Nielsen research has found almost half of Australian consumers wish there were more “all natural” food products on supermarket shelves.
A reflection of the way the question was asked.
Would you like all natural food products that contained dangerous microorganisms?
The findings from the Global Health and Ingredient Sentiment Survey show Australians are adopting a “back-to-basics mindset”, focusing on simple ingredients says Nielsen.
Close to nine in 10 respondents said they avoid specific ingredients because they believe them to be harmful to their own or their family’s health, while six in 10 consumers said they are concerned about the long-term health impact of artificial ingredients in their diet.
“Informed and savvy consumers are demanding more from the foods they eat and are happy to pay more if they believe it is better for them,” said Michael Elam-Rye, associate director – retail at Nielsen.
They are not informed; they are responding to what grocery stores, TV, the Internet and friends tell them.
But in a Donald Trump era, it’s a fact-free world.
Trump won because he told people what they wanted to hear.
People embrace natural foods and are anti-vaccine because someone is telling them what they want to hear.
And it’s big bucks for the purveyors of food porn – farmers, processors, retailers – especially retailers – and media outlets that make a buck telling people what they want to hear.
I get it. I’ve always said – since I was about 20-years-old – getting attention in the public domain is a mixture of style and substance. Scientists can work on their style, everyone else can work on their substance (and just because you eat does not make you an expert).
But substance has to win out, about 60-40.
It’s a peculiarity that society expects bridges and other engineering feats, along with medicine, to be exceeding current and revolutionary, yet many expect to produce food as in the old days.
It’s not peculiar: it’s advertising, messaging and manipulation.
John Defore writes about a new documentary Food Evolution, which defends the place of genetically engineered food in agriculture.
Neil deGrasse Tyson – who seamlessly blends the 60-40 suggestion of substance over style – and director Scott Hamilton Kennedy challenge enviro-activist orthodoxy, much in the same way I’ve been doing for 30 years.
But they’re more skilled at the style.
Food Evolution sounds on paper like it might be one of those hack-job rebuttals in which moneyed right-wing interests disguise propaganda as a documentary. Many on the left will likely dismiss it as such, which is a shame … the movie makes an excellent case against those who seek blanket prohibitions against genetically modified organisms — and … against those of us who support such bans just because we assume it’s the eco-conscious thing to do.
[I]t investigates the motives of some prominent anti-GMO activists — like those who are “very entrepreneurial,” finding ways to make money off fears the film believes are baseless, or like researcher Chuck Benbrook, whose work was financed by companies making billions from customers afraid of GMOs.
Hope bridges don’t start falling down because people want them more natural.
The folks who did the survey say, “This presents an opportunity for food manufacturers to increase share by offering and marketing products that are formulated with good-for-you ingredients, and an opportunity for retailers to trade consumers up with more premium priced products.”
Tell lies. Bend rules. Make a buck.
Trump is the embodiment for the times.
Top 10 ingredients Australian consumers avoid:
Antibiotics/hormones in animals products
Foods with BPA packaging
Genetically modified foods
I avoid dangerous microorganisms, which sicken 1-out-of-8 people every year.
That’s a lot of barfing.
And it’s not on the list.