The impact of warnings, disclaimers, and product experience on consumers' perceptions of dietary supplements.

Two experiments explored the impact of disclosures (warning and disclaimer) and product experience (heavy, light, and nonusers) on consumers' perceptions of dietary supplements. In general, the government-mandated disclaimer did not impact consumers' beliefs about either the efficacy or the safety of dietary supplements; for most consumers, the disclaimer is unlikely to achieve its intended results. However, when product experience was examined, analyses show that heavy product users responded differently to the disclosures than did light product users and nonusers. Results point to the importance of understanding the influence of individual differences on the interpretation of product disclosures by specific consumer segments.

Information interventions have long been an important policy tool for enhancing consumers' ability to navigate effectively in the marketplace. The availability of relevant, accurate information is thought to assist consumers in making meaningful decisions about product and brand use. Frequently important product information is mandated for inclusion on product labels and in advertising. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA 1994) established new standards for information disclosure on dietary supplement labels. These standards were adopted in part to stimulate the availability of health-related products and to encourage the flow of information in the marketplace.

DSHEA's standards exemplify policymakers' attempts to balance the rights of sellers to make accurate and truthful claims about their products and the rights of consumers to have access to complete and nondeceptive information. The standards made fairly subtle distinctions among different types of product claims (health or disease claims, nutrition content claims, and structure-function claims) and introduced the requirement for a disclaimer previously unfamiliar to consumers. The wording of the disclaimer, mandated when a structure-function claim is made, is prescribed by DSHEA and states:

This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is
not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
This mandated disclaimer is intended to inform consumers that the regulatory review environment for structure-function claims for dietary supplements is different than what consumers are accustomed to for foods or drugs and for other types of claims. DSHEA also distinguished dietary supplements from drugs and exempted dietary supplements from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket approval or safety testing requirements (Mason 1998). Without such requirements, specific hazards associated with use may not be known until extensive consumer use demonstrates adverse effects. Some specific products and/or brands do carry warnings associated with known hazards, but the presence of such warnings is not consistent because of difficulties in identifying risks and enforcing specific warning. The ongoing debate surrounding the energy supplement known as ephedra (65 FR 30677 June 4, 1997; 65 FR 17474-17477 April 3, 2000; and 68 FR 10417 March 5, 2003) illustrates these problems. Although the product has been reported to have contributed to numerous adverse (and severe) reactions, specific warnings about the supplement have been difficult to enforce. Consumers may be aware that risks exist for some products based on their own experience or word-of-mouth, but they may be confused by the presence/absence of warnings on various brands and products. The new requirements in DSHEA posed the challenge of finding effective ways to convey rather subtle messages to consumers (Mason and Scammon 2000).

Since 1994, additional rules have been adopted and new proposals made to further refine the disclosures required when health or disease claims are made in ads (Federal Trade Commission 1994) and on labels (FDA 2003). In response to issues raised in Pearson v. Shalala (1999), the FDA has attempted to make the standards for scientific evidence required to support health claims more flexible (FDA 2004; International Food Information Council 2005). In contrast to the evolution of standards for health claims and disclosures to be used with qualified health claims, little regulatory or research attention has been paid to structure-function claims and their government-mandated disclaimer.

In the current regulatory environment, finer distinctions between types of claims are being made and the ways in which claims can be qualified are being expanded, in part, to support sellers' rights to provide product information (Pearson v. Shalala 1999) and, in part, to provide more useful information to consumers (FDA 2003). However, evidence that the qualifications and clarifications allowed (or mandated) are likely not to work as intended (France and Bone 2005; Murphy 2005) raises questions about the factors that contribute to the diverse impacts such messages may have. Dietary supplements represent a unique context for expanding knowledge about the impacts of warnings and disclosures. Specifically, the information environment is unique because warnings of product risks may or may not be available (such disclosures are only required if postmarket consumer experience reveals risks) and the government-mandated disclaimer deals with the absence of FDA involvement in review of claims rather than with product-specific risks. Further, consumers who use dietary supplements are likely to do so for health reasons and thus may expect supplements to contribute positively to their health while not posing any adverse health consequences. Correcting or modifying these initial beliefs presents a particular challenge. Thus, research on consumers' understanding of disclosures in this unique environment could be helpful to policymakers as they attempt to find effective ways to ensure that consumers understand product information.

The purpose of this study was to explore consumers' understanding of product disclosures (1) in a changed regulatory environment. We are particularly interested in consumers' understanding of the disclaimer required for dietary supplements and of warnings appearing in the unique information environment. The structure-function claims and disclaimers are less specific and less familiar to consumers than health claims and warnings, which are more common for foods and drugs. Warnings appear more sporadically, with some relating to an entire product category and others referring to a specific brand. Of particular interest is whether and how responses to warnings and disclaimers differ across consumer segments. We focus on one individual difference variable, product user status, and its impact on consumers' interpretations of disclosure messages. We examine the meanings that heavy, light, and nonusers of dietary supplements take away from structure-function claims and disclosures and also examine the ways in which these messages impact consumers' perceptions of product efficacy, safety, and overall product evaluations.

DSHEA AND PRODUCT DISCLOSURES

DSHEA established structure-function claims as a new type of claim that describes the role of a nutrient or a dietary ingredient in the normal structure or function of the body. These claims may characterize the process by which the product acts to maintain structure or function and may describe the general well-being derived from consumption of the product. Examples of such claims include "calcium builds strong bones," "fiber maintains bowel regularity," or "antioxidants maintain cell integrity." Structure-function claims are less specific than disease claims and convey an overall qualitative sense of the product's benefits rather than fact-based support for the claim. These claims do not require FDA premarket approval, but sellers are responsible for ensuring their accuracy and truthfulness. Structure-function claims thus represent a different type of claim than what consumers are accustomed to with foods and health products.
DSHEA mandates that whenever a structure-function claim is made for a dietary supplement, a product disclosure in the form of a disclaimer must appear. The disclaimer is triggered by the seller making an affirmative structure-function claim and is thus designed to be interpreted in conjunction with the claim. The mandated disclaimer is unique from other disclosures because it is intended to stimulate consumers' consideration of the more global and complex product and information environment rather than to improve their knowledge about a single product attribute (e.g., fat content, pricing terms) or their understanding of expected performance based upon a summary of multiple product attributes (e.g., nutrition content based on fat, sodium, and others). Unlike a qualified health claim that is intended to help consumers understand the strength of support for product claims and unlike a warning that communicates a direct product effect, the mandated disclaimer makes a more abstract reference to the regulatory environment rather than to the product. Specifically, the mandated disclaimer provides general information about the lack of FDA review of products and their claims and is intended to put consumers on notice that they should be cautious in interpreting sellers' claims.

Dietary supplement labels may also be required to carry a more familiar warning message if a specific health concern related to product use is known (in general or for specific consumer segments) or when specific usage precautions are needed. Product warnings are a strong, explicit type of risk information intended to make consumers aware of a specific safety or health hazard related to use of the product. Generally, warnings do not contradict the purpose for which consumers seek the product; they merely provide additional relevant information. Consumers are likely to be familiar with product warnings since they appear on a wide variety of health and consumer products (e.g., pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and tobacco products). However, the warnings on dietary supplements may have a different impact on consumers because of the nature of the product category. Unlike tobacco and alcohol products (the context in which much warning research has been conducted), dietary supplements are not generally taken for hedonic purposes but rather for health reasons. With tobacco and alcohol products (and in the case of intentional misuse of drug products), warnings may be understood but ignored for the sake of pleasure and gratification. Because dietary supplements are promoted and consumed for health purposes, claims and warnings are likely to be understood/viewed in much the same way as those for pharmaceuticals. However, unlike drugs, which may carry warnings of multiple risks identified in premarket testing, dietary supplements may only carry warnings if consumer use has identified a specific risk. It is unclear under these conditions as to what meaning consumers will take from a warning. The risk may be viewed as more important (because of its presence) or as less important (because the overall product category is presumed to be safe).

Given the unique nature of the disclaimers and warnings, dietary supplements offer an interesting environment for examining the impact of disclosures including the ways in which consumers use such information to form product evaluations. We present the results of two experiments examining consumers' reactions to disclosures in the context of structure-function claims for dietary supplements. Our goal is to help marketers and policymakers gain a better perspective on how consumers understand qualifications to or disclaimers about product claims, especially when messages introduce unfamiliar information.

HYPOTHESES

Our hypotheses are framed in the context of the regulatory environment for dietary supplements and the "direct impact" anticipated by many public policy information interventions (see France and Bone 2005). When health risks are well known, warnings are required on dietary supplements. These warnings are very specific and intended to impact perceptions of product safety. The disclaimer is required when structure-function claims are made and refers to the lack of FDA review of the product and its claimed benefits. This disclaimer is intended to suggest to consumers that they should generally be cautious in interpreting the product claims, thus it is intended to impact perceptions of product efficacy. However, prior research on the impact of both health warnings and product disclaimers suggests that these intended impacts may not occur due to both message (disclosure variables) and audience (person variables) factors (Rogers, Lamson, and Rousseau 2000). We develop our hypotheses with both influences in mind.

The Impact of Product Disclosures

Warnings

The literature on the impact of product warnings is quite mixed (see Rogers, Lamson, and Rousseau 2000; Stewart, Folkes, and Martin 2001; Stewart and Martin 1994, for reviews); but research suggests that impact may vary significantly depending on message characteristics. Warnings communicating product risks can be specific or general, familiar or unfamiliar, and presented using more or less vivid language and images. Although the severity and nature of the hazard may impact individuals' perceptions of risk, consumers are more likely to notice warnings and remember precautions they can take to avoid the risk when warnings are particularly vivid (Slovic et al. 2002). The more specific the risk about which consumers are warned, the more likely they are to appreciate the actual risk (Stewart and Martin 1994). In research on the disclosure of risks related to prescription drugs, Morris, Mazis, and Brinberg (1989) found that the disclosure of specific risks led to greater risk information awareness than did disclosure of general risks. Similarly, in research on warnings for over-the-counter (OTC) antacids, Houston and Rothschild (1980) found that specific warnings led to greater recall and greater knowledge than did general warnings. Specific vivid warnings facilitate processing of the message and provide greater ease of encoding, which can aid interpretation of the risk message, impacting specific risk beliefs and more global attitudes (Bettman, Payne and Staelin 1986; Rucker and Petty 2006). Based on the findings that warnings do impact consumers' perceptions, we propose the following:

