Unfortunately, a closer look at the study publication shows that this health claim isn’t actually true. The Neurology study followed 960 people who were an average age of 81, for an average of 4.7 years. During each year of the study, each of the participants completed a questionnaire about the foods they ate and took a test of their thinking and memory skills. After the study had ended, the scientists who conducted the study continued to monitor the study participants for 10 more years. 

The scientists observed that the participants’ scores on the thinking and memory tests all declined over time, but that the participants who ate the highest amounts of leafy greens, specifically spinach, kale/collards/greens and lettuce, had a significantly slower rate of thinking and memory decline than those who ate the lowest amounts of leafy greens. The study concluded that, “This difference was equivalent to being 11 years younger in age.” 

That’s not at all the same as the Women’s World contention that a vegetable can reverse the functional age of your brain by 11 years! One of the study scientists even noted that, “the study does not prove that eating green, leafy vegetables slows brain aging, it only shows an association.” While explosive headlines attract readers, Women’s World owes their readers accurate characterizations of scientific research to set realistic expectations about the connections between food and brain health.  And as consumers, we need to read beyond headlines and check the sources when we can, to make sure we know what's true and what's exaggerated.

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)
SNAP may be separated out of the Farm Bill making it more susceptible to budget cuts.

SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) provides vouchers for groceries for qualifying low-income Americans. As of August 2016, 43.6 million Americans are enrolled in the program (almost 14% of the US population). It is overseen by the USDA and is funded via the Farm Bill (the large piece of legislation that also funds subsidies for agriculture); approximately 70% of Farm Bill spending is for SNAP. The Republican platform has been pushing for its separation from the Farm Bill since 2013, stating it should never have been under the USDA oversight in the first place. If this were to go through, it would make the program susceptible to significant budget cuts. House Speaker Paul Ryan has already indicated he hopes to drain $1 trillion from the program over the next ten years. 

National School Lunch Program
Under the new administration, many of the changes to school food that were made under the guidance of the former First Lady Michelle Obama may be rolled back.

The Child Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR) program is due for a review this year. House Republicans have expressed interest in rolling back items in the school lunch program that First Lady Michelle Obama worked to put in place. For example, they want to get rid of the “Smart Snacks” rule that tackled on-campus junk food fundraising and want to allow schools to sell “a la carte” items like pizza and fries on a daily basis. They’ve also proposed a three-state block grant pilot for school meals, which could cripple school meal programs and which some see as a precursor to dismantling the entire National School Lunch Program. 

Environmental Policy
The President has called climate change "a hoax" and plans to rescind many of President Obama’s efforts to move towards cleaner energy and stricter environmental regulations.

The environmental impact of a Trump administration is perhaps of our greatest concern. Trump has made it explicitly clear that he plans to rescind may of the Obama administration’s efforts and goals around environmental policy and regulation. He is calling for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations and hopes to rescind President Obama’s Clean Power Plan which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Trump feels strongly that EPA regulation is an intrusion on farmers, stating during a speech in Iowa, “Family farms are the backbone of this country. We are going to end the EPA intrusion into your family homes and your family farms." 

Trump has recently stated he has an “open mind” about confronting climate change but it is unclear whether the United States will pull out of the Paris Agreement, the first international plan to combat climate change. Trump named Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be EPA administrator, an individual who has sued the EPA in the past over its regulations of power plants. Pruitt has a reputation for working with fossil fuel companies to increase our dependency on fossil fuels rather than take actions to conserve the environment. During Pruitt's hearings in front of the Environment and Public Works Committee he's said, "Science tells us that the climate is changing, and that human activity, in some manner, impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."

Food safety
Trump wants to limit the scope of FDA, effectively slashing food safety regulations.

Part of Trump’s tax plan involves limiting the scope of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which he refers to as the “Food Police.” The FDA’s primary task is to protect public health and our food supply. However the Republican party’s anti-regulation platform argues that stringent rules (such as those put in place by the FDA) are a burden on businesses and job creation. Trump has suggested that the FDA regulations go too far in governing “the soil farmers use, farm and food production hygiene, food packaging, food temperatures and even what animals may roam which fields and when” and hopes to reduce rules that may weaken the economy.

Many argue that without these guidelines, not only is food-borne illness more likely to develop with fewer food safety regulations and inspections, but the food supply will become more susceptible to fraud. Interestingly while Trump plans to reduce food safety regulations, he has proclaimed that one of the reasons he has an affinity for fast food is because he feels it is cleaner than food from non-chains due to their standards.  He believes they would not risk going out of business and serving “bad meat” and “at least you know” what is in the food.

