Deciphering Clean Labels

Deciphering Clean Label

Rachel Adams

May 27, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• ins

Although clean label is a priority for most product designers, this unregulated descriptor has many meanings, providing a great deal of flexibility in formulations. Definitions vary by the party involved: ingredient suppliers, food and beverage manufacturers, retailers and consumers all have their own opinion of what qualifies as a clean label.
Research shows that a growing number of consumers have concerns about food additives. When they see a long, unfamiliar names, the often think the additive is a complex chemical compound. But the fact is, every food we eat—whether a just-picked strawberry or a homemade cookie—is made up of chemical compounds that determine flavor, color, texture and nutrient value, according to the International Food Information Council (IFIC). Sometimes they are naturally present and other times added by the manufacturer. Regarding the latter, all food additives are carefully regulated by the federal authorities and various international organizations to ensure that foods are safe to eat and are accurately labeled. Still, consumers are increasingly seeking out what might be described as cleaner chemicals.
Clean label is best described as a formulating strategy. It often refers to eliminating chemical-sounding ingredients or any ingredient recognized as being artificial. However, other interpretations include “simple”—which focuses on a short ingredient statement with understandable ingredients—and transparency, which is using the label to communicate what’s inside a product to consumers so they can make an informed purchase decision.

Ultimately, consumers are looking for simple, real foods that have undergone minimal processing and contain the fewest ingredient possible. But what they don’t understand is that it is not easy to have the best of both worlds; that is, fresh, real and clean along with quick, convenient and inexpensive. Additives are needed in today’s food supply to get food safely from farm to table. Despite the proven safety of food additives, what matters is that consumers purchase the product. Their interpretation of clean label is what counts.

For a closer look at defining clean label, along with ingredient options for clean-label products, download Food Product Design’s free Digital Issue, “Chemical Connotations.”

HEALTH ALERT: Diet Beverages Aid Weight Loss - The real facts!

Diet Beverages Aid Weight Loss

Lynn Kuntz

May 29, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• ins

A new, multi-center, clinical study conducted simultaneously by researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center and Temple University’s Center for Obesity Research and Education, Philadelphia found that drinking diet beverages helps people lose weight. This was the first prospective, randomized clinical trial that directly examined water and diet beverages in relation to weight loss during a behavioral weight loss program. The study (“The Effects of Water and Non-Nutritive Sweetened Beverages on Weight Loss During a 12-week Weight Loss Treatment Program." J. Petersis, et al) to be published in the June issue of Obesity, the journal of The Obesity Society. Funding was provided by the American Beverage Association and the study design was peer‐reviewed and posted on clinicaltrials.gov.

The study followed two groups—one allowed to drink diet, teas and flavored waters, and another who acted as a control group that drank water only. Other than the beverage, both groups followed an identical diet and exercise program during the 12-week study. The result? Diet soda drinkers lost four lbs. more on average than the people who drank water (13 lbs. for diet-soda drinkers vs. 9 lbs. for those drinking water only.) More than half of the people in the diet beverage group—64 percent — lost at least five percent of their body weight, compared with only 43 percent of the water-only control group.

It seems like common sense that zero-calorie beverages would not increase weight, and in fact help people lose weight, leading one to believe that a study like this was not exactly groundbreaking. However, most studies compared sugar-sweetened beverages and non-caloric sweetened beverages—and logically found that consuming sugary drinks sugar added more weight to the subjects.

But in the last several years, critics of artificial sweeteners have pointed to research that finds a correlation with high-intensity sweeteners in diet beverages with increased body weight (as BMI). They claim that they can cause weight gain by stimulating the appetite and creating a heightened craving for sugar as the brain expects a sugar dose based on the taste, but does not receive the expected caloric satiation. These sweeteners also triggerinsulin release—or not—which could encourage weight gain. (Of course the same effects—if they occur—would also be expected with “natural" sweeteners such as stevia or monkfruit.) Still, as they say correlation is not causation and this study was designed to prove or disprove the theory that diet drinks encouraged weight gain.

“There’s so much misinformation about diet beverages that isn’t based on studies designed to test cause and effect, especially on the internet," said John C. Peters, PhD, co-author of the study and the chief strategy officer of the CU Anschutz Health and Wellness Center. “This research allows dieters to feel confident that low and no-calorie sweetened beverages can play an important and helpful role as part of an effective and comprehensive weight loss strategy."

Not only did the diet beverage group lose more weight than the control group, they also reported feeling significantly less hungry. In addition, testing showed they had significantly greater improvements in serum levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and a significant reduction in serum triglycerides.