H1: Consumers exposed to the warning will display less favorable product safety evaluations than those exposed to the disclaimer or no-risk disclosure (control).
Less research on the impact of other types of disclosures on consumers has been reported, but it is likely that similar factors influence their impact. Disclosures are typically required to facilitate accurate global judgments or inferences. As an example, nutrition facts panels are required on food products' labels so that consumers can have information by which they can judge health claims about the product. Research on the impact of disclosures has examined their impact on both global judgments (e.g., healthfulness) and specific beliefs (e.g., sodium content) (see, e.g., Andrews, Burton, and Netemeyer 2000; Andrews, Netemeyer, and Burton 1998; Kelley, Gaidis, and Reingen 1989). However, the mandated disclaimer for dietary supplements presents a different situation. This disclaimer, which is required when a structure-function claim is made, includes a general statement not about risks associated with a particular product but rather about the general nature of the regulatory environment and the role of the FDA. The disclaimer thus includes an unfamiliar general message about an unfamiliar situation. The disclaimer presents an interesting case in which to examine consumers' responses relative to that of the more studied product warning. A recent study (France and Bone 2005) evaluated the impact of the disclaimer on subjects' beliefs about the issues specifically mentioned in the disclaimer. The study found that the disclaimer had no discernable impact on subjects' beliefs about the FDA's involvement in evaluating product claims or about the effectiveness of supplements in preventing, treating, or curing the focal disease. Overall, the authors concluded that the disclaimer did not have its intended effects in communicating to consumers' specific information about the regulatory environment for dietary supplements. Beyond the beliefs about the explicit information in the disclaimer, a further question is whether the disclaimer has an impact on more global judgments about the product. Johar and Simmons (2000) reported that disclaimers are less likely to impact inferences about global product or brand characteristics, especially when the information would require modification of previously held beliefs. Only vivid, explicit disclosures were able to impact consumer inferences (and then only under conditions of high motivation and high opportunity). In light of this prior research on the impacts of specific and general disclosures, we specifically test the impact of the disclaimer with respect to its intended purpose of raising cautions as to the efficacy of structure-function claims and propose the following:

H2: Consumers exposed to the disclaimer will display less favorable product efficacy evaluations than those exposed to the warning or no-risk disclosure (control).
The Impact of Risk Disclosures in Light of Product Usage

Another consistent finding in the warning literature is that the impact of warnings depends on audience characteristics (Rogers, Lamson, and Rousseau 2000; Stewart and Martin 1994). Research suggests that personal characteristics (i.e., age, personality), cognitive variables (i.e., attitudes, beliefs), and behavioral variables (i.e., experience with the product or the risk) can impact consumers' responses to warning messages. We focus on findings that link cognitive and usage variables to response to disclosures. Communications research suggests that there is a general tendency for consumers to interpret messages in light of their current beliefs and behaviors. This confirmatory bias enables consumers to maintain consistency between their beliefs and behaviors. In their review of warning research, Stewart and Martin (1994) suggested that different reactions to warnings can be explained in part by differences in the relevance of the message to consumers and consumers' predisposition toward the message. Product usage is likely to influence such predispositions. One's experience using a product is likely to contribute to differences in beliefs about product benefits. In turn, these product-related beliefs are likely to impact how consumers interpret warnings and other product disclosures.

Familiarity with a product, product category, or particular risk, especially gained through usage, may influence how consumers respond to disclosure messages. At the product category level, it is likely that heavy product users will have more positive prior beliefs about products than light product users, which impacts their response to disclosures and their perceptions of product-related risks. When investigating the impact of alcohol warnings, Patterson, Hunnicutt, and Stutts (1992) found that product usage levels impacted survey respondents' perceptions of product risks. Using an experimental design, MacKinnon and Lapin (1998) found that user status (drinking/nondrinking) influenced students' perceptions of product risks, and warnings had little effect on product perceptions. Andrews, Netemeyer, and Durvasula (1991) found that students who were frequent alcohol users reported greater disbelief in alcohol warnings than occasional users and nonusers. Research further suggests that if no risks have been experienced during use, consumers may become overconfident, leading to lower perceptions of risk (Rogers, Lamson, and Rousseau 2000). Such studies suggest that positive prior beliefs and previous benign experience with a product category may contribute to warnings or disclosures having less impact on consumers.

This, however, may not be the case with dietary supplements. In a product category where industry trust varies significantly (France and Bone 2005), consumers may be especially concerned with product risks. Because of their extensive experience with the product category, heavy product users may be more aware of the potential for health risks related to product use. This greater knowledge of risk potential within the product category should cause heavy product users to consider warnings more carefully than light product users. Light product users are likely to be less familiar with products overall and less aware that unknown risks may result from use. Warnings thus may impact the safety perceptions of heavy and light product users differently.

With regards to efficacy perceptions, other information sensitivities may be at work. Heavy product users are likely to have strong initial product-related beliefs resulting from varying reasons for and extent of experience that influence their reactions to product information (Andrews, Netemeyer, and Durvasula 1991; Slovic 1987). When individuals have strong initial views, these views may be resistant to change, and the strongly held beliefs may influence the way in which subsequent information is approached and interpreted. Slovic (1987) argues that "... new evidence appears reliable and informative if it is consistent with one's initial beliefs; contrary evidence tends to be dismissed as unreliable, erroneous, or unrepresentative" (281). In the context specifically of the disclaimer required with dietary supplements, France and Bone (2005) examined the impact of consumers' pre-existing beliefs and behaviors on their beliefs about the disclaimer message and product efficacy and concluded that prior beliefs act as "filters" through which the disclaimer information is interpreted. If the disclaimer is to have its intended effect of reducing expectations regarding promised benefits, we expect that this will be more likely with light product users. Heavy product users may disregard the disclaimer due to inconsistency with beliefs. Light product users are likely to be less committed to the benefits promised by supplements; thus, their efficacy evaluations may be more impacted by disclaimers. Thus, we propose the following general impacts of disclosures and interactions between type of disclosure and product usage.

H3: Consumers exposed to the warning will display less favorable product safety evaluations than those exposed to the disclaimer. The effect is greater for heavy product users than for light product users.

H4: Consumers exposed to the disclaimer will display less favorable product efficacy evaluations than those exposed to the warning. The effect is greater for light product users than for heavy product users.

STUDY 1: HEAVY AND LIGHT PRODUCT USERS' REACTIONS TO DISCLOSURES

Stimuli Design

To test the hypotheses, we designed an experiment in which disclosures associated with a fictitious energy supplement were manipulated. Exploratory research suggested that this product was relevant with consumers across age groups. A variety of supplements were available to consumers seeking energy, but no option dominated the market. To introduce the product to subjects, a Web page highlighted an illustration of an herbal plant; stated "Introducing Komar, a new, all-natural energy herb"; featured a structure-function claim, stating either "promotes physical and mental vitality" or "supports energy, stamina, and vitality"; and included the appropriate disclosure treatment. The structure-function claims used were actual claims that appeared on seller Web sites. These claims met existing FDA policy guidelines for dietary supplement labeling classification of a structure-function claim (FDA 2002). A pretest with seventy students examined participants' general understanding of the meaning of the claims. Subjects' verbatim responses to open-ended questions reflected the FDA definition for structure-function claims. Individuals viewing the claims referred generally to low energy, feeling tired or run down, or similar comments reflecting a temporary state of lowered vitality.

The disclosure messages used for the experimental manipulations were (1) the mandated disclaimer that must appear on any dietary supplement, making a structure-function claim and (2) a modified version of the warning proposed by the FDA for ephedra products (see 65 FR 30677 June 4, 1997; 65 FR 17474-17477 April 3, 2000; and 68 FR 10417 March 5, 2003, for debate on proposed wording). The actual disclosures were "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease" (disclaimer) and "Caution: Taking more than the recommended serving may result in side effects such as high blood pressure, heart attack, or stroke" (warning). The warning message specifically mentioned personal control (appropriate dosage) and side effects. The control condition involved exposure to the benefit claim but no disclosure, a realistic condition for consumers who view claims on the front of the label but not the more extensive information on the back panel.

Study Design and Procedure

This experiment used a 3 (disclosure: warning vs. disclaimer vs. control) x 2 (usage level: heavy product user vs. light product user) between-subjects factorial design. Product usage was assessed from subjects' survey responses regarding frequency and extent of current supplement use. The focus in this study was broadly on product category usage. In the context of a hypothetical product, it is likely that consumers' general comfort level with products in a given category influences their assessments, particularly when there is only limited product information available. A median split was used to divide respondents into two groups: light product users (take three or fewer supplements daily) and heavy product users (take four or more supplements daily).

Persons entering a nutrition retailer were approached, screened for product use, and asked to participate in a study about a new dietary supplement. After obtaining informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group and exposed to the product Web site with the appropriate disclosure. Following exposure, they were asked to complete a survey that included questions about product evaluations and other attitudinal and demographic information.

Dependent Measures

Five semantic differential scaled items were used to assess product perceptions. Factor analysis (with varimax rotation and principle component extraction) revealed two underlying dimensions to product evaluations--efficacy and safety. Based on the analyses, composite constructs were created. The efficacy variable consisted of three 6-point items (ineffective/ effective, unhelpful/helpful, and not useful/useful), with factor loadings of .86, .84, and .86. The safety construct consisted of two 6-point items (unsafe/safe and harmful/harmless), with factor loadings of .89 and .93. In both constructs, higher ratings refer to more favorable evaluations (more effective and safer, respectively). These two factors explained 83.5% of the variance between items. Cronbach alphas were .89 for the efficacy construct and .86 for the safety index.
Participants

The sample consisted of seventy-eight consumers who were current users of dietary supplements. Subjects were primarily females (72%), between 26-35 and 36-45 years old (29% and 26%, respectively), and had some post-high school education but had not graduated from college (47%). They represented a cross-section of annual household income levels, ranging from less than $15,000 (12%) to more than $75,000 (12%). Their supplement use varied in terms of length, intensity, and purpose. Approximately 21% of subjects reported supplement usage of two years or less, while 17% reported usage of more than ten years. While most took a multivitamin for general health, several subjects consumed supplements for treatment of health conditions. Approximately 65% of subjects used a supplement for alleviating a sporadic illness (i.e., a cold, sore throat) and 34% for an ongoing chronic illness. Regarding health issues, 82% of subjects had visited a medical provider in the past year, 47% were living with a serious or chronic illness, 19% had no health insurance coverage, and 26% had no prescription drug benefit coverage.

Analysis and Results

Two structure--function claims were used to increase the likelihood that any effects occurring were due to the claim type rather than a specific message. Prior to testing for our hypotheses, independent t-tests on the dependent variables revealed no significant differences between the claims; thus, these messages were combined for subsequent analyses.

