| It’s likely that we will look back on 2004
and see that it was the year that—driven by companies like General
Mills, Minneapolis, MN, and PepsiCo, Purchase, NY—health became
the new standard for the global food industry. From this point
forward, every company will find that it has to have a clear strategy
to make its products healthier—by reducing fat, salt and sugar,
by substituting healthy ingredients for less healthy ones or introducing
healthier alternatives to existing lines. We’ll also be able to
look back and see that 2004 was the year it finally became crystal
clear what the future of functional foods will look like and who
will be the winners and losers.
Health is the Future of Food
“Wellness will be to the food business what convenience was
over the last 15 years,” said Brock Leach, chief innovations
officer for PepsiCo, in a recent interview with New Nutrition
Business. “Wellness” is the key trend and every company must
have a clear view of how “wellness” is going to impact its products
and how it will do business in a world in which wellness is
the norm.
Where Pepsi and a handful of its peers are leading, the rest
of the industry will eventually follow. PepsiCo has embarked
on a major strategic overhaul of its entire product portfolio,
intent on reducing the levels of fat, salt and sugars its products
contribute to the American diet. Its latest initiative is Smart
Spot, a program designed to help American consumers identify
more than 100 of the company’s food and beverage choices “that
contribute to healthier lifestyles.” Smart Spot is a green symbol
that will begin appearing nationally on brands including Tropicana,
Gatorade, Frito-Lay and Quaker. Pepsi says that it is “committed
to have at least half of its new U.S. products qualify” for
the symbol.
Products with the Smart Spot designation meet nutrition criteria
including limits on the amount of fat—saturated and trans fats—cholesterol,
sodium and added sugar. The symbol identifies products that
are nutritious and contribute fiber, vitamins and other important
nutrients, PepsiCo says. The criteria also serve to identify
products with reduced levels of fat and sugar, or products formulated
to have specific wellness benefits.
In some categories we are already seeing companies competing
to be “healthier-than-thou.” Earlier this year Kellogg introduced
“One-third Less Sugar” versions of some of its leading breakfast
cereal brands. Rival General Mills, not to be outdone, reduced
the sugar content of some of its cereals by a more dramatic
75%.
Should anyone doubt the momentum of the trend toward companies
making their entire product portfolios intrinsically healthy
than they should take note of a recent bold move by General
Mills, America’s third largest food company, which recently
announced its intention to re-formulate its entire breakfast
cereal portfolio and make all of its brands with whole grains.
As General Mills maintains approximately 33% of America’s $7.7
billion breakfast cereal market (neck-and-neck with Kellogg’s)
and is also a player in Europe and elsewhere, it is one of the
most significant developments in the global food supply in recent
years.
The Power of Public Health
General Mills’ latest move shows that it recognizes the power
of connecting to public health messages. Regular consumption
of whole grains significantly reduces the risk of heart disease,
as well as the incidence of diabetes and obesity. U.S. dietary
guidelines recommend the consumption of three servings a day,
but 90% of Americans get only one serving. Moreover, updated
U.S. dietary guidelines, which will officially be announced
in January 2005, are expected to call for an increase in consumption
of whole grains.
Assuming that Americans don’t eat any less of General Mills’
cereals in the wake of the change in recipe, then from these
brands alone they will be getting an extra 1.5 billion servings
per year of whole grains.
General Mills isn’t offering a functional “magic bullet”—a product
that will claim to deliver an efficacious disease-fighting “dose”
of a novel ingredient (plant sterols, to take one example) in
a single serving. What it is doing is simply making it possible
for people who start their day with a bowl of cereal to get
one of their servings of whole grains, thus contributing to
a healthier diet. This is a very different strategy from food
targeted at “fixing” a condition, such as lowering cholesterol
or blood pressure in a near-pharmaceutical way, for example.
It’s worth mentioning that the whole concept of functional foods
was born in Japan in the late 1980s largely in response to clearly
identified public health needs—that Japanese needed more calcium
and fiber in their diets—which were the basis of public health
communication.
It’s also no accident that Finland and Sweden are also world
leaders in functional food innovation, as strong diet-and-health
messages have been part of these countries’ public health efforts
since the 1970s. In addition, the food industries in both countries
have a long history of working with public health educators
to produce healthier foods.