Based on the design of this study the researchers were unable to pinpoint the mechanism for the greater weight loss in the sweetened beverage group, citing the need for further testing. The researchers concluded “These results strongly suggest that NNS beverages can be part of an effective weight loss strategy and individuals who desire to consume them should not be discouraged from doing so because of concerns that they will undermine short-term weight loss efforts."

This study cast doubt on the conclusions of several widely published studies finding negative relationships between diet soft drink consumption and health, including one presented in March at  American College of Cardiology’s 63rd Annual Scientific Session that found an association between cardiovascular problems and self-reported diet-beverage consumption in healthy postmenopausal women who drink two or more diet drinks a day. However, “We only found an association, so we can’t say that diet drinks cause these problems," Ankur Vyas, M.D., fellow, Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and the lead investigator of the study said, adding that there may be other factors about people who drink more diet drinks that could explain the connection.

In this environment, including the constantly reinforced fear of artificial by natural- food activists, corporate-conspiracy theorists and marketers of alternative competitive sweeteners (Unnatural chemicals! Corporate plots! See the CNN comment section on this report for a microcosm.), the soft drink industry has seen a precipitous drop in zero-calorie soda sales, about 7% over the past year. Meanwhile the market for “flavored waters" is on the rise, including such products as Talking Rain’s Sparkling ICE, a fizzy drink made with artificial sweeteners and colors, which the company expected to reach $400 million in annual sales by the end of 2013. Or, as we like to call that type of product in our house—“diet pop" (or diet soda when we are attempting to hide our Midwestern roots).
If you’re developing products in this challenging, confusing market, a look at “Navigating the Landscape of Sweetener Formulations" a Report on the FoodTechToolbox website might be helpful before plotting your sugar-reduction strategies. But, be forewarned: It doesn’t explain the growing consumer preference for orange-colored sweetened, flavored fizzy water in a single-serve bottle vs. an orange-colored sweetened, flavored fizzy water in a can. Strictly speaking that solution falls under psychology, not food science.

HEALTH ALERT: U.S. Adult Obesity Rate Rises to 27.7%

U.S. Adult Obesity Rate Rises to 27.7%

Rachel Adams

May 29, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• inShare

• 0 Comments

U.S. adult obesity rates are climbing already in 2014, up to 27.7 percent from an average of 27.1 percent in 2013, according to Gallup. Fingers have long been pointed at sugar consumption as a primary cause, despite the fact sugar consumption has steadily declined for more than 10 years.

Rates were measured using the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, which uses respondents’ self-reports of their height and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI) scores. Individual BMI values of 30 or above are classified as “obese," 25–29.9 are “overweight," 18.5–24.9 are “normal weight," and 18.4 or less are “underweight."

For the past six years, nearly two-thirds of Americans have had BMIs higher than are recommended. And, so far in 2014, 35.3 percent of adults are considered “overweight," in addition to those considered obese. Sugar-sweetened beverages are being routinely blamed for the obesity epidemic.

For instance, a 2013 study evaluated the relationship between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight, and found one daily serving of a sugary beverage was associated with an increase in BMI in children and adults. And recently, a focus on consumption of “added sugars" is turning up the heat. FDA proposed revising the Nutrition Facts label to include added sugars to clue consumers in on how much “extra" sweetener is inside. (For specifics on the proposed label changes, check out this FoodTech Toolbox infographic). FDA says consumption of added sugars tend to increase the total amount of calories consumed, along with reducing consumption of nutrient-dense foods.   

This, combined with obesity rates that continue to rise, is making sugar reduction the talk of the town. And let’s not forget Katie Couric’s recent Fed Up documentary, which blames obesity almost entirely on sugars.
What the film doesn’t mention is, sugar consumption is on the decline, and has been since 1999.

According to USDA, calories derived from added sweeteners reached about 429 calories per capita—or 22 percent of average total caloric intake—in 1999, but fell to an estimated 379 calories—or about 15 percent of average total caloric intake—by 2010. USDA actually credits the drop, in part, to a reduction in consumption of sweetened carbonated beverages.

Still, the focus on sugar reduction isn’t going anywhere. Product designers will have to get innovative to create reduced-sugar products that deliver on taste, while also adhering to consumer demands for “natural" ingredients and clean labels. Many newer products are already finding a happier balance, especially in the beverage arena. For a closer look at better-for-you beverages—along with other trends in weight management—check out the Boardroom Journal’s “Thinking Big: Chipping Away at Obesity," which dives into stevia’s growing role in sugar-reduction in juices, soft drinks and other products, among other sugar-reduction strategies.