Food Labeling Laws
The law mandating nutrition information labeling would likely be thrown out along with the Affordable Care Act.

Trump and the Republican party are in the process of dismantling the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). One of the provisions of Obamacare was the requirement that standard menu items at qualifying chain restaurants and vending machines have proper nutrition labeling. The deadline for compliance has been set for May of this year and most businesses and chains have been working hard to make sure they will be ready. However, if repealed, this provision may no longer be in effect (although the patchwork of local regulations would still apply). In terms of other food labels, Trump has confirmed support for GMO food and does not support government efforts to mandate GMO labeling.

In summary, though many of the federal food policy and environmental programs will be changed under the new administration, there is plenty of work that continues at the state level to support policies that encourage food that's good for us and the environment.  As a new president takes office, there are ways that individuals can stay abreast of developments concerning food policy and environmental sustainability:

Food Tank
Civil Eats Food  and Policy
Sustainable Table
And lastly, information about how to contact your local representatives

If you’ve been following the FDA’s food labeling news then you might feel like you have a case of déjà vu. And you actually wouldn’t be so wrong. That’s because just a few months ago, the FDA finally decided that it needed to define what it meant for a food to be “natural.” For so long, the FDA avoided pinpointing what was and wasn’t considered “natural,” but after seeing how misleading that word has been for consumers, it was finally time for them to step in. Now, the FDA has concluded that it needs to redefine what it considers “healthy.” How and why it got to this point is an interesting sequence of events, so grab yourself a “healthy” snack and read on.

It all started in March 2015 when the FDA sent a warning letter to KIND telling them that they had multiple labeling errors on their bars, including, but not limited to, the use of the word “healthy.” The FDA explained that to use the term “healthy” a food item must meet certain nutritional criteria – in this case, that it should not contain more than 1 gram of saturated fat per 40 grams of food, and it should also contain at least 10% of the Recommended Daily Intake for vitamin C, vitamin A, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber. At the time, several KIND bars did not meet this standard.

It was true; some bars had up to 5 grams of saturated fat per 40 gram serving. While technically speaking, the KIND bars did not comply with the FDA’s existing definition of “healthy,” Daniel Lubetsky, KIND’s CEO was not willing to give in so easily. Sure, he could have simply erased the term “healthy” from his labels and moved on, but that would have been like putting a Band-Aid on a deep wound. For him, this was a sign of a much larger problem. The warning letter that the FDA sent was a sign to revisit an outdated regulation.

The reason why KIND bars have such high amounts of saturated fat per Reference Amount Currently Consumed (RACC) – the technical phrase for how much Americans typically eat of a certain food – is that their main ingredient is nuts. Nuts are fats – that is, they belong to the fat food group, and while for the most part, they have unsaturated fat, some of the fat in nuts are saturated. This does not mean that nuts are an unhealthy food. In fact, most dietitians will tell you that in moderation, nuts can have a place in a healthy diet. Lubetsky likened nuts to salmon and avocado, which when eaten alone also wouldn't comply with the FDA’s standard for “healthy.” However, like nuts, salmon and avocado are inherently healthy foods with numerous nutritional benefits.

This comparison shows exactly what was flawed with the way the FDA had previously defined the use of “healthy.” By focusing on only a handful of nutrients, they excluded foods that are actually healthy, such as nuts, salmon, and avocado while letting foods that are less healthy slip by because they happen to be lower in fat, such as cereals and low fat yogurts that contain significant amounts of sugar.

So on December 1st 2015, Lubetsky launched a petition wherein he called upon the FDA to reconsider what they deem “healthy.” In his petition he states:

"Under FDA’s current application of food labeling regulations, whether or not a food can be labeled “healthy” is based on specific nutrient levels in the food rather than its overall nutrition quality. FDA formulated those regulations more than 20 years ago, when available science and federal dietary recommendations focused on limiting total fat intake. Today, these regulations still require that the majority of foods featuring a “healthy” nutrient content claim meet “low fat” and “low saturated fat” standards regardless of their nutrient density. This is despite the fact that current science no longer supports those standards."

That petition garnered so much support that in April 2016 the FDA responded to KIND with the following:

"We do not object to the specific statement that you would like to place on your bar wrappers, on the condition that there will be no other nutrition-related statement, such as express or implied nutrient content claim, on the same panel of the label…We agree with you that our regulations concerning nutrient content claims are due for a reevaluation in light of evolving nutrition research."