To assess the impact of disclosures and test our hypotheses, we ran two analyses of variances (ANOVAs), with disclosure (warning vs. disclaimer vs. none) and product usage (heavy product user vs. light product user) as the independent variables. Product safety and efficacy perceptions were the dependent variables for the respective ANOVAs. The ANOVAs revealed several significant effects on safety and efficacy perceptions, which are shown in Table 1 and discussed below.
H1 suggests that the warning message will impact perceptions of product safety, while H2 suggests that the disclaimer will impact perceptions of product efficacy. A significant main effect of disclosures on safety perceptions was found ([M.sub.warning] = 3.20, [M.sub.disclaimer] : 4.34, [M.sub.control] : 4.00; F(2, 70) = 6.44, p = .003, [[eta].sup.2] =.16). Post hoc Bonferoni tests revealed that safety perceptions were significantly lower when subjects were exposed to the warning compared to the disclaimer (p = .001) and no-disclosure control (p = .03). As expected, given the strength of the warning compared to the disclaimer, subjects viewing the warning perceived significantly lower product safety, thus supporting H1. It is also important to note that no difference was found between the disclaimer and the no-disclosure control (p = .79). It appears that the disclaimer did not have a significantly different impact on perceptions of safety than did a message without any disclosure information.

With regards to the impact of the disclosure messages on perceptions of efficacy, a significant main effect for disclosure was found ([M.sub.warning] = 3.51, [M.sub.disclaimer] = 2.90, [M.sub.control] = 2.84; F(2, 70) = 3.50, p = .04). Post hoc Bonferoni tests indicated a significant difference in efficacy perceptions between exposure to the warning and the control (p = .04). When subjects saw a warning, their efficacy ratings were significantly higher than when viewing no disclosure. No difference was found in efficacy perceptions for subjects exposed to the disclaimer compared to the control; thus, H2 is not supported. It is particularly noteworthy that the mandated disclaimer did not impact either efficacy perceptions (as intended) or safety perceptions (as might be expected, given the general nature of the disclaimer) any differently than the control message.

H3 and H4 propose interaction effects between type of disclosure and usage level, that is, the two types of disclosures will have different effects for light and heavy product users. H3 focuses on safety perceptions and suggests that for heavy product users more than for light product users, a warning will lead to lower safety perceptions. Our findings reveal a significant interaction between product usage and disclosure; F(2, 70) = 10.59, p = .003, [[eta].sup.2] = .16) (Table 1; Figure 1). Heavy product users viewing a warning reported significantly lower safety evaluations than light product users across conditions and heavy product users viewing the disclaimer or control. Thus, H3 is supported. H4 focuses on efficacy perceptions and suggests that for light product users more than for heavy product users, a disclaimer will lead to lower efficacy perceptions. Contrary to our hypothesis, no significant differences in efficacy evaluations were found between heavy and light product users. Thus, H4 is not supported. The significant interaction between type of disclosure and product usage appears to be driven by differences in the perceptions of heavy product users.

Welcome To Food Trick

Dear Visitors,

Eat, Drink & Be Ready: Food And Beverage 2012 - A Taste Of Things To Come.(Company overview)

DO YOU HAVE AN APPETITE FOR CHANGE?

It has never been tougher to build a successful food and beverage business in the UK than it is today. Food and beverage companies face an array of increasingly complex issues and questions. The manner in which they choose to respond to these challenges will shape the future of the industry for many years to come.
Over the past six months the Food and Beverage team at Deloitte has carried out interviews with board level executives at more than seventy leading manufacturers, retailers and food service companies. We have spoken to relevant government bodies and undertaken a survey of over 1000 consumers. This research has given us a unique insight into the current challenges facing the industry. Building on this, we are developing a major report that we believe will help food and beverage companies define their chosen future place in the industry, and to succeed in becoming a leader in this role.
This document gives a flavour of our findings. It is a high level summary of the full report, which will be published later in Spring 2007.
A Recent Period Of Significant Change
The food and beverage industry has experienced significant change in the last 5 years. Much of this change has been consumer-led with healthier eating, convenience and the quest for new consumption experiences having the greatest impact. The health and nutrition agenda has been aided by increasingly active government support and media focus.
Examples of some of the specific changes we have seen include:
New Products
Smoothies
"Finest" quality private label products
Probiotic and cholesterol lowering foods
Breakfast cereal bars
Allergen free ranges
Organic products
New Experiences
The "skinny decaff latte" coffee shop culture
Affordable sushi for a working lunch
Cold beer in the supermarket
Hot, fresh food "to go" in supermarkets
Growth in consumption of alcohol at home rather than in restaurants, pubs and bars
New Issues
Growing awareness of health issues among the broader community
Desire for fresher, simpler, natural food
Demand for clearer food labelling
Ethical concerns around food miles and Fairtrade
THE CONSUMER VIEW: HOW CONTRARY?
Consumers have multiple motivations which affect their purchasing and consumption patterns. They respond to concerns and ideas from an increasingly broad range of sources such as the media, celebrities, special offers, advertising and internet communities. Traditional mass media represent a less and less efficient means to target specific consumers whose purchasing habits are increasingly occasion based. Better understanding the increasingly fickle consumer is essential to anticipating and affecting consumer behaviour and, ultimately, in ensuring long term success.

It is not surprising that our research has shown that the key consumer trend as understood by the industry is towards healthy eating, particularly of fresh food. Interestingly, this is almost double the importance placed on convenience, the next most important trend.
However, the consumer view is much more complex than this. We have found consumers to be increasingly discerning and demanding. Very often they simultaneously demonstrate multiple mindsets which imply seemingly contradictory shopping patterns. The research also highlights substantial discrepancies between customer intention and behaviour, as shown below.
In summary, the consumer is increasingly fickle, discerning and occasion driven. Our research has confirmed that there is considerable overlap between opposing motivations. For example, more than thirty percent of the consumers in our survey indicated a desire to search for bargain products whilst at the same time indicating they will buy more premium products than ever before.
This is a very clear pointer to the need for manufacturers and retailers to make the best possible use of both consumer insight and outlet segmentation data to determine how, where and when to best target the right consumers with the right value propositions.
"Understanding the increasingly fickle, discerning and occasion driven consumer is essential to anticipating and affecting consumer behaviour."

THE INDUSTRY VIEW: GROWING CHALLENGES
Once the dominant member of the triumvirate of manufacturer, retailer and consumer, some would contend that today the manufacturers are now the least influential. This is an industry which is viewed by many observers as lacking in innovation and highly fragmented. The industry now finds itself facing a fresh set of challenges which were echoed time and time again in the course of our research.
Amongst these many challenges are:
Increasing pressure on costs - Once healthy margins are being pushed down as a result of intense price based competition in the market and increased customer buying power. In addition, the production cost base is on the rise due to escalating raw material, labour, energy, transport and packaging costs.
Making sure brands connect with current consumer issues - The businesses and brands that will be most highly valued by investors will be those that are proactive on issues that resonate with consumers. At the moment these include nutrition and health, consumer education, environmental impact, ethical sourcing, provenance and local community contribution. In the future the brands that resonate most strongly with consumers will "stand for something" on such issues.
An ever growing regulatory burden - Local, national and even international legislators are now major influencers on the future of the whole food and beverage value chain. Salt, fat and sugar content, sustainable production and transportation methods, recyclable packaging and labelling are among the key areas which are all coming under increasing scrutiny.
Retailer power - Grocery retailers are amongst today's leading innovators as they extend their range of services from the traditional food and non-food offering to telecommunications and financial services, as well as continuing to exploit new channnels to market such as via mobile phones and the internet. Their investment in consumer insight, brand reinforcement, space, assortment and merchandise planning has caused a seismic shift in the power dynamic. For the modern consumer, the large grocery retailer is now the "arbiter of choice" and where once manufacturers were selective and set the trading terms, today the grocery Category Manager has largely gained control. The bigger the retailer and the better the consumer insight they command, the greater power they wield.
Sustaining consumer trust - This is a simple concept but exceptionally hard to do in a market where the consumer is more sophisticated, informed and sceptical than ever before. The legacy of past food safety failures has left a climate of distrust that the industry needs properly to address. This requires strong quality management regimes allied to effective communication and explanation of standards to consumers.
Attracting and retaining top talent - For many years food and beverage has not been seen as a "destination industry" for bright young graduates or senior managers with strong commercial experience. Perhaps worse still is the retention issue, with many individuals using the grounding and training they gain with blue chip food and beverage businesses to then build their careers in other industry sectors.
"Grocery retailers are amongst today's leading innovators and their investment in consumer insight, brand reinforcement, space, assortment and merchandise planning has caused a seismic shift in the power dynamic."