Sources:

• Gallup: In U.S., Adult Obesity Rate Now at 27.7%

GMO DEBATE: Keys to Achieving Non-GMO Verification

Keys to Achieving Non-GMO Verification

Judie Bizzozero

May 28, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• in

Consumer awareness about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to grow as advocates rally for the removal of GMO ingredients from food and beverage products, or at the very least, GMO labeling mandates. Food and beverages claiming to be free of GMOs will account for almost one-quarter of all food and beverage sales in the U.S., amounting to approximately $178 billion in sales in 2013.

Guest blogger Sandra Kepler, CEO of FoodChain ID and the founding technical consultant and technical administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verification program, details key considerations to achieve non-GMO verification of a new product, or to reformulate an existing product for verification.

The Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) reports that in the U.S. more than 50 percent of conventional/mainstream consumers indicate awareness of GMOs; and in NMI’s demographic segment identified as LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability), the percentage increases to more than 75-percent awareness. For almost half of those consumers surveyed, discovering that a favorite brand was made with GMO ingredients would make a purchase less likely.

Recent research by the Hartman Group indicates that 39 percent of mainstream U.S. consumers cite GMOs as one of the top three things they are looking to avoid when shopping for food, a 56-percent increase from two years ago.

In response to consumer preference for non-GMO options, non-GMO product launches have increased dramatically, and the conventional food industry is participating in this upward trend. In the last few months non-GMO versions of Cheerios from General Mills and Grape Nuts from Post have been introduced. Smart Balanceannounced a reformulation using 100-percent non-GMO-sourced ingredients. In related news, Kroger and Safeway said that they would not sell GMO salmon, and the Chipotle restaurant chain made a commitment to remove GMOs from the menu.

More than 15,000 products now display the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, the fastest-growing label in the natural products industry. According to NMI research, a significant percentage of American consumers recognize this seal, and one-third indicated that they would be more likely to buy a product with the seal. Non-GMO has become a key product attribute, and some brand owners hypothesize that when evaluating a product for purchase, shoppers are looking first for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal before selecting the brand. Brand owners report an increase in sales for their verified products, and in some cases, the increases have been dramatic. Obtaining non-GMO verified status in the United States establishes a platform for achieving regulatory compliance for export to Europe, South America and Asia. Although regulatory, threshold, and labeling asymmetries exist for exports, with proper preparation, verification efforts in the U.S. can apply to international markets.

Whether your company is planning to achieve non-GMO verification of a new product, or to reformulate an existing product for verification, careful planning and implementation can reduce cost and effort. The following are some key considerations.

Manufacturers that formulate new products with compliance in mind can have their finished products verified most efficiently. They should consult with their verification program’s technical administrator (the verifying body) to pre-evaluate the new or existing formulations for compliance. By doing so, they can shorten the path to verification and lower their costs. For example, the GM risk may change, and program costs be decreased, by switching from soy oil to sunflower oil. Compliance challenges can be identified upfront, as in the case of products containing animal derivatives, such as whey or eggs, which may be difficult to document for compliance.

The complexity of the product line should be factored in to one’s expectations for achieving verification. Products with low GM risk, such as baby food, may take two months or less for product verification. Yet supplements could take as long as 18 months. Sampling and GMO strategies may need to be developed that are optimal to the supply chain.

If a product line is complicated or is comprised of a large numbers of products, consider a staged enrollment plan. Under this scenario, start with products that contain the greatest number of shared ingredients. This approach will decrease the learning curve and the quality department’s workload. Staged enrollment can lead to a staggered product verification timeline. Products from the same product line may achieve verification at different times, prompting some consumers to ask why the entire product line wasn’t verified simultaneously. Create a public education platform with messaging that address consumers’ expectations and explain the incremental steps being taken to incorporate non-GMO verification.

Begin collecting data from ingredient vendors in advance of participation. Use a standardized form, such as the data collection form used by the technical administrator, to gather all relevant information. Germane data will include disclosure of additives, microorganisms, enzymes, carriers, fermentation media, raw material sources and non-GMO manufacturing processes. Vendor claims must be supported in order to demonstrate compliance.

When vetting new vendors, require that they take part in the non-GMO verification program. Or, ask the technical administrator to determine if vendor documentation complies with the Standard in advance of verification. Thorough evaluation of vendors will avoid the issues that arose in these examples: one manufacturer discovered the ingredient vendor had replaced sugar cane (a low GM risk) with beet sugar (a high GM risk); in another case, high fructose corn syrup (GM risk) had replaced cane sugar; in yet another, the vendor had not disclosed the presence of high GM risk maltodextrin as a carrier.