In the Future ‘All Foods will
be Functional’
In 2000, Tropicana—the market leader in America’s $3 billion
orange juice category—successfully petitioned the FDA to allow
it to use on its orange juice a health claim linking the potassium
content of orange juice with reduced risk of stroke. In one
move, the entire U.S. orange juice market had become functional
because every Tropicana juice box and every other brand that
contained sufficient potassium could theoretically make this
generic health claim.
Since 1995 the Ocean Spray company has communicated through
PR the scientifically-validated benefits of its cranberry juice
in eliminating urinary tract infections, which afflict 30% of
women.
Meanwhile, since 1994, Heinz has used PR to communicate the
benefits of consuming tomatoes in reducing the risk of prostate
cancer, thanks to their content of the carotenoid lycopene,
and since 1998 has mentioned the lycopene content on the labels
of its processed tomato products.
What these foods and many others have in common is that their
health benefits are intrinsic to the product. No expensive,
specially isolated bioactive ingredients have been added, there
is no “magic bullet” new component derived from elsewhere that
delivers the benefit, it’s just that the progress of nutrition
science has uncovered the intrinsic health benefits of these
foodstuffs—as it is also doing for tea, barley, blueberries,
olive oil and many more.
General Mills decision to reformulate with whole grains is a
strategy along the same lines: the company is delivering a heart
health benefit not by using specifically-developed and expensive
functional ingredients but simply by using whole grains, an
intrinsically healthy foodstuff that brings scientifically-proven
health benefits without adding cost to the product.
As nutrition science continues to reveal more about the intrinsic
health benefits of everyday foods, the strategy of marketing
intrinsic health will become ever more common.
What does the trend toward everyday intrinsic health mean for
marketers of functional ingredients? It wasn’t very long ago
that “explosive growth” was being forecast for plant sterols,
omega 3s, lutein and the like. The reality, however, is of very
slow growth in foods and beverages, with some ingredients enjoying
much greater success in dietary supplements.
It has been 10 years since the first cholesterol-lowering sterols
and stanols were commercialized. What was forecast to be a boom
business has turned out to be a bust—at least for shareholders,
most of which are still awaiting a return on their investments.
You have to work very hard to find companies making profits
from supplying sterols and stanols. It’s a salutary tale for
anyone looking to commercialize new ingredient science. Canadian-based
Forbes Medi-Tech, for example, announced operating losses of
$4 million in the first half of this year—the company is now
in its 10th year of losing money. Over in Finland, Raisio, the
original pioneer in the field, has only just struggled into
the black more than 10 years after making its first commercial
sale. There’s nothing unusual about this in the world of functional
ingredients—a recent survey conducted by New Nutrition Business
found that of 50 ingredient companies established in 1995, 47
were still losing money today.
Raisio reports that sales of its Benecol ingredient were up
76% this year, a boost that’s mostly attributable to the fact
that companies are beginning to use its stanols in new product
formats, such as, to take just one example, the “daily dose”
cholesterol-lowering yogurt drink, developed and energetically
commercialized by Benecol partner Emmi, an innovative Swiss
dairy group. This 100 ml dairy drink delivers the full daily
dose of 2 grams of plant stanols—a big improvement over getting
them from three servings a day of Benecol spread. The product
is a true innovation. It takes its inspiration from the tremendous
success enjoyed worldwide—though not yet in the U.S.—by daily-dose
probiotic drinks. Emmi’s innovation has been duplicated by other
European dairies using Benecol as an ingredient and now even
by rival Unilever, which has this year extended its cholesterol-lowering
Pro.activ brand with the launch of a 100 gram dairy drink.
The experience of Europe’s probiotic daily dose market shows
what is possible when you bring together packaging innovation
and marketing based on simple wellness messages. It’s a market
that didn’t exist in 1994, which in 2004 is worth, at retail
prices, around $1 billion in sales Europe-wide.
Europe’s probiotic daily-dose market was created by Japan’s
Yakult Honsha, which launched its 65 ml product in the Netherlands
in 1994, soon followed by French dairy giant Danone with its
100 ml Actimel drink. Danone has leveraged its brand and distribution
to become the clear market leader in the category in Europe
with an estimated 60% market share. These small bottles were
an innovation back in the mid-1990s and one that many believed
wouldn’t work in the European market (rather as many today say
they won’t work in the U.S.).
The success of daily-dose probiotics has this year seen the
spawning of new brands with new health propositions, such as
the cholesterol-lowering drinks mentioned previously. One of
the most interesting is Zen, a Danone brand launched this summer
in Belgium and Ireland.