A TASTE OF THINGS TO COME
The food and beverage sector in the UK is substantial, with consumer expenditure both in and away from home totalling around [pounds sterling]153bn1 in 2005. While there is little overall top-line growth in the sector, this masks substantial changes in mix - both in what is consumed and where it is consumed. It is these changes that present both the challenges and opportunities for food and beverage businesses.
A successful future depends on how individual businesses, and the industry as a whole, respond and prepare to do business in what will be a somewhat different environment.
The Consumer In 2012
Today's consumers are sophisticated. They understand value versus price, and are used to selectively filtering the multitude of marketing messages aimed in their direction. Tomorrow's consumers are going to be even harder to identify, convert and retain.
The impact of changing consumer trends, behaviours and attitudes will continue to grow. This will naturally further drive complexity and heighten the challenges for the food and beverage business community. Interestingly, the industry view of the future from our research is that the major future trends are, for the most part, all known quantities. The key challenge facing the industry would appear to be how best to deal with those which afford the greatest opportunity for either success or failure. Anticipating the importance of these trends and the resulting impact on consumer demand and preferences will be key to future success. Whilst some of these trends will be generic in nature, there are many which will have very specific implications for individual sectors, channels and categories.
Finally, whilst the industry may believe that the major future trends are all currently known this does beg the question as to what would be the impact of an unconsidered event or trend emerging. The chance of a significant geopolictical or economic discontinuity occurring sometime in the next 5 years is significant given current global conditions. The ability to respond to the unknown as well as the known issues is clearly going to be a differentiator for the would be winners.
In addition to understanding the evolving complexity of consumer decisions and motivations, successful food and beverage businesses are going to have to contend with a shift in the demographic make up of the UK population. Over the next five years the UK population will continue to age with the percentage of people over 60 reaching 23% by 2012, representing a growth of 14.5% for that age group when compared with 20042. With the post-war "baby boom" generation entering retirement, this segment of the population will include a significant portion of well educated, active, health conscious and affluent older citizens.
The ethnic mix will also continue to change through continuing inbound and outbound migratory flows and higher rates of childbirth in particular ethnic groups compared with the rest of the population. Following current trends, citizens from the rest of Europe, Africa and Asia will continue to represent an increasing percentage of the UK population. The geographic spread of different socio-demographic and ethnic groups will remain unevenly distributed across the country with resulting implications for highly targeted ranging and merchandising strategies.
Business strategies that respond to the opportunities that these different groups represent will become more and more important to mainstream grocery retailers and food and beverage manufacturers.
"There will be a greater focus on animal welfare standards and the provenance of meat, dairy and other agricultural products. The consumer will be willing to pay a premium for high quality, naturally produced foods."
Industry Influences In 2012
Health And Nutrition
The health and economic consequences of poor diet are huge. It is safe to assume that the current focus by the government on improving nutrition, especially amongst children, will only get stronger. Restrictions on advertising will become even tougher, labelling requirements more onerous and "unhealthy" ingredients banned completely.
Medium term developments are likely to include:
Consumer education through the school curriculum
Ongoing debate around the advantages of alternative approaches to food labelling
Pervasive front-of-pack nutritional content labelling
Food and beverage companies themselves playing a major role in consumer education through various channels
Industry bodies taking a more proactive approach in representing the industry and publicly reassuring and educating the consumer
Environmental And Social Factors
The environmental agenda will continue to grow in importance. Retailers and manufacturers alike will be expected to report performance in areas such as waste management, energy efficiency, reducing food miles, the amount recycled and carbon emissions. We will see new consumer packaging approaches including an increase in re-usable transit containers and the end of the plastic carrier bag as we know it. All of these issues will also present significant opportunities to differentiate.
Attitudes to water use will have changed significantly by 2012 with clean, fresh water seen as a precious resource that will become more and more expensive. Manufacturing strategies will be increasingly influenced by the availability of high quality, cost effective water sources.
There will be a greater focus on animal welfare standards and the provenance of meat, dairy and other agricultural products. The consumer will be willing to pay a premium for high quality, naturally produced foods. As a result however, we can expect to see much tougher policing of provenance-related claims such as "organic". Difficulties such as avian flu, combined with concern about food miles, are likely to give a substantial boost to food produced close to home.
Sensitivity to the social impact of business activities will also have reached new levels. Major retailers and manufacturers will place an even higher priority on understanding how their stores and factories integrate into the local economy and community and must be able to demonstrate the positive nature of that impact. Both retailers and manufacturers face the need to strike the right balance between ensuring good employment practices wherever they do business around the world whilst reflecting local circumstances as appropriate.
This also extends to sourcing strategies and the employment practices of suppliers. We can expect Fairtrade and similar schemes to become much more widespread.
The regulatory environment will demand much greater transparency of information about the environmental and social impact of both retailers and manufacturers. Comprehensive "triple bottom line" reporting will increasingly be the norm, covering the financial, environmental and social performance of the business

Changing Brand Equity
What's clear is that consumers love brands. However, the brand landscape is becoming more complex. Retailers are now as much in the brand marketing business as the traditional branded manufacturers. Consumer research consistently demonstrates that retailers' brands are more trusted than those of food manufacturers, which reinforces the need for the manufacturing segment of the industry to better present its case.
Category Management has changed the brand landscape on supermarket shelves since the early 1990s. The results of such work have usually been highly successful in terms of improving business performance and have almost always led to radical range restructuring and rationalisation.
Some of the outcomes of Category Management have been:
Growth of Private Label
Through the late 1990s leading retailers themselves increasingly embraced the principles of Category Management. This has resulted in the virtual elimination of number 3 and 4 brands and significantly more space being allocated to retailers' private label products.
Private label products will continue to take a growing percentage of available shelf space making major inroads into many of the areas which were once the sole preserve of the branded suppliers. The retailers have cornered some key high growth and high margin categories, fresh chilled ready meals are an obvious example, almost to the exclusion of major branded suppliers. In addition, private label delivers some excellent lessons in brand extension and portfolio management. Nowhere is this more evident than at Tesco's, Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer with their range of value, luxury and healthy sub-brands. For many food manufacturers, the choice of whether (and how) to compete with or embrace private label is a strategic choice which will shape the future development of their businesses.

Fewer Brands
As a result of the continued war for shelf space we predict that there will be as few as 1,500 brands in the average supermarket in the UK - half the number of fifteen years ago. The growing space allocated to non-food products puts further pressure on brand and product ranges.
Innovative Brands And Marketing
It is not all doom and gloom for branded suppliers. Retailers continue to look for innovative new products and categories to meet ever changing consumer demand. We will undoubtedly continue to see new emerging innovative brands and products such as Innocent or Walkers Sensations, which will claim significant share of mind and ultimately consumer spend.
Assortment And Merchandising
In line with the growing multi-cultural society in the UK, we would expect to see more and more assortment and merchandising decisions being informed by the tastes and preferences of the local communities that each retail store supports. Loyalty card programs will continue to offer valuable insight into which brands and products should be stocked by an individual store reflecting the different needs of particular demographic and ethnic groups.

Continuing Industry Consolidation
Industry consolidation will continue unabated. Driven not only by the desire of companies to achieve scale and the potential opportunity to drive out additional economic value, but also by the need to make the appropriate levels of investment in consumer, shopper and brand insights.
Further catalysts for industry consolidation will be the desire to acquire new ideas, products and services as well as to acquire companies who may not be able to make the necessary investments to meet the increasingly stringent demands of food safety.
Scale and industry leadership will become even more key enablers of business success in these areas. By 2012 we will see substantial further category consolidation, particularly of global brand-led businesses. We will also see other businesses more focused on building strong national brand portfolios, often taking over national food brands that are not viewed as strategic assets by global players. Contract and private label manufacturing businesses will also consolidate further to achieve effective economies of scale.

The Rise Of The Hard Discounters
The European hard discount movement started in Germany and has spread widely across Europe. Mainstream grocery retailers struggle to find strategies that successfully compete with the value proposition offered by companies such as Aldi, Lidl and Netto. Their ranges are simple and the prices very keen, with stores typically close to the town centre and offering easy parking. Their spread is causing another downward turn of the screw on prices and margins. The hard discounters also present new challenges to brand owners who will need to balance brand and merchandising values with the need for consistent volume. It is likely that leading branded manufacturers will do more business with the hard discounters as the norm going forward.
An Even Tougher Regulatory Environment
The high levels of assurance required to ensure the integrity of our food supply is very good news for consumers. For suppliers, regulation in areas such as nutrition labelling, complete removal of hazardous substances, guarantees of traceability and production hygiene practices can be a significant burden.
This regulatory burden can be expected to grow further and in the future enforcement will be even more rigorous, most likely directly administered by the Food Standards Agency rather than through local authorities. Smaller businesses may struggle to keep abreast of the changes, let alone fully comply. This will give added impetus to consolidation.

Technology And Value Chain Integration
By 2012 we will finally be experiencing widespread adoption of much hyped new technologies such as Radio Frequency Identification and Product Data Synchronisation in the end-to-end supply chain. This will be driven by the combined pressures to improve availability on-shelf, take further cost out of the supply chain by reducing losses and improving labour efficiency, and the need to provide ever higher levels of guarantees of process integrity and traceability.
We also expect to see real progress in integrating demand and supply planning processes across retailer and supplier which will be greatly facilitated by the GS1 sponsored alignment of data standards. This will have significant implications for the business processes and systems of manufacturers. It may also lead to the wider benefits of "favoured supplier" status with key retail customers.

The Role Of Private Equity
Why focus on the private equity community when talking about the things that will shape how the industry will look in 2012?
The answer is because it will play a substantial role in some of the changes we have been talking about. Private equity businesses are focused on opportunities to create value in the medium term. In spite of the many challenges facing the industry such opportunities do exist, both in grocery retailing and in food and beverage manufacturing.
Given specific business turnaround opportunities, we expect to see private equity playing a role in the further consolidation of the industry - both in building strong brand portfolios and in accessing the opportunities presented by economies of scale. The availability of funds is not a problem. Private equity may cause businesses to radically challenge traditional operating models. For example, how many branded consumer goods companies will own manufacturing facilities in 2012? The challenge private equity investors face, lies in finding the management talent that can develop and execute the strategies that will drive both revenue growth and eliminate unnecessary costs and create value for the investors.

THE BIG DEBATE
Discussions with senior executives of the UK's leading food and beverage manufacturers and retailing businesses have highlighted six issues companies are grappling with. These do not represent an exhaustive list but do seem to be those that are most "front of mind". How companies choose to respond will substantially impact what they will stand for, shape their business strategies, and determine their operating models going forward to 2012. The six key areas of debate are:

Strategy - What Stance Will We Take On Key Issues?
Health and nutrition
Regulation
Carbon emissions
Food miles
Execution - What Will Shape Our Future Operating Model?
To manufacture or not?
The role of private equity
Below we have provided a brief synopsis of the "debate", the potential impact on business and examples of the key questions that will need to be addressed for companies to compete successfully in 2012.
What Stance Will We Take?
Health And Nutrition
There is a growing consensus that the nation's eating habits represent a major health and economic challenge. Policymakers are becoming more focused on the issue and there is increasing (at least implicit) acceptance, evidenced by much of the activity we see in the market, that different stakeholders feel they have a role to play in encouraging healthy eating and healthy lifestyles more broadly. Good examples include Tesco's Nutrition & Fitness programme and Sainsbury's Active Kids and Active Kids Get Cooking programmes. The CIES Top of Mind Survey for 2007 identified consumer health and nutrition as the number one issue concerning the CEOs of food retailers and manufacturers alike.
Our food is getting healthier with, for example, lower salt levels, reduced use of artificial additives and removal of saturated and trans-fats. This has driven new product introductions to unprecedented levels with 17,779 new food products introduced in 20063. This is a jump of almost 2,000 items over the previous year. Persuading consumers, most importantly children, to adopt good eating habits is however not always easy and those with the worst diets are often the hardest to reach. According to our primary consumer research, 62% of UK consumers surveyed cite upbringing as critical in influencing meal choices within the home.
So, who should lead the way in addressing health and obesity issues and educating consumers to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle? Is this purely the responsibility of government or should food manufacturers and retailers play an active role? There is an increasing consensus that the industry has a key role to play and that food and beverage products need to be promoted within the context of a balanced overall diet. Labelling clearly has an important role to play, but that is just the start.
Food manufacturers and retailers need to learn how to better incorporate consumer education into marketing programmes. Moreover, we can expect initiatives to agree key performance indicators that will help regulators, shareholders and consumers better assess the contribution each business is making to the health of the nation. Those businesses that are proactive will have the opportunity to influence the next steps in the health and nutrition debates as well as positively contribute to the health of their business.