The last line is of utmost importance because that brings us to where we stand today. In fact, on September 27, 2016 the Director of the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling at the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Douglas Balentine, Ph.D., explained the reason for this overhaul in a blog:

"As our understanding about nutrition has evolved, we need to make sure the definition for the “healthy” labeling claim stays up to date. For instance, the most recent public health recommendations now focus on type of fat, rather than amount of fat. They focus on added sugars, which consumers will see on the new Nutrition Facts label. And they focus on nutrients that consumers aren’t getting enough of, like vitamin D and potassium. By updating the definition, we hope more companies will use the “healthy” claim as the basis for new product innovation and reformulation, providing consumers with a greater variety of “healthy” choices in the marketplace."

Just as it did when it was redefining “natural” or trying to draft the new dietary guidelines, the FDA has opened up a forum for public commentary on this matter to understand what people think “healthy” actually means. The goal is to align the definition with sound public health recommendations and avoid any potential for companies to mislead consumers with unfounded labeling.

If nothing else, this story shows that change is possible. So often we feel paralyzed by rules that are antiquated or flawed. But if you truly believe in something, stand up for it and make your point heard because there could be thousands of others who share that same opinion and are looking for someone to lead the way. The FDA is looking for your thoughts to help inform their approach and instructions to submit a comment are here. Don't miss this opportunity to contribute!

There is quite a long history around trying to define the term “natural.” Back in the 1970’s, the Federal Trade Commission decided that “natural” would be applicable to any food that had “no artificial ingredients and only minimal processing.” However, in the early 80’s the FTC realized just how difficult it was to encompass all foods with that one definition and decided to relinquish the responsibility of defining the term altogether. 

The FDA then tried to come up with a definition by asking the consumers to weigh in, but with so many opinions it never came to any conclusions. Instead of having one hard and fast definition, the term would be deemed appropriate on a case by case basis. Inefficient? Yes. Evasive? Even more so.

In fact, if you go to the FDA’s website to find out the meaning of the ‘natural’ label on food, you would find the following explanation:

"From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances."

Ironically, a term that means so little actually has such a large influence on the way people shop. A major consumer report showed that 41 billion dollars’ worth of food is sold each year with the term ‘natural’ on the label. 

It is therefore not surprising that it was only a matter of time until this whole issue came to a head. There have been over 50 class action lawsuits surrounding the issue – most notably the case surrounding Mission tortilla chips. In July 2013, Mission tortilla chips was sued for claiming their chips were natural while using genetically modified corn. The judge then put the case on hold in the hopes that the FDA would weigh in on the matter. But then in January 2014 the FDA responded by saying that it would not change its stance on the matter because it would, for all intents and purposes, be opening a can of worms beyond the scope of their resources. It would be up to the courts alone to come to a conclusion on the matter.

But with so many different cases arguing over the same issue, this response did not suffice. The FDA caved and yet again opened the forum for people to comment on how they think the term natural should be defined. On the one hand, proponents of GMOs being labeled as natural argue that no crop conventionally grown is truly natural since human intervention has led to the production of most of the foods we eat. By that logic, the term natural could be applied to a whole slew of foods that have been tinkered with by human hands. Think: canned fruit, lemonade powder, etc.

Where to draw the line is so difficult, it might even be wise to prohibit the use of the term altogether. However, this would bring up other legal issues having to do with freedom of speech and the infringement of that right.

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a right or wrong answer. Transparency is becoming a very big issue within the food community, but understanding terminology is a necessary step in that process. When it comes down to it, it does not really matter what the definition becomes so long as the public is made aware of it. That way, they can make a well-educated, empowered choice when making their food purchasing decisions.

Consumer Food Waste

In “Wasted”, Gunders states, “American families throw out approximately 25 percent of the food and beverages they buy...estimated as $1300-2200 dollars lost per family of four each year.” In the UK, a study from the WRAP group on household food and waste shows that the majority of household losses are due to spoilage of uncooked foods and a third of the food is being thrown out due to overestimating portion sizes from cooking too much food. Wasting food not only depletes household dollars, but it also has significant impacts on the environment. Almost a quarter of the methane emissions in the U.S. is due to the decomposition of uneaten food. This greenhouse gas is at least 25% stronger than carbon dioxide’s effects on global warming, according to Gunders.

