eating is in and of itself an ethical enterprise, no matter how one thinks about it.  Just as eating is an inherently ethical enterprise, food itself is similarly an ethical construct: it is socially defined and defining, as demonstrated by conversation in dietetics…it directly impacts me the eater and the eaten, not to mention the contexts in which this eating occurs, inclusive of humans, other sentient creatures, the environment, and more, as food ethics readily explains.

The book ends with this statement:

For all of these reasons, how and why we eat are two of the most urgent and pressing ethical enterprises of our very existence, and they lie daily in our own hands and mouths.

GlobalData, a data and analytics company., says vegan diets will be even more popular in 2018.

• Great Britain: In 2017, 3% self-identified as vegan, compared with 0.8% in 2014.
• U.S.: In 2017, 5.5% self-identified as vegan, compared with 1% in 2014.

GlobalData consumer analyst, Ronan Stafford comments

The rising number of vegans and how fashionable the cuisine now seems to be, big companies are taking notice; the number of vegan options will increase in both supermarkets and restaurants…These trends will combine to make 2018 the best year yet, in which to follow a vegan diet.

Evidence: McDonald’s is going vegan—at least in Sweden and Finland.

The sandwich, which has already been tested at a handful of McDonald’s locations in Finland, consists of a soy patty, bun, tomato, lettuce, pickles, onion, ketchup, mustard, oil and an egg-less sandwich sauce…McDonald’s said the burger will be on its permanent menu in the two countries, a response to “more and more” people wanting to eat “plant-based food” that is better for the environment.

Other evidence:

• Mintel: Nearly 10% of new food launches in Sweden this year were vegan items, according to research firm Mintel. That’s up nearly eight-fold from 2012.
• Nestle: is buying the Sweet Earth, which makes vegan and vegetarian burritos and burgers.
• Euromonitor: Global sales of vegan-labeled foods increased by nearly 8% last year to $12.8 billion.

Competition in the food service industry must be fierce these days.

My colleagues who are members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics recently received this letter from a public relations firm working for Panera.

Subject: Panera’s Quest to #RespectTheEgg

Did you know 50% of the top 10 fast casual restaurants that sell breakfast have an “egg” made of at least five ingredients, often more? That’s why Panera has officially petitioned the FDA to establish a clear definition for the term “egg,” in an effort to improve standards and transparency throughout the food industry.

In the meantime, customers can rest assured that when they order an egg at Panera, that’s exactly what they’re getting. Panera has launched a line of new breakfast sandwiches featuring 100% real, freshly cracked, cooked-to-order eggs with no additives at all.

In case this is a fit for anything you’re working on, here is a link to more materials and images, including:

• Panera’s Official Press Release
• An Infographic Comparing Competitor’s Eggs and Breakfast Sandwiches (print size and JPG for social sharing)
• Images of Panera’s Breakfast Sandwiches
• The FDA Petition
• Panera’s New & Improved Breakfast Menu

You can also find detailed nutrition info on Panera’s new breakfast sandwiches here. Please let me know if you have any questions on Panera’s quest to #RespectTheEgg!

The press release does not say what evil additives are used by Panera’s competitors.  Fortunately, Forbes has a list.  Its top prize goes to Subway, but the others don’t look much better.

Here’s the ingredient list for Subway’s Egg Omelet Patty (Regular):

Whole eggs, egg whites, water, nonfat dry milk, premium egg blend (isolated pea product, salt, citric acid, dextrose, guar gum, xanthan gum, extractive of spice, propylene glycol and not more than 2% calcium silicate and glycerin to prevent caking), soybean oil, butter alternative (liquid and hydrogenated soybean oil, salt, soy lecithin, natural and artificial flavors, beta carotene (color), TBHQ and citric acid added to protect flavor, dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent added), salt, beta-carotene (color).

Hey—eggs are the first ingredient.

Panera isn’t really asking for a standard of identity for eggs.  It’s asking not to count an egg as an egg if these kinds of things are added to it.

I can’t wait to see what the FDA does with this one or if it even tries to attempt to draw the line between the items in the non-egg “premium egg blend” and additives like salt and pepper.

The Israeli health ministry has developed a new front-of-package labeling scheme for foods to choose (green) and to avoid (red).  Here are the red labels:

The Israeli food industry, no surprise, does not want labels that might discourage purchases.   According to the Jerusalem Post:

Bowing to pressure from the local food manufacturing industry and importers via their lobbyists,
the Health Ministry on Wednesday decided to postpone implementation of reform it initiated last
year to mark food packages with red or green circles that will indicate whether or not the food is
healthful.
Instead of these designations being required in March 2018 as initially proposed, they will be
mandatory on only some products from January 2020. Requirements will become a bit stricter a
year later.

Here’s my prediction: front-of-package labels will be a big international deal this year and I will be writing about them often.

Hat tip to Bernard Epel of Tel Aviv University for forwarding this information.

The soft drink industry is in big trouble.  Sugary drinks aren’t great for health, and sales are down.  But this industry keeps trying.

I’m starting to collect interesting innovations.  Would you believe?

• Cannabis-infused: a zero-calorie adult beverage
• Dextrin (fiber)-infused: a zero-calorie laxative beverage (but only in Japan)

Yum?

The Berkeley Media Studies Group has a new framing brief on food-industry targeting of minority communities, how it works, and what to do about it.

Here’s an illustration from the report:

If you want to stop this sort of thing, here’s how.

Secretary Sonny Perdue has released his blueprint for the 2018 farm bill.

Its goal is to “improve services while reducing regulatory burdens on USDA customers” [translation: Big Ag].

USDA, he says, supports legislation that will do a great many things for farm production, conservation, trade, food and nutrition services, marketing, food safety, research and education, and natural resources.

There are a lot of words here and it’s hard to know what they mean, even reading between the lines.

For example, here are USDA’s principles for SNAP (food stamps), with my [translations and questions]:

• Harness America’s agricultural abundance to support nutrition assistance for those truly in need.  [This sounds like a food distribution program, but I’m wondering how “truly in need” will be defined.]
• Support work as the pathway to self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility for individuals and families receiving supplemental nutrition assistance.  [This means work requirements, but where will the jobs come from?]
• Strengthen the integrity and efficiency of food and nutrition programs to better serve our participants and protect American taxpayers by reducing waste, fraud and abuse through shared data, innovation, and technology modernization. [This means spending hundreds of millions a year on fraud prevention].
• Encourage state and local innovations in training, case management, and program design that promote self-sufficiency and achieve long-term, stability in employment.  [The jobs?]
• Assure the scientific integrity of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process through greater transparency and reliance on the most robust body of scientific evidence.  [Weren’t they always based on the available science?  This sounds like a way to prevent the guidelines from suggesting eating less of junk foods].
• Support nutrition policies and programs that are science based and data driven with clear and measurable outcomes for policies and programs. [This one translates to you can’t set nutrition policies unless you can demonstrate beneficial outcomes—fine in theory, but policy-blocking in practice].

Reading through the other sections is equally non-reassuring.  Where is a vision for a farm bill that promotes health, sustainable agriculture, and small or mid-size farms, protects farm workers, and reduces greenhouse gases?

Maybe the next one?