Regulation
The burden of regulation faced by food and beverage manufacturers and retailers has risen progressively over the last two decades. While HACCP4 remains the primary foundation of modern food safety legislation, this is supplemented by the specific requirements of a growing body of legislation such as the Food Safety Act 1990, the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, Beef Labelling Regulation 1760/2000, EU Regulation 178/2002 Articles 18 & 19, EU Regulation 852/2004, the Food Allergen Labelling Act 2004, the General Product Safety Directive 2005 (update) and the Removal of Hazardous Substances Act 2006. This regulatory burden can be expected to grow further, and enforcement will also become more rigorous.
This increasingly complex array of requirements presents two major areas of challenge for food manufacturers and retailers. The first is simply the effort associated with keeping up with the changing regulatory landscape and understanding its implications. Many smaller businesses will struggle to keep abreast of the changes, let alone fully comply. This is likely to give added impetus to consolidation in the industry.
The second, is that all of this is happening at a time when there is continuing downward pressure on prices and margins, and trends in consumer preferences away from dried, canned and frozen foods towards higher risk chilled and convenience foods. Processes and systems need to be re-engineered to improve efficiency, reduce waste and risk, as well as to meet the regulatory requirements for ever greater rigor in end-to-end supply chain integrity and traceability.
What is also clear is that focusing on regulatory compliance is necessary but not sufficient to win in the market. The businesses that succeed in winning and retaining the respect and trust of customers and consumers, will be those that take a holistic approach to governance, quality, risk management and compliance.
"The answer to these questions is not straight forward but successful food and beverage businesses of the future may look very different from today's end to end organisations."

Carbon Emissions
Since the start of 2007, the issue of climate change has moved very rapidly up the agenda of politicians, consumers and businesses alike. Initiatives such as Marks & Spencer's "Plan A", and Tesco's pursuit of carbon footprint labelling are setting the pace.
Carbon labelling may be the industry's best opportunity to ensure that decisions can be made by consumers rather than politicians. Meaningful and trustworthy labelling will, however, be difficult to achieve and requires rapid work on industry standards by many of the major stakeholders if consensus is to be achieved. A split on approach, such as that affecting nutritional labelling, could be costly in terms of confusing and upsetting shoppers and bringing nearer the requirement for specific legislation.
But labelling is unlikely to be sufficient. Increased focus on the carbon footprint of the grocery industry will demand changes in the supply chain and also in-store. One of the challenges faced by major retailers will be to develop carbon-neutral store designs while still providing an attractive shopping experience for the consumer. It would require a profound change of heart among consumers to select stores with weaker lighting, poorer heating and more difficult to access chill cabinets.
Other strategies may also successfully combine carbon efficiency with attractive propositions for the consumer and shopper. Home shopping is, for example, more carbon efficient than the traditional supermarket shopping expedition. A move towards the consumption of more local and fresh produce can provide a more attractive value proposition to the consumer, bring health and nutritional benefits and reduce carbon emissions at the same time. There are many opportunities for those who get their stance correct.

Food Miles
Put simply, food miles are the measure of the distance a food item travels from field to plate. The issue of food miles is coming more to the fore following increased environmental concern. However, many imports such as fruits and vegetables from Africa, provide well paid legitimate work and a vital opportunity to earn hard currency. The economic development and social positives may well counterbalance the environmental negatives of food miles in both politicians and consumers' eyes. In addition to the food miles debate, consideration should also be given to total energy use, especially in production.
It is unlikely that legislation will be introduced in the short term due to the political, economic and social complexities involved. However, retailers and manufacturers will be expected to do more - and are doing more - to manage sensibly the amount of miles products unnecessarily travel. Products are frequently shipped from one region or country to a processing plant in another region or country, and then back to the same location. Such product movements are often driven by differences in processing labour costs which outweigh the shipping costs involved. Even 'local' produce may travel long distances in this way without any indication being available to the consumer. There will be increasing pressure to change such practices. Could 'low food miles' branding and merchandising become the new 'organics'?
One thing is clear. We are going to see more focus on local and low food miles produce, perhaps much like today's dedicated organic space. The ability of retailers and their suppliers to combine these different propositions into clear and meaningful value propositions and merchandising concepts will determine who succeeds in creating real differentiation and winning the associated increases in share and margins.
How Will You Deliver It?
To Manufacture Or Not?
A challenge for global brand owners is where does manufacturing belong within the overall business model? Many fast moving consumer goods businesses have separated their manufacturing and supply organisation from the country marketing and sales offices. This reorganisation allows for economies of scale, the chance to move to lower cost environments, tax advantages and the opportunity to deliver additional efficiency benefits. The result in the UK and the rest of Western Europe is that we continue to see an exodus of manufacturing capacity to Eastern Europe and further afield.
But the issue for many is not just about where they should locate manufacturing operations but more fundamentally whether should they manufacture at all. This debate is magnified by the increasing recognition that many of the skills and capabilities required to run a consumer-led businesses are somewhat different to those required to run highly efficient, high quality manufacturing operations. It's not that the two cannot be accommodated under the same roof, but more and more businesses are asking themselves what their core competencies really are, and focusing accordingly.
As manufacturing operations become a stand alone entity versus marketing and sales, might the next step be to sell or outsource facilities to a third parties with valuable long term supply agreements? Such outsourcing could provide significant opportunities to achieve economies of scale through consolidation and cost reduction, as well as moving asset-intensive manufacturing operations into a separate vehicle. In many ways this is mirroring the trends in other sectors such as computer manufacturing which started down this track in the mid 1990's.
An alternative could be to run manufacturing as a profit centre, rather than a cost centre and, for example, undertake contract manufacturing for other brand owners as well as for retailers' private label businesses. The answer to these questions is not straight forward. The successful food and beverage businesses of the future may, however look very different from today's end to end organisations.

Private Equity
Private equity has been taking control of an increasing share of the industry in both retail and manufacturing. There are differences of opinion as to whether it is healthy. Many contend that a period of private ownership and tight financial management provides an opportunity to get a business in good shape for subsequent healthy growth and value creation. Others make accusations of shorttermism, asset stripping and a lack of interest in the long term health of the UK industry.
In reality, private equity is only another form of ownership that brings particular disciplines that other businesses might often better emulate. Similar accusations are often made about the even more marked short-termism of quarterly results driven publicly quoted companies.
So what are the strategic issues around private equity that management teams need to grapple with? Do we as a management team think we can do better under private equity ownership than as a quoted company, and if so how and why? Can we learn anything from private equity's apparent capability to deploy specific levers to deliver improved business performance? Do we need to increase our leverage to match private equity players, either to make better use of capital or simply to make ourselves less attractive to a predator?
Is there a way we can use private equity to help achieve some of our strategic ends, for example, lining up a private equity house to buy unwanted parts of our current business or parts of a planned acquisition?
The involvement of private equity in the food and beverage industry is unlikely to diminish in the short term. The opportunity for the industry is to learn from relevant private equity practices such as growth, cost and performance management approaches.

PILLARS OF SUCCESS
So, against the backdrop of this changing and challenging landscape, what can food and beverage businesses do to drive profitable growth and value creation? We strongly believe that there is real opportunity to create substantial value in the industry. Doing so requires businesses to do three things:
Make the right strategic choices
Mobilise to win
Get the basics right
For most businesses all three are achievable with the right leadership. In the following paragraphs we offer some thoughts about how to approach each of these.
Make The Right Strategic Choices
While businesses in food and beverage face many common challenges and opportunities, strategy in the industry is not a 'one size fits all'.
For all food and beverage businesses it is important that in the demanding and competitive markets in which they trade, there is absolute clarity as to the strategy being pursued and how that strategy will be executed. There is no room for ambiguity.
Strategies need to reflect the choices that are right for the business, given the available opportunities in the market and the capability of the business to exploit those opportunities and thus create value. These choices include:
What type of business do we want to be?
How close are we to our customers and consumers?
Are we clear about our future category and product portfolio focus?
Will you focus on innovation and brand-led organic growth or will we focus on seeking out potential acquisition candidates?
In what geographies should we operate?
What channels to market will we exploit?
What position will we take on the wider corporate responsibility agenda?
Every business should ask itself these questions and make the choices that are right for the business. The outcomes will shape the strategy of the business and determine the capabilities that must be in place to execute that strategy.
Mobilise To Win
Having set out a clear strategic direction and vision for the business the next priority is to mobilise the organisation around that vision and establish the right capabilities and operating model for effective strategy execution. With real challenges in attracting high quality resources into the industry, focusing on the talent agenda is a thread that runs through almost every aspect of mobilising to win.
For most food and beverage businesses this includes:
Getting clarity on the required operating model
Establishing a clear performance management framework aligned to strategic goals
Investing in leadership and management skills
Establishing and incentivising employee engagement
Building and promoting fulfiling careers
Strengthening commercial insight and decision making
Re-energising and focusing innovation
Driving the total value chain not just the supply chain
Get the basics right
In parallel with mobilising to execute the strategy and drive profitable growth, most food and beverage businesses need also to address a range of tactical and operational issues that are important to the effective and efficient running of the business.
For most businesses this includes:
Improving discipline in managing commercial spend
Adopting excellent sales and operations planning disciplines
Standardising, strengthening and streamlining operational and administrative processes
Eliminating unnecessary complexity
Retaining key talent
"Attracting high quality resources into the industry, and focusing on the talent agenda is a thread that runs through almost every aspect of mobilising to win."

2012: WHO CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE? FOOD FOR THOUGHT

As part of our ongoing contribution to the debate of the future of the food and beverage industry, and returning to the opening theme of this document, we have listed a few potential scenarios which we believe are likely to appear on the menu.
To Start - Products
Major growth in "nutraceuticals" and wellbeing products, with price premiums eroded as these become staple items
Major decline in the number of brands as a result of a greater stretch amongst brand champions and more and more incursion by private label. Expect some high profile casualties on the shelves of the major grocers
Ongoing rationalisation of brands by major retailers leads to manufacturers exploring the use of new and innovative channels to supply these 'secondary' brands direct to the consumer
To Follow - Experiences
"Back To The Future" - a return to the food market experience for some of the major grocers. Expect to see major diversification and even the introduction of new fascias depending on location
A potential shift from the coffee shop culture to an environment selling more natural products to satisfy consumers' increasing concern for healthy and nutritious products
The re-emergence of the traditional family unit eating together in the home or in casual dining restaurants which serve fresh, simple, healthy meals
To Finish - Issues
At least one major brand will disappear due to unforeseen corporate responsibility oversights
Significant changes in product constitution will mean legally enforceable limits on salt, sugar and fat contents will either be in effect or imminent
Manufacturers will become more focused on the development of patented, specialist ingredients and formulations. Such patented technology will provide a key platform for protecting brand positioning and strength versus private label
JOIN THE DEBATE
This summary gives a flavour of some of the current issues and potential scenarios highlighted by our research. In the main body of our report, which will be launched later in Spring 2007, we will focus in greater depth on the many areas driving change in the food and beverage sector today. The report will address each area of the food and beverage industry in more detail and translate the issues captured by the research into practical insight.
We are always keen to engage in discussion with the industry and would be very happy to hear your views.
Footnotes
Source: Food and Drink Federation
Source: Government Actuary's Department
Source: Mintel International