Consumers can make a difference! To help mitigate these issues, start by rethinking these three areas:

1. Portions
For the past twenty years restaurants have increased their portion sizes at least two and even up to three times more, which has caused confusion among consumers distorting what is a normal serving. Educating yourself on how much should be eaten can help you better estimate how much to buy when purchasing foods. Not only will you be able to serve healthier meals at home, you’ll be reducing the risk of serving too much that could then result in wasted food. 

Tip sheet: Serving Size Comparison Chart

2. Storage and Organization
Learning proper storage and organizational techniques will help extend the life of food, avoid the growth of food borne illness causing bacteria and reduce the risk of throwing away that container of tuna salad in the back of your fridge that you forgot about for 3 weeks.

• Buy a thermometer – this will help make sure food is kept at the right temperature. Keep the fridge temperature at or below 40 degrees and the freezer at 0 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Don't overstock the fridge – overstocking causes temperature fluctuations and may make it easy to forget what is in the fridge.
• Use partially used items first – cut fruits and vegetables always spoil first and are at greater risk for bacteria.
• Practice FIFO - First in First out – re-organize the fridge with FIFO in mind. Place old items in front and new behind will make sure old items are used first and not forgotten.

Tip sheets: Where to store fruits and vegetables
How to store food safely
How to extend the life of your produce

3. Waste
Gunders states, “The average American consumer discards 10 times as much as the average Southeast Asian.” Learning how to repurpose foods can help prevent food from becoming waste. Think of using the whole vegetable from root to frond. Check out this video from Chef Olivia from the Natural Gourmet Institute for some great ideas.

• Stocks – unused parts of meats and vegetables could be used to make stocks at home.
• Jams and toppings – ripe fruits can be mashed up and cooked down to use for later.
• Pickles – chard and broccoli stems, watermelon and citrus rinds can all be used to make delicious pickles.
• Freezing – a great way to save leftover foods. Always have fresh herbs on hand by saving leftover herbs in ice cube trays with olive oil – a great way to spice up soups, pastas and stir-fries. Freeze extra food in 1-2 serving sizes to take what is needed without defrosting the whole batch. To save on space, try freezing soups and stocks in muffin tins and then bag frozen portions to prevent sticking multiple containers in the freezer.
• Composting – helps manage waste, reduces methane emissions, and recycles nutrients. Find a local composting program here.

Tip sheet:
How to make chicken stock

Stay tuned to read how food service operations can work to reduce food waste.

Antibiotic resistance is a serious public health concern that we are hearing more and more about due to the increase in antibiotic resistant infections. According to the CDC, at least 2 million people in the U.S. become infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria each year and at least 23,000 people die from these infections. The overuse of antibiotics in food-producing animals is one of the main causes of this problem. Antibiotics sold for use in livestock, which increased by 16% since 2009, have been commonly used for non-therapeutic uses, such as preventing the spread of disease in crowded living conditions or growth promotion.

In 2013, the FDA issued Guidance #213, which asked drug companies to voluntarily remove growth promotion as an indicated use from the product labels of medically important antimicrobials given to animals and increase veterinary oversight. Although the guidance is voluntary, it is an important step forward in the effort to regulate the use of antimicrobial drugs for food-producing animals.

Consumers Demand Change and Industry Takes Notice

A key factor in changing the way antibiotics are used in our food system is increasing consumer concern about antibiotic resistance and the demand for transparency. In a 2012 survey by Consumer Reports, 86% of respondents agreed that customers should be able to buy meat and poultry raised without the use of antibiotics at their local grocery stores.

Industry has taken notice of this shift and food service operators are taking action. Many small operations and some chains, such as Panera and Chipotle, were ahead of the curve and have served antibiotic free chicken and meat products for years. Perdue, the largest antibiotic-free chicken producer in the U.S., began making changes to their policies regarding antibiotics over 10 years ago.

Recently, more companies have announced intentions to change their practices in this area. In 2014, Chick-fil-A announced plans to use chicken raised without the use of antibiotics in all of its restaurants within five years. McDonald’s, one of the largest chicken buyers in the U.S., announced this month that they will begin using chickens raised without antibiotics used to treat humans over the next two years. Costco also announced this month that they are working towards discontinuing the sale of chicken and meat raised with medically important antibiotics. However, it unclear whether companies will take steps to eliminate the use of antibiotics all together (not just drugs used to treat humans), how long it will take to make changes across large supply chains, and what actions will be taken to ensure transparency in the process.