Zen is a fermented dairy drink. Each 100-gram bottle—a highly
distinctive spherical shape that is itself an innovation and
a world-first—delivers a 90 mg dose of magnesium, equivalent
to 30% of the RDI. The product label and promotional materials
discuss the benefits of magnesium as an ingredient for relaxation.
Taken together, the pack design, the choice of ingredient and
the health benefit represent three types of innovation in one
product.
Relaxation through a dairy food is a new concept and Danone
is going to some lengths to explain what the product does. In-store
point-of-sale leaflets provide information about the role of
magnesium as a potential relaxing agent and tips for relaxing.
A TV campaign invites consumers to call the Danone Careline
to obtain a free four-bottle sample of Zen.
Initial results suggest that Zen is not replacing purchases
of Actimel, according to Danone, rather consumers are buying
both products, to address different health needs. Having conquered
Europe’s morning with Actimel, Danone now seems set on conquering
the night, and as with Actimel the company is firmly positioning
Zen on a simple wellness proposition.
The Role of Science Communication
It’s very easy to fall into the trap of believing that just
because your health ingredient has a proven high degree of efficacy
that fact constitutes an argument for brand owners to use it
in their products.
The challenge is that in today’s marketplace having a stronger
body of science for your ingredient than your competitors can’t
easily be used to create value in the consumer’s mind.
Take the case of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic
acid (EPA) from fish oil. These are far more effective types
of omega 3s, but they are also terms that mean nothing to most
consumers. Print “DHA” on the label of a product and its presence
won’t result in a single extra sale, which is why the more generic
and better-known term omega 3 is used. The only problem, of
course, is that this allows less scrupulous companies to use
cheaper and less effective forms of omega 3s.
Products can, for example, be formulated with low-cost, low
efficacy, vegetable-derived omega 3 or the higher efficacy,
higher-cost marine source. But even Unilever, when fortifying
its entire Flora brand of spreads with omega 3, chose the cheaper
flax-source omega 3, even though there is scant evidence showing
it has same degree of heart health benefits as marine-source
omega 3s. As for the consumer, although many have heard of omega
3s, very few understand the different types.
The answer to the question of how to communicate good science
is usually to turn to a health claim. Around the world, industry
and regulators are preoccupied with an intense debate about
health claim regulation. There’s just one little snag, which
is that there’s very little evidence to suggest that having
a health claim on a product will result in increased sales.
Health claims have two aspects. They are both a statement about
the scientifically established benefits of a product—a statement
that must not go beyond what the science can substantiate—and
they are also a marketing message to tell the consumer what
benefit the product will give them and so encourage them to
buy the product.
Unfortunately these two goals are often mutually incompatible—as
many companies are discovering when looking at the wording of
claims under the FDA’s qualified claims process. Many in industry—in
North America and elsewhere—fear that they will go through an
expensive health claim approval process only to find themselves
saddled with a form of words that means nothing to the consumer.
In fact, health claims might even confuse consumers and actively
turn them off in terms of buying the product. The UK’s Food
Standards Agency (FSA) last year conducted extensive research
into how consumers understand claims. The agency concluded that
consumers in fact respond to them in a non-scientific way, saw
claims that referred to cholesterol-lowering (for example) as
identifying products as being for sick people and not the average
consumer—and most didn’t even notice the presence of claims
on the package. The FSA concluded that issues of brand familiarity,
taste, overall product appeal and “naturalness” of ingredients
were much more important in consumers’ decision-making.
What’s often overlooked is that some of the world’s most successful
functional brands carry no health claims at all. Yakult, for
example, a $2.3 billion brand, talks only about “wellness from
the inside” and “a healthy start to every day,” as does Danone’s
Actimel.
Consuming cranberry juice has long been established in American
folklore as an effective way to fight urinary tract infections
(UTIs), which affect upwards of 30% of women at some point in
their lives. Ocean Spray, the world’s largest processor of cranberries,
has long been in the forefront of investment in the science
of cranberries and the demonstration of the mechanism by which
cranberry juice works against UTIs. But it is good PR about
cranberries’ benefits that has assisted the company in building
its business in the U.S.—not health claims. In fact, the company
has never used a health claim for its products either on labels
or in advertising. The absence of a health claim has not prevented
sales of cranberries from rising steadily nor from having a
very strong health image in relation to UTIs.