The Making of a Water Snob.(Life: Environment - Food - Law - Medicine - Behavior; Food)(water sommelier)

Our man's journey from chugging at the tap to appreciating rare bottled brands
I always ask for tap water, no matter how nice the restaurant is. It's my way of telling the waiter that, despite my choice of the $80 tasting menu, I'm not some self-important yuppie jerk. Other than the Saint Emilion and the truffles, I'm keeping it real. Now nice restaurants are coming around to my way of thinking. Alice Waters, citing environmental reasons, banned bottled water at Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif. Several other high-end Bay Area spots have also gone tap-only, and soon Del Posto, Mario Batali's expensive Manhattan joint, will join them. I'm betting that fine-dining establishments will eventually follow my environmental lead on napkins too and let diners wipe their mouths with their sleeves.
So when I invited Michael Mascha, author of Fine Waters: A Connoisseur's Guide to the World's Most Distinctive Bottled Waters, to a lunch where he would pair our courses with different bottled waters, I was doing it To Catch a Predator--style. I wanted to see if the guy who helps restaurants pick their water lists would suggest a coq au Volvic.
I met Mascha at Los Angeles' La Terza, which, I was delighted to find out, is one of many restaurants that serve each table with a vessel of tap they carbonate themselves. This guy was doomed. Sensing what I was up to--because, really, it's what everyone is up to upon hearing that he's a water sommelier--Mascha immediately tried to disarm me. He told me about his Ph.D. from the University of Vienna, where he specialized in food anthropology. And about how he was a wine collector until he found out in 2002 that he had an alcohol allergy that could stop his heart, at which point he transferred his interest to water. I felt sorry but unmoved. Just because being married means staying home and watching TV on Saturdays doesn't mean there are good shows on Saturdays.
So when Mascha reached into his satchel and whipped out 15 bottles I'd never seen before--each to be lovingly served at cellar temperature--from his collection of 350 brands, I was amused. When I mockingly smelled a glass of Spain's naturally carbonated Vichy Catalan, he admitted that waters have no smell and very little taste. I felt that flush of superiority that 60 Minutes reporters feel.
But then Mascha countered by explaining that about 75% of the fine-water experience is mouthfeel--basically, how many bubbles there are and how big they are. Some 20% comes from how dense the liquid is with minerals such as calcium and magnesium--which, to my shock, is listed on the side of most bottles as the TDS: total dissolved solids. The remaining 5%, Mascha claimed, comes down to pH balance: slightly alkaline waters taste sweet; acidic ones have a tinge of sourness.
As I reeled from all the technical details, Mascha further disarmed me by admitting that no one really needs a water sommelier. "A trained waitstaff can advise you. It's not rocket science," he said. Also, he thinks the common restaurant markup of five to eight times the cost of a bottle is horrible business. He told me that, aside from really nice dinners, he downs tap all day long. For our first course at La Terza, beef tartar, Mascha poured Vichy Catalan, arguing that the high mineral content would hold up against the beef. In general, he suggests treating high-TDS waters (above 800) like red wines and low-TDS waters like whites. He also recommends pairing water that has small bubbles with subtler dishes so that the effervescence doesn't overpower the food.
The weird thing is the Vichy Catalan did taste good--and, more impressive, it tasted like something. It had a silvery aftertaste and felt a little thick without obvious carbonation. As I got excited about the water I had come to humiliate, I realized for the first time which side I would have gone with in Vichy France.
With our salad of burrata with heirloom tomatoes, Mascha poured Antipodes, a nearly mineral-free, lightly carbonated water from New Zealand, which, because of its neutral pH, tasted pleasantly sweet against the soft cheese. With my tagliatelle with ragout, I drank a medium-carbonated, high-calcium Italian water. We also had one water that flowed through volcanic rock (Hawaiian Springs), two from melted glaciers (Hawaii's Kona Deep and Canada's unpleasantly sour 10 Thousand BC) and water freshly bottled from Tasmanian rain (Tasmanian Rain). To my surprise, the waters did taste different. Or felt different. Buying an occasional bottle of water no longer seemed insane. "If you're sitting down with nice food, why not spend $3 on a nice bottle of water? I'm not suggesting you shower in the stuff," Mascha said. As we were leaving, Mascha looked like a man vindicated. He didn't even stop in the bathroom. The guy can hold his water.
[BOX]
How to Taste Water. Some tips from a connoisseur
CARBONATION
The fizz is often added artificially, except for some like Pedras; its tiny natural bubbles go well with subtler flavors
MINERALITY
Waters that are high in mineral content, like Vichy Catalan, can seem more refreshing to some drinkers
PH BALANCE
The more acidic the water, the tarter the taste, as with Perrier; a bit of alkalinity makes a sweeter drink

Steam, speed, food, and wine. Ah, the French! Train-watching in France is tolerated and civilized.

The French are different from you and me. I personally think that's a great thing. As regular readers of this column know, I really loved my time working in France.
French railfans are different, too, in ways that I find quite curious. Let me ask, how many of you have ever met a French railfan? I bet you've met Dutch, German, and British fans. They travel the world, including the United States. But have you ever met a French railfan outside France?
Until I moved to France, I had met only two, both of them trekking through the countryside in Eritrea. I was with a small group, mostly Germans, who had chartered a steam train to ride through the amazing coastal mountains and take spectacular photos. The French seemed somewhat surprised by the sight. Yes, they were railfans, they said, but they were there to see East Africa, not necessarily to see steam. Our train was a pleasant surprise for them.
In France, there are many railfans who organize numerous steam excursions every year with the full cooperation of the French national railway, SNCF. But have you ever heard of those trips? Just as the French do not travel to see steam, they do not make a point of inviting outsiders to come see France. They are wonderful people, believe me, and they would welcome outside fans. It just doesn't seem to occur to them.
(It also doesn't occur to the SNCF to be suspicious of railfans. Nor do French police automatically suspect terrorism every time they see someone obviously loving trains. In this way, French police are very different from U.S. police, especially small-town cops.)
A typical French fan trip has no photo runbys. Fans can take pictures at stops, but most of those on board are simply there to see and ride, except for maybe taking some family shots. Few French try to pace fan trips by car. Unless there are a fair number of stops, it is difficult to keep up anyway, given the speeds. There is typically a four-hour (or more) pause at the turnaround point, plenty of time for a nice lunch and some wonderful French wine before a fast run home. The term "civilized" was made for a French fan trip.
Why am I thinking about this? I have just been introduced to one of the most spectacular steam locomotives I have ever seen: the French 241P. For you Americans, that's a 4-8-2. This locomotive is not just any 4-8-2, but a hunk of packaged power. All of you who think that European locomotives are lightweight haven't seen a 241P roar past at speed. They were built for speed and for hauling, routinely roaring along with 16 or more heavy passenger cars. They did this regularly up to 1969.
In the early 1970s I got to France in time to see another locomotive type, the ubiquitous 141R (a 2-8-2). Near the end of steam, the 141R operated mostly in the center of the country out of the city of Nevers, the last French steam stronghold. The 141R, some of which are still available for excursions today, was a war locomotive, built in the United States and Canada by Baldwin, Lima, Alco, and Montreal Locomotive Works. Some 1,340 were delivered to France in 1946 and 1947, although a few are said to have gone down with their ships.
These two locomotives, the 141R and the 241P, closed out the steam era in France. Both were postwar engines, although the 141R effectively moved in right behind allied troops. Much of the rest of the French fleet was war-tired or a heap of bombed metal.
I never saw a 241P in steam until early this year, specifically No. 17, which was restored to running condition in 2006. I was blown away. This beautiful and powerful machine raised goosebumps the first time I saw it. No. 17 is owned by the city of Le Creusot in central France, which helped pay for its restoration to operation and which is only too happy to see the big engine stretch her legs.
The 241P was the ultimate in French steam locomotive design, growing from the talented brain of master designer Andre Chapelon. A total of 35 were built between 1948 and 1952. They ran first on the Paris-Marseilles main line, then were transferred to other lines as electrification booted them aside.
(Chapelon, incidentally, thought the North American-built 141Rs were a little wimpish, so he souped them up to deliver more power after the railroad returned to normal.)
Initial efforts have been made to stage a 241P run for serious photographers, complete with runpasts in the American/German/ Dutch style. When that happens, I intend to be there.
As I hinted before, I wish U.S. railroad officials, homeland security agents, and local police officers could take a trip to France to learn about who the enemy really is. Despite the odd suspicions and strange actions of some U.S. forces, particularly local cops, railfans are not the enemy.
Continental Europe clearly understands that. Even after the deadly commuter-train bombings in Spain and the underground bombings of the Paris subway a few years ago, no one was made to feel there was an enemy other than the people who did the deed. Commuters showed up the next day to go to work, and the bombers were quickly found.
I guess Europe has had experience with war and violence. They get over it, have a nice glass of wine, and celebrate life. The United States could learn something from the Europeans.

Educating early childhood teachers about nutrition: a collaborative venture.

Nourishing the young child can be a challenge. This stage of life is critical to the development of positive attitudes toward maintaining a healthful diet and learning to make reasonable food choices. Educators of young children are often the gatekeepers of child nutrition. This article reports on the current nutrient needs of young children, reviews changes to children's eating patterns, and describes a collaborative nutrition project between early childhood educators in Head Start programs and university nutrition students. Seventy-two Head Start staff attended the programs; the outcomes indicated that a majority of the participants found the presentations new and interesting, and they indicated they would incorporate the nutrition information into their own classrooms. The nutrition students praised the collaboration as being a great experience during which they also were able to enhance their public speaking skills and gain valuable experience in engaging an audience and holding their attention.