The Take-away

Changing the way antibiotics are used for the production of meat and poultry will not happen overnight and will require action from many avenues. At SPE, we encourage the use of smaller portions of animal protein raised without the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics, promoting health on both an individual and larger scale. Hopefully, the recent announcements from major food chains indicate a growing shift in the industry and encourage large producers of meat and poultry to change their practices. As consumers and food service operators, we can continue to do our part to encourage sustainable practices by purchasing animal products raised without the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics from reputable sources and sharing our knowledge with others.

With the release of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) recommendations for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the government has now opened the public comment period. While officials within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are tasked with authoring the Dietary Guidelines, they are informed by recommendations from the DGAC report and also consider feedback from the public (individuals, organizations, industry trade groups, academics, health professionals, etc.). 

The Dietary Guidelines have the power to influence the diets of millions of Americans and in turn, dramatically impact the bottom line of food manufacturers and funding for public health initiatives.  Given the dollars at stake, industry groups are mobilizing to protect their interests. Those of us working towards a healthier, more sustainable food system must also be heard!

Sample letters supporting a more sustainable, nutritious food system are circulating. Here’s one example from Michael Jacobson and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and another signed by myriad health and nutrition advocacy groups.

The comment period is open until April 8, so go here to show your support for a more sustainable food system!

Recently the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) submitted its report to advise the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) as they jointly draft the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. While it is up to the HHS and USDA if and how recommendations from the advisory committee are incorporated into the final set of guidelines, there are several promising recommendations worth noting.

Similar to previous years, the committee noted that American diets are too high in sodium and saturated fat and are falling short when it comes to calcium, vitamin D, fiber, and potassium. However, this year's report has relaxed the dietary cholesterol recommendations of previous years (read about why dietary cholesterol does not contribute significantly to blood cholesterol levels for most people) and recommended no more than 10% of calories come from added sugars. 

For the first time, the committee has recognized the significance of a sustainable food system and the intersection of human and environmental health. Dietary patterns that include more plant-based foods such as vegetables, fruits and whole grains are beneficial not just for people but also the planet!

Importantly, the report emphasized that dietary recommendations are not meant to increase or reduce nutrients in isolation. When reducing consumption of foods with higher levels of sodium, saturated fat, or added sugars, we must also consider what we are adding to our diets to fill the gaps. Rather than opting for low sodium, low fat or artificially sweetened processed foods, incorporating more minimally processed vegetables, fruits and whole grains with smaller portions of lean proteins will be good for our health and the environment. 

Here at SPE Certified, we are happy to see that so many of our nutritional and environmental priorities are mirrored in the DGAC’s report!

America Awakening

There has likely never been a time in US history when there was so much concern surrounding the source of our food, its preparation, how it’s served and what it does to us. The antithesis to times past when anxieties about getting enough food abounded and whether those calories were really “good” for us mattered not. What mattered most was that they were available!

The intervening period marks a time when more calories were produced than there were people to consume them. Born largely from federal agricultural policies of the 1970s, this era ensured that, for Americans, food would be cheap and plentiful.

Behind it there was perhaps a noble intention – a healthier nation, a larger market for farmers or even more disposable income per household. Regardless of the motive, these policies had consequences and their side effects still reverberate today, both on our waistlines and on our environment.

Consumers are demanding “better” food

Now, the pendulum swings again. Even though calories are still abundant, consumers are looking for food that won’t have long-term ill effects, either directly on their health or indirectly by harming our planet.

This is not the only demand the modern discerning consumer is making: food should also fit a diet they identify with – vegan, vegetarian, paleo, or otherwise – and have a favorable nutrient profile, while still tasting delicious. Clearly the intention here is to achieve health through food. A tall order, perhaps, for the foodservice industry?

And what’s driving this change? Is it really Millennials and their specific needs, or is it somehow the result of a universal shift in consciousness? The answer arguably lies at the confluence of many factors, all of them evolutionary.

So what’s next?

As human beings, we no longer have the day-to-day concern of our survival as a species, and neither do we have the responsibility of building a modern society from scratch. Preceding generations took care of that for us and as a result bestowed upon us the luxury of time, technology and scientific understanding to learn from our past and look ahead and visualize our future. From that vantage point, we seemingly understood that our imperative is to evolve our way of being.

In essence, we are entering a new paradigm, one that has at its core the convergence of health, nutrition, sustainability and our environment. Shifts in the way people are choosing to eat or the way organizations conduct their business are happening because we as citizens of the world are evolving, and for the better.