Consider investing in additional staff to address the increased workload associated with verification. Achieving a non-GMO product designation is not a static event. GMO approval and commercialization statuses change and GMO testing requirements are updated to accommodate new GMO events. Standards evolve to accommodate changes in regulatory and market environments, and the new vendor vetting process becomes more rigorous. Vendor changes impacting verified products require the approval of the technical administrator. Production staging to mitigate risk of GMO contamination in manufacturing environments with parallel production and additional inspection requirements may be necessary.

With complicated product formulations such as supplements, consider joining a working group of industry colleagues to develop non-GMO compliant ingredient sources. For example, the Dietary Supplement Working Group is a collection of manufacturers and their suppliers, working together to develop non-GMO compliant vitamin sources to be shared among the members.

The rewards of successful non-GMO product verification go well beyond the achievement of marketing goals. Greater control of the product supply chain, improved quality, and a forging of new supplier relationships have also been positive results for brand owners.

For more information regarding GMOs, Gregory Jaffe, director, biotechnology project, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), will discuss the topic of biotechnology at Ingredient Marketplace at Jacob Javitz Center in New York, June 2-3. His presentation, "Biotechnology and the Future of the Ingredient Supply Chain," will take place June 2, 9:30-10:30 a.m.

Sandra Kepler is the Chief Executive Officer of FoodChain ID (formerly FoodChain Global Advisors), the founding technical consultant and technical administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verification program. She has more than 15 years of experience in non-GMO consulting, verification and certification programs. FoodChain ID is part of the Global ID Group family of companies with a shared mission of providing services to support safe, ethical, sustainable global food production.

USDA Allows Schools to Flex on Whole Grains

USDA Allows Schools to Flex on Whole Grains

Rachel Adams

May 21, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• in

USDA is allowing schools to use enriched pasta in lieu of the whole-grain rich varieties required to meet the new school meal standards after schools complained the whole-grain varieties did not “hold up."

According to USDA, schools said the whole grain-rich products currently on the market did not “hold together" when produced in large quantities for school cafeterias. Therefore, schools can serve traditional enriched pasts in lieu of the whole grain varieties for up to two years, until industry develops a “healthy pasta that works for schools."

The announcement was made by Kevin Concannon, Agriculture Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.

"Schools raised legitimate concerns that acceptable whole-grain rich pasta products were not available. We worked to find a solution which will allow more time for industry to develop products that will work for schools," said Concannon.

USDA set new school meal standards with the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which required schools to come up with wellness plans and provide meals with more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, while limiting the amount of sodium, fat and calories.

To comply with the new standards, beginning next school year all grains and breads in school meal programs must be "whole grain-rich," meaning that they contain at least 50 percent whole grain meal and/or flour. These requirements also reflect the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommended making whole grains at least half of all grains consumed.

Many types of pasta meet the whole grain-rich criteria. However, during the current school year, USDA heard feedback from some schools suggesting that certain whole grain-rich pastas raised a challenge for school menus. Some of the available products, such as lasagna and elbow noodles, degraded easily during preparation and service and were difficult to use in larger-scale cooking operations. USDA said additional consultations with both schools and pasta industry experts confirmed this challenge.

Whole grain-rich pastas made from blends of whole grain and enriched flours maintain better consistency, but these products are still emerging in the marketplace, and may need additional time to develop a range of acceptable whole grain-rich pastas.

Formulating healthy food and beverage product for kids can be a challenge, and is one industry has been addressing. Food Product Design’s Digital Issue, “Healthy Snacks for Kids," discussed some of the challenges food product designers are facing when crafting product that not only provide the nutrition kids need, but also the taste they want. Ingredients like bean flours and fruit- and vegetable-based ingredients can provide nutrition and function in a variety of snacks and other food products.

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Agriculture: USDA Announces School Meal Flexibility for Upcoming School Year

2014 Sweets & Snack Trends

2014 Sweets & Snack Trends

Judie Bizzozero

May 21, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail

It’s a given that Americans love their sweets and snacks. According to the National Confectioner’s Association, confectionery retail sales in the United States are expected to reach $34.5 billion in 2014, while total sweet and savory snacks, including chips, cookies, snack bars and nuts, will ring up nearly $42 billion.

Thousands of new confectionery and snack foods debuted this week during the 2014 Sweets & Snacks Expo in Chicago that featured the hottest new products and innovations from 650 companies. Broader food industry trends, including ancient grains, power foods, herbs and spices, and a resurgence of classic flavors like peanut butter and coconut abound in the candy and snack industries this year.