THE NUTRIENT NEEDS OF YOUNG CHILDREN

Young children must learn what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and how to eat it (Birch, 1998). Growth and development, while slowing considerably after infancy, remain at a rapid rate, with growth spurts being followed by periods of little to no growth. Growth spurts are accompanied by increases in appetite, just as periods of little growth are accompanied by decreased appetite and interest in food. There is no difference in nutrient requirements based on the gender of preschool children.
Although growth proceeds at a steadier, slower pace after infancy, the young child has relatively high nutrient needs, based on size. Requirements for energy, protein, and fluid continue to increase as the child gains weight and becomes more active. Needs are such that there is little room for foods of low nutrient density, meaning foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients. Table I shows the estimated energy requirements for children at varying levels of activity. After nutrient needs are met, only 165 to 170 additional calories remain for discretionary foods. That is the equivalent of half of a small order of French fries or one 12-ounce soda.
Children need protein to support their optimal growth and to cover maintenance needs. Good sources of protein include eggs, dairy products, meat, fish, poultry, or combinations of complementary vegetable proteins. Recommendations for protein vary--younger preschoolers need less protein (13 g/day for 1- to 3-year-olds) than do older preschoolers (19 g/day for 4- to 6-year-olds). The same variation is true for vitamins and minerals. Dietary intakes of calcium, potassium, magnesium, and vitamin E are believed to be low enough among children to be identified as "nutrients of concern" (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDHHS/USDA], 2005). The latest dietary recommendations for children can be found at the MyPryamid Web site (www. mypyramid.gov/downloads/MyPyramid_Food_Intake_Patterns.pdf).
Variations in activity patterns as well as in growth rate and eating habits make it difficult to determine if a child is eating enough. A steady increase in height and weight is usually indicative of satisfactory growth. Although genetics play a role in determining height and weight, general health and nutrition also are key factors. While the range of "normal" heights and weights for children is quite broad, growth charts are useful to compare a child's growth pattern with normally developing children of the same age and gender, and to detect a possible growth problem. (You can find growth charts at www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/.) Those who fall below the fifth percentile or above the ninety-fifth percentile should be evaluated by a health care practitioner.

DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS

The dietary recommendations for children are drawn from the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDHHS/USDA, 2005). The latest edition was released in January 2005, and provides direction for Americans 2 years of age and older. It addressed nine topic areas and 41 key recommendations. In general, the revised Dietary Guidelines recommend consuming a variety of nutrient-dense foods and beverages, limiting consumption of saturated and trans fats, maintaining a healthy body weight, participating in regular physical activity, and practicing safe food handling. Everyone should consume less than one teaspoon of salt per day and consume potassium-rich foods, such as fruits and vegetables. Specific recommendations for children are found in Figure 1. The full Dietary Guidelines report is available online at www. healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/.
Figure 1
Key Recommendations Specific to Children

Overweight children should reduce the rate of weight gain
while allowing for growth and development.

Always consult a health care practitioner before placing a
child on a weight reduction diet.

All children should engage in at least 60 minutes of physical
activity on most--preferably all--days of the week.

Children should consume whole-grain products often--at
least half the grains they eat should be whole grains.

Children 2 to 8 years should consume 2 cups daily of fat-free
or low-fat milk (or equivalent dairy products).

Keep total fat intake to 30-35 percent of calories for children 2
to 3 years old; 25-35 percent for children ages 4 and older.

Young children should not eat or drink raw milk or any
products made from unpasteurized milk; raw or partially
cooked eggs; raw or undercooked meat, poultry, or fish; or
unpasteurized juices.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005 (6th ed.).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Research shows that most young children could improve their diets. Based on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), a summary measure of overall diet quality, less than 20 percent of children ages 2 to 9 had diets that were described as "good" (Lino, Basiotis, Gerrior, & Carlson, 2002). Most (81 percent) had diets that were identified either as poor or having room for improvement. The HEI measures not only compliance with the Food Guide Pyramid but also the degree to which the diet conforms with specific dietary recommendations, including total fat and saturated fat consumption as a percentage of calorie intake, cholesterol and sodium intake, and degree of variety in the diet.

RECENT CHANGES IN CHILDREN'S EATING PATTERNS

The proportion of children dining with their families appears to decline with age. Eating dinner with the family is associated with a healthful diet and psychosocial well-being (Eisenberg, Olson, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Bearinger, 2004; Gillman et al., 2000). Children who participate in family-style dining tend to eat more fruits and vegetables and less fried food, drink less soda, take in less saturated and trans fat, and eat more fiber and micronutrients from food versus those who did not dine with their families (Gillman et al., 2000). The "family diners" also show higher intakes of such crucial nutrients as folate, calcium, iron, and vitamins [B.sub.6] and [B.sub.12.]
The consumption of food eaten away from home has increased steadily, however. Preschool children typically eat out 18 percent of the time; middle school children eat out 26 percent of the time (Nutrition Update, 2004). Fast food consumption by children has increased greatly in recent years, with over half the meals away from home eaten at fast-food restaurants. Fast-food meals contribute approximately 10 percent of children's daily calorie intake. On a per-calorie basis, meals and snacks prepared away from home tend to be higher in calories, total fat, and saturated fat than meals eaten at home and tend to be lower in dietary fiber, calcium, and iron (Guthrie, Lin, & Frazno, 2002).
Portion size is an important determinant of energy intake, and large restaurant portions may contribute to the obesity epidemic in the United States. Overweight and obesity affect all segments of the population, including preschoolers; 13.9 percent of 2- to 5-year-olds are overweight (Ogden et al., 2006). The Institute of Medicine has recommended that child obesity prevention become a national priority (Koplan, Catharyn, Liverman, & Kraak, 2004). An association between the intake of sweet drinks and overweight of preschoolers and adolescents also has been identified (Berkey, Rockett, Field, Gillman, & Colditz, 2004; Welsh et al., 2005). Those sweet drinks are not limited to Kool-Aid[R] and soda, but include fruit juice as well.

NUTRITION TRAINING/BACKGROUND/EXPERTISE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS

The training that professionals and paraprofessionals who work with young children in the classroom receive concerning nutrition covers a broad spectrum, from little or no background to workshops/seminar attendance to actual college courses. Everyone who works with young children needs to be updated on nutrition information.
A recent study underscores teachers' and parents' concerns about children's nutritional health (Kubik, Lytle, & Story, 2005). Over two-thirds of the teachers from that study do not believe that schools give adequate attention to nutrition; 90 percent of both parents and teachers would like to see more healthful snacks and beverages in schools.
During the spring of 2004, the authors were searching for a suitable audience on which to focus program development and presentations for our university nutrition education course. We were contacted by a local Head Start program coordinator inquiring as to the availability of university educators to provide nutrition and/or food safety training programs for Head Start staff. Discussions were held about a potential collaboration utilizing our course and nutrition education students to serve as trainers for the Head Start staff. Thus, a collaboration, the Head Start/University of Delaware Collaborative Nutrition Project, was born.

THE HEAD START/UD COLLABORATIVE NUTRITION PROJECT

All students in college nutrition and dietetics majors are required to toaster specific knowledge, skills, and competencies of presenting an educational session for a group (Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education, 2002). This is typically accomplished via a course in nutrition education or teaching methods. A usual assignment for such a course is to develop lesson plans and present programs. In our university course, we are continually searching for actual community groups that can serve as an audience with whom the students can practice and demonstrate the teaching skills learned in the classroom. The Head Start group was willing to serve as this audience.

The Collaboration
The county Head Start coordinator indicated that approximately 100 staff members were possibly interested in receiving inservice training on the topics of nutrition or food safety. The types of staff included teachers, teachers' assistants, cooks, cooks' assistants, and program coordinators at nine sites. Nine students were available for teaching. We determined that the students would develop and present, under instructor supervision, a 90-minute workshop on three separate dates. Three students would serve as presenters for each workshop. The workshops would include three 25-minute sessions on the topics of nutrition for young children, nutrition education resources for teachers, and food safety and sanitation. Thirty Head Start staff members were scheduled for each workshop. The participants rotated through each of the 25-minute sessions on their scheduled day of attendance.
Contributions from the Head Start program included a $125 budget for development/purchase of materials for the sessions. In addition, the Head Start staff members agreed to copy handout materials and provide program folders for the participants, as well as host the sessions at one of the Head Start sites. The university program, besides providing the student educators and faculty time, covered the cost of food for program demonstrations. The faculty contacted several local organizations that willingly donated small prizes/gifts for the participants. For example, the state Department of Agriculture donated pencils, erasers, and rulers. Super G, a local grocery retailer, sent nutrition placemats. The National Soybean Board provided soy crayons as well as funds to provide chocolate soy milk for taste testing.

Program Development
The county coordinator surveyed staff members to determine topics of interest for the workshop and registered the staff for specific dates. The programs were held at one of the centers that could provide the three necessary rooms for the presentations; these programs were offered in an after-school time slot, which also coincided with the time of the university course offering.
The specific nutrition topics presented included healthy breakfast, portion sizes, fun food activities for the classroom, preschoolers' nutritional needs, the importance of calcium, hand-washing procedures for food safety, Internet nutrition resources for the classroom, teaching food safety to children via games, the Food Guide Pyramid for children, and common concerns in feeding young children. All lessons were designed to be interactive and provided the participants with information and fun activities they could use with the children in their classrooms.
The university students also developed useful lists of nutrition education resources, many of which could be downloaded for free from the Internet (see Figure 2). Having nutrition faculty oversight of the project ensured that all references were credible.
Figure 2
Nutrition and Food Safety Online Resources

www.keepkidshealthy.com--Pediatrician's guide to child health and
safety

www.mypyramid.gov/kids--USDA nutrition games for children and lesson
plans for teachers

www.nutritionexplorations.org--National Dairy Council site for
educators

www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/pubs/bibs/edu/preschool.html--Food and Nutrition
Information Center of the National Agriculture Library lists nutrition
resources for the classroom

www.5aday.com and www.dole5aday.com--Fruit and vegetable information,
link for educators

www.ext.nodak.edu/food/kidsnutriton--North Dakota Cooperative Extension
provides links to hundreds of nutrition resources

http://navigator.tufts.edu--Tufts University rates nutrition Web sites

www.kidsnutrition.org--Baylor College of Medicine nutrition news,
updates, and tools, such as BMI calculators for children

www.healthychoices.org--Washington State Apple nutrition education
site, also offers materials in Spanish

www.ific.org/nutrition/kids/index.cfm--Variety of basic nutrition
information resources

www.latherupforgoodhealth.com--Colgate-Palmolive provides cute
downloads about proper hand-washing routines

www.fightbac.org--Partnership for Food Safety Education curricula and
games

www.kidshealth.org--Nemours Foundation KidsHealth Project--everything
from recipes to interactive games; type "nutrition" or "hand washing"
in the search box

Program Outcomes

Seventy-two Head Start staff attended the workshops. The student-developed evaluation forms indicated that the majority of participants found the presentations interesting and new (n=69; 96 percent), believed the information would be useful to their jobs (n=72; 100 percent), and were inclined to incorporate the information learned into their own classrooms (n=70; 97 percent). All participants indicated that the students were well-prepared and that they would like to have nutrition students and faculty conduct future training sessions. One enthusiastic participant added, "Let's do this more often!" The programs provided 1.5 hours toward obtaining a Child Development Associate certificate for those who were seeking that credential. Copies of the nutrition student lesson plans also were offered to those interested.
This was a wonderful experience for our students as well. In their evaluations, the students indicated that having a live audience to be the recipients of their course work was a great experience--public speaking skills were polished, ability to time presentations was refined (as there were three repetitions), and they gained confidence in making presentations. The students appreciated the participants' feedback and valued the experience gained in learning how to engage an audience and hold their attention.