This is our time. Let’s embrace it and be ready; let’s be the change - for ourselves and for mankind!

QSRs are Yesterday’s News

As the foodservice industry continues to recover from the great recession, one bright star has emerged – fast casuals. Fast casual chains, like Smashburger, Chipotle and Panera Bread, are gaining market share in a sector that was once dominated by quick serve restaurants (QSRs), such as Mc Donald’s, Burger King and Taco Bell.

This evolution is driven in large part by Millennials, a generation whose needs and wants are very different to that of every preceding generation – a generation that values diversity and choice, but most of all one that is socially-, environmentally- and health-conscious.

What’s a Fast Casual?

A departure from the hurried in-and-out QSR business model, fast casual restaurants offer a lot more when it comes to service and quality. With minimal table service and customizable menus served up in a more ambient and upscale setting, fast casuals are attracting Millennials who eschew anything that feels mass produced while gravitating towards the artisanal. For these upgrades, Millennials are willing to pay; the average meal in a fast casual restaurant ranges from $8 to $15 while a typical QSR meal costs between $3 and $6.

Beyond this, a notable point-of-difference is the position fast casuals take when it comes to health, sustainability and the environment. Arriving to the marketplace at a time when such issues had already undergone extensive media debate, fast casuals embraced a new, more holistic way of doing business. Proud to wear that badge, they weaved that messaging into their brand identity by claiming healthier menus, higher quality ingredients, ethical sourcing practices and sustainable business practices.

Rich Rewards

Tully & Holland’s Restaurant Industry Update reported five consecutive years of growth in visits to fast casual restaurants -- in 2013 the increase in customer visits was 8% alone. What makes these figures most impressive is the converse trend in the QSR segment, where overall growth for 2013 remained flat compared to the previous year. Projecting ahead, topline growth for the fast casual segment is poised to reach around 14.1% in 2014.

Crowded Landscape

Along with burgeoning growth in any industry comes increasing pressure for businesses to maintain and grow market share; fast casuals are not immune to this. Each week the headlines herald stories of new chains launching and boldly staking their claim. These companies bring with them fresh perspectives, innovative ideas and exciting concepts.

Take for example, New York City-based The Little Beet. Conceived to expand to a national scope, this “little” chain has at its core a philosophy “to serve real food deliciously” using local, seasonal and natural ingredients – food that is 100% gluten-free and “makes you feel real good about eating it, and even better after.” Restaurants like The Little Beet are not only considering the macronutrient (protein, carbohydrate and fat) profile of the food they serve, but also the micronutrient (vitamin and mineral) content. They don’t want to just say that their food is healthy; they truly want to deliver on that promise.

QSRs Fight Back!

Desperate to hold on, QSRs are shifting gears by upgrading their menus and re-engineering some of their current offerings in an effort to be perceived as ‘healthier” - with mixed results. In recent years McDonald’s has made several stabs at overhauling their menus -- however, these efforts appear to have fallen short, evidenced perhaps by the continued decline in customer visits. And Burger King’s attempt to recapture market share with “Satisfries” – a re-engineered, lower-fat French fry –was rejected by its customers and the product was pulled one year after it launched.

Regardless, the QSRs’ efforts will likely be hampered by other problems. Many indicators suggest that QSRs are reaching “saturation point,” one being the more than 12,000 new additions in the last decade alone. Moreover, customer preferences are changing and we’re likely reaching a time “healthy” really means healthy!

What’s Your USP?

Expanding markets generally means stiffer competition, so a likely part of the future for fast casuals will be finding their USP (unique selling proposition) amongst their competitors.  With greater government oversight being enacted along with heightened consumer awareness of the link between nutrition, health and the environment, one likely solution for fast casuals is an independent, trusted third party vetting their nutritional and culinary practices. SPE Certified provides this type of service and has grown precisely because foodservice establishments are realizing it is a lot more powerful for an independent “voice” to proclaim a dish/menu healthy vs. saying it themselves.

Without defined standards, it’s possible that messages of health and sustainability could become meaningless in an environment where so many are already touting their wares as “healthy,” “natural” and “sustainable.” At one point, consumers themselves will become more aware and will consequently demand more proof. With hundreds of thousands of people showing up at NYC’s climate march on September, 21^st 2014, this day is likely not a vague blip in the distance, but a looming reality.

Share your thoughts with us in the comments section below!