In the world of omega 3s, it’s been claimed for some time that
an approved health claim will boost sales and take omega 3s
from being a niche ingredient in foods and beverages to being
a big player in the global food industry. But no one in the
world of omega 3s should be getting too excited about the value
of health claims in the short term. Even in Australia, where
measured consumer awareness of omega 3s is higher than in the
U.S. and omega 3 health claims explicitly linking their consumption
to reduced risk of cardiovascular disease appear on a variety
of products, sales of omega 3 fortified products remain at niche
level.
And if anyone thinks that simply having a more simply-worded
health claim than the FDA recently allowed will make a big difference
to sales then they should look to the U.K., where DHA-fortified
Intelligent Eating Healthy Eggs were launched in 2003 by Stonegate
Farms, an established market leader in the U.K. egg market.
The egg carton carries three prominent health claims, stating
clearly and simply that: Omega 3 DHA is proven to play a role
in:
• Brain Development & Structure
• Eye Structure & Maintenance
• Heart Health & Maintenance
Yet this is not enough to move the brand beyond respectable
niche status. It’s the same story for every omega 3 product
in the U.K. market. The issue of the growth of the market for
marine omega 3 fortified products is not just about health claims
and how they are worded but whether consumers believe an ingredient
has a benefit relevant to their health and lifestyle needs.
The Australian and U.K. experiences suggest that despite the
presence of clear health claims that belief is slow in developing.
Functional Food Predictions
The over emphasis on health claims overshadows the fact that
health claims are just one communication tool among the many
that are available to companies, and as Ocean Spray and many
others have demonstrated, a less effective tool than PR and
the word-of-mouth recommendations that follow when a product
actually delivers benefits that people can feel.
So where do functional foods go from here and what should companies
do? Brand owners, for one, can adopt the wellness-oriented strategies
of the most successful companies and use only ingredients and
messages with a positive wellness message or they can choose
the path of the ultra-niche disease risk reduction message.
They can also begin to ask themselves before they add a new
ingredient whether their target consumers will really accept
the ingredient and understand its health benefits. If they don’t
understand the health benefit that means that you have to invest
in a consumer education program to get the benefit across.
One very good example of consumer education is New Zealand Milk’s
Anlene brand of calcium-fortified milk, which is marketed in
Asia. How do you get people to drink premium-priced calcium
fortified milk for their bone health if they don’t know what
state their bones are in? NZ Milk’s response was to develop
Anlene Teams of health professionals, who visit shopping malls
and provide a free bone scan to anyone that wants it. People
who have a scan get a one-on-one consultation with a dietitian,
an information booklet about bone health and a sample of Anlene.
Anlene has carried out 15,000 bone scans in Malaysia alone and
across the whole of Asia has provided more bone scans than the
entire region’s hospital system. It’s now a highly profitable
$125 million annual sales brand and NZ Milk says that this form
of consumer education is more effective in advertising in raising
awareness of whether people need the product.
Ingredient suppliers, too, should be asking themselves how they
can invest in building consumer awareness of the health benefits
of their ingredients. Kemin Foods, Des Moines, IA, is a company
that has worked hard to achieve this for lutein, but even its
efforts have not been enough to get lutein into more than a
handful of beverages. In order to build awareness of an ingredient
companies must make a long-term commitment entailing heavy investment
in consumer education. Unfortunately there’s also no alternative
to doing this, since the functional ingredient marketplace is
becoming evermore crowded and it is becoming evermore important
for companies to stand out from the crowd, either on quality
or price. Those that can’t achieve some such point of difference
will face a bleak future.
After 10 years of functional foods it’s now very apparent that
successful brands are often more the result of innovations in
packaging and marketing rather than innovations in science,
and are more about broad consumer education rather than narrow
health claims. Success is also based on whether the consumer
understands the health benefit being offered. If companies get
these things right then they’ll be well positioned to take advantage
of a world in which health is at last becoming the basis of
everything the food industry does.
About the author: Julian Mellentin
is an expert on the business of functional foods and has been
involved in this area for 10 years. He is director of The Centre
for Food & Health Studies, a company that has provided research,
analysis and forecasting of the global nutrition business since
1995. The company is based in London, U.K., and has offices
in Finland and New Zealand. He is also Editor of New Nutrition
Business, the long-established international journal on the
global nutrition business, which his company publishes. He can
be reached at 44-20-7533-6595; E-mail: julian.mellentin@new-nutrition.com;
Website: www.new-nutrition.com. |