CONCLUSION

All parties involved in this collaborative venture believed it to be a great success. Head Start staff members were provided with useful employee training at a very reasonable cost. The nutrition students obtained lesson plan development experience and presentation skills. Although the faculty had additional responsibilities with coordination of all the events outside the classroom, the forging of partnerships made it worthwhile.
Proper nutrition is critical for child growth and development, and it is important that good eating habits be developed at a young age if they are to be carried throughout a lifetime. Along with parents, educators of young children are gatekeepers of child nutrition. Yet the area of nutrition is one that continually changes. Therefore, keeping the staff who work with young children abreast of the latest nutrition information is important. Working with university nutrition programs is a viable way to enhance nutrition knowledge for child educators and is also a winning opportunity for faculty and students.

References
Berkey, C. S., Rockett, H. R., Field, A. E., Gillman, M. W., & Colditz, G.A. (2004). Sugar-added beverages and adolescent weight change. Obesity Research, 12(5), 778-788.
Birch, L. L. (1998). Development of food acceptance patterns in the first years of life. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 57(4), 617-624.
Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education. (2002). CADE accreditation handbook. Chicago: American Dietetic Association.
Eisenberg, M. E., Olson, R. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Bearinger, L. H. (2004). Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(8), 792-796.
Gillman, M. W., Rifas-Shiman, S. L., Frazier, A. L., Rockett, H. R. H., Camargo, C. A., Field, A. E., Berkey, C. S., & Colditz, G. A. (2000). Family dinner and diet quality among older children and adolescents. Archives of Family Medicine, 9(3), 235-240.
Guthrie, J. F., Lin, B. H., & Frazao, E. (2002). Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977-78 versus 1994-96: Changes and consequences. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34(3), 140-150.
Koplan, J. P., Catharyn, T., Liverman, C. T., & Kraak, V. A. (Eds.). (2004). Preventing childhood obesity: Health in the balance. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
Kubik, M. Y., Lytle, L. A., & Story, M. (2005). Soft drinks, candy, and fast food: What parents and teachers think about the middle school food environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(2), 233-239.
Lino, M., Basiotis, P. P., Gerrior, S. A., & Carlson, A. (2002). The quality of young children's diets. Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 14(1), 52-60.
Nutrition Update. An overview of child nutrition in the U.S. www.kraftnutrition.com. Fall/holiday 2004; 1-4.
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., McDowell, M. A., Tabak, C. J., & Flegal, K. M. (2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1549-1555.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2005). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005 (6th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Welsh, J. A., Cogswell, M. E., Rogers, S., Rockett, H., Mei, Z., & Grummer-Strawn, L.M. (2005). Overweight among low-income preschool children associated with the consumption of sweet drinks: Missouri, 1999-2002. Pediatrics, 115(2), 223-229.
Nancy Cotugna and Connie Vickery are Professors, Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark.
Table 1
Estimated Daily Calorie Requirements
for Gender and Age Groups

moderately
gender/age sedentary (a) active (b) active (c)

Child 2-3 1,000 1,000-1,4004 1,000-1,400
Female 4-8 1,200 1,400-1,600 1,400-1,800
Male 4-8 11,400 1,400-1,600 1,600-2,000

(a) Sedentary means only the light physical activity associated
with typical day-to-day life.

(b) Moderately active means 60 minutes of age-appropriate moderate
activity per day.

(c) Active means 60 minutes of age-appropriate vigorous activity
per day.

(d) Ranges are shown to accommodate needs of different ages
within the group. For children, more calories are needed at older
ages.

Source: U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005.


Mango Martini.(Recipes)

INGREDIENTS

* Fresh mangos cut into chunks, three
* Sugar, 1 c
* Water, 1 c
* Citron vodka
* Orange liquer (such as Cointreau or Triple Sec)
* Crushed ice, 1 c

INSTRUCTIONS

To make mango pulp, place fresh
mango chunks into food processor
and process until very smooth. This
is enough pulp for approximately 12
Mango Martinis.

To make simple syrup, place sugar
and water in small saucepan and
cook over medium heat, stirring until
sugar dissolves and liquid is dear. Do
not boil. Allow to cool and store in
refrigerator until ready to use.

To mix a Mango Martini, place 1
ounce each mango pulp, simple
syrup, and vodka, plus 1/2 ounce
orange liqeuer in a blender. Add
1 cup crushed ice and blend until
smooth, Serve in a classic martini
stem glass or Cracked Coconut Cup
and garnish with a colorful paper
umbrella or tiny skewer of fruit.


How to Keep More Money in Your Wallet When you Leave the Grocery Store

Are you searching for a great way to save money on your groceries? A Menu Planning Service can come to the rescue. These smart services assist you in planning, cut costs on grocery costs and organize your dinner meals simply and easily.

Menu Planning services provide moms with an easy to follow dinner menu for each week. Not only do you get great dinner meal suggestions including main dishes, side dishes and desserts that are delicious, easy to make and nutritious, but you also get a tailored shopping list to simply shop for the foods for the upcoming week. You can save lots of moola, because when shop for only what you will be preparing and which ingredients you will need you won’t needlessly purchase foods and items that are not required.

Many people waste hundreds of dollars each year buying food ingredients that they don’t need. In many cases foods are wasted, because they sit around not being used in any meals you make. When you find a meal suggestion for these ingredients, they are generally too old, spoiled or stale.

By utilizing a menu planning service you will also cut costs on fast food and casual dining restaurant bills. Many families become frustrated when there is no food in their refrigerator. Instead of cooking a nutritious and low cost meal at home, they choose for the convenience of visiting fast food and casual dining restaurants that can many times cost $20, $50, $100 or more. If you are searching for a way to keep you at home rather than at high priced restaurants, a meal planning service is an affordable and practical solution.

Another way you can reap the rewards from menu planning is with all the time you will save. Now that everything is mapped out for you, you won’t have to spend time each day running to and from the grocery store to buy needed food items, you can have your whole week's meals mapped out and have a cozy and restful time at home with your loved ones.


The Perfect Recipe for Enjoying Cooking

Cooking is one of those things which you either love or hate, there are very few people which have no opinions on the preparation of food. However love or hate making food, there are very few who would say that they do not enjoy eating! Here are a few tips which could make preparation and the making of food a little less painless.

1. Always allow lots of time.

There is not a lot worse than having to rush recipes, it is one way of making sure that you will not enjoy cooking. You should always make sure that you have enough time to make your meal, this way you can be sure that you will not have to be too hasty with your cooking.

2. Make sure that you have all of the ingredients

This may sound obvious, but it is very annoying when you are all ready to go and then you realise that you have left something off from your shopping list. One way of making sure that you don’t forget anything important is to get the recipe items a few days before the meal and then check the ingredients the day before so if you have forgotten something, you will have enough time to get down the supermarket and get it.

3. Listen to music while you are cooking

If you really don’t like cooking then you can always have something on in the background to take your mind off of it. One of the best things to do this is music, so put on your favourite CD or radio station and you will find you can make the recipe on auto-pilot.

4. Make sure you have clean cooking utensils

It can be very annoying if you are all ready to create your masterpiece and then you find you have dirty pots and pans. Give yourself an extra hour or so to make sure that you have everything clean and ready for the task ahead.

5. Get help, if you can

Preparing the vegetables, chopping the meat and mixing the ingredients can be done by most people so try and offload this on to one of the end recipients of the meal, they should have to work to earn it after all! A bit of teamwork can always help making the stress of cooking a lot more enjoyable.


Chocolate: The Perfect Food Gift

Are you a chocolate lover? Do you enjoy giving chocolate gifts to others? Are you always looking for a new and unique chocolate treat to add to your list of favorite deserts? Do you enjoy finding delicious chocolate recipes to make for family and friends?

Chocolate or (kah kow) was discovered 2,000 years ago in the tropical rain forests of the Americas. Over various cultures and time, it evolved into what we know chocolate to be today. Spain got it's first look at chocolate when Colombus returned from America. He brought back dark brown cocoa beans. The Aztec Indians called chocolate "food of the Gods." Emperor Montezuma served the Spaniards warm liquid chocolate in golden goblets. The Spaniards, however, thought the drink to be bitter so they added cane sugar.

Today, centuries later, we still love chocolate. There are innumerable recipes and chocolate products to be indulged in. Some of the ways that we can share chocolate gifts with other chocolate lover's is the following:

1. Romance: Anniversaries, Valentine's Day or a romantic date can be enhanced by decadent chocolate. Chocolate evokes romance.

2. Holidays: Depending on size, chocolate gifts can either be a main gift for a holiday or an addition to a main gift. Christmas, Valentine's Day, and Mother's Day are some of the best holidays for chocolate gifts. Chocolate is often thought of as a traditional gift on many occasions.

3. Business Gifts: Companies show their employees appreciation for faithful service by giving gifts. Chocolate is a wonderful way to say "thank you".

4. Food gift baskets: Mortgage companies, car dealerships, Realtors, insurance companies, jewelry stores, home builders, etc., often use food gift baskets to thank their clients or customers for their business.
Some great chocolate gifts you could give are:
Strawberries dipped in chocolate Vanilla Ice Cream covered in Chocolate SyrupChocolate Mouses Torte Rich Chocolate Cake English Toffee Fluffy creamy chocolate pie Chocolate dipped in nuts Chocolate, chocolate chip cookies Truffles Black and white cookies Chocolate Chip Zucchini Bread, Chocolate Cheesecake
The following is a delicious and easy recipe that your friends and family will love.
Fudgy Brownies

½ C. Butter 2 Eggs ½ C. Partially-Dutch Cocoa 1 tsp. Vanilla 1 C. Sugar ½ C. Flour 1/4 tsp. Salt Dalliene Johnson Salt Lake City, Utah

Preheat oven to 350. Grease a 8"X8" pan. In a medium saucepan, melt the butter. Remove melted butter from heat; add cocoa and stir until well blended. Add sugar and mix well. Add eggs, one at a time, and beat well. Stir in vanilla, flour and salt. Do not over beat. Spread in the prepared pan and bake 25 to 30 minutes or until toothpick inserted in center comes out clean.
Chocolate is appropriate for any occasion. It is rich and elegant for weddings, a reward for a job well done or a great desert after a delicious dinner. For other fantastic chocolate gift ideas visit: http://www.terribluegooseboutique.com/

Bio: Terri Grace, nineteen years of experience in boutique sales and marketing. Successful business owner of a boutique for the past 5 years. Owner and entrepreneur of an online boutique. For more information on boutiques go to: http://www.terrisbluegooseboutique.com/



CoffeeForLess.com