“This year we see an interesting mix of new products that push flavor boundaries and introduce innovative ingredients, alongside new products that have returned to classic taste profiles and comforting ingredients," said Alison Bodor, executive vice president of the National Confectioners Association, which produces the Sweets & Snacks Expo.

Based on products submitted for NCA’s Most Innovative New Product Awards, the top candy and snack trends for the upcoming year include:

Seeds, Grains and Power Foods
From quinoa to kale and from chia to chai, the candy and snack categories are no exceptions when it comes to the influence of the ancient grains, seeds and super food movements. According to IRI Worldwide, 53 percent of consumers try to eat foods that help prevent or manage health challenges and 45 percent seek snacks that offer benefits beyond basic nutrition. New products boast ingredients such as pumpkin seeds, chick peas, pomegranate, seaweed, sesame, parsnips and peabutter (a spread made from brown peas).

Comeback Kids
Peabutter might be a radical new concept for most Americans, but they are sure to be better acquainted with its distant cousin, peanut butter, which is popping up alongside other beloved ingredients like bacon, marshmallow fluff and banana. Coconut is also experiencing resurgence in popularity with entries into NCA’s Most Innovative New Product Awards in the sweet, salty, savory, chocolate and gourmet categories. Other comeback kids include almonds, cashews and chocolate with hazelnuts, the latter of which grew an impressive 16 percent in sales in 2013. Caramels are also making a comeback on their own and as inclusions in other products.

Herbs and Spices
As taste palates and demographics continue to shift, food manufacturers are increasingly adding more flavorful and exotic herbs and spices to a variety of products, including candy and snacks. Last year’s unexpected Sriracha shortage didn’t impact the industry as snack makers continue to experiment with it this year. Tabasco also is popping up in a variety of products, often paired with chocolate. Other trending herbs and spices include ginger, rosemary, wasabi, sage, sea salt and cracked pepper.

Deliciously Decadent
Truffle oil, imported salts and browned butter add taste and texture to a wide variety of decadent candy and snacks that are trending. Indulgent categories like premium chocolates, chocolate-covered salty snacks, bakery snacks, and dried meats and fruits have been on the rise for a few years, fueled in large part by the innovation snack makers have applied to new product launches.

Have Your Cake and Chocolate, Too
Also trending this year are dessert-inspired products. From whoopie pie to banana crème pie, candy and snack makers found inspiration from the dessert course. For those who prefer to drink their desserts, new product launches range from beer-themed chocolate and chewy candies to cherry cola, macchiato and crème de menthe flavored treats.

The snack market is growing as consumers of all ages turn to snack foods for convenience. Find the answers to questions like: when do consumers snack most (day time/late night), and what traditional snack do consumers prefer. Download the Infographic: Snacking from Food Product Design’s FoodTech Toolbox to learn more about the latest snacking trends.

While not a trend identified at the Sweets & Snack Expo, FPD’s Editor Lynn A. Kuntz ran across something really cool in holographic chocolate. Check out The Food Science Blog “Seeing the Light: Holographic Chocolate"  to learn how food science and physics came together to make hologram chocolates out of molding technology and the properties of light.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Hot Dog!

Hot Dog!

Lynn Kuntz

May 22, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• in

It's Memorial Day and grilling season so let us behold the simple hot dog, both beloved and reviled. While some rail about pig snouts and carcinogens, it doesn’t seem to put much of a dent in the market. In 2012, consumers spent more than $1.7 billion on hot dogs just in U.S. supermarkets says the National Hot Dog & Sausage Council (NHDSC), while sales “remained steady at the retail level, and other venues continue to post high sales as well, including airports, restaurants and ballparks."

Perhaps because of the calendar, hot dogs have been in the news recently. The aforementioned NHDSC released results from a poll that found that consumers who said they have a favorite regional hot dog chose corn dogs (46 percent) while. New York hot dogs( topped with mustard and onions) polled at 38 and  the Chicago dog (mustard, onions, relish, tomato slices, a dill pickle spear, a sport pepper and celery salt 2,100 U.S. adults ag on a poppy seed bun), garnered 26 percent. The survey was conducted online in April 2014 with over 2,100 U.S. adults ages 18 and older by Harris Poll for the Council.

Despite that third place finish, The Daily Meal, a popular foodie/culinary site named Chicago as home of the country’s best hot dog is the Mighty Dog, from Fat Johnnie's Famous Red Hots in Chicago for the second year in a row. The list included five other Chicago hot dogs in the list of the nation's 50 best hot dogs. However they weren’t all traditional Chicago-style. The No.1 dog was a chili-style dog and No. went to Hot Doug's Foie Gras & Sauternes Duck Sausage, which sounds more like some trumped-up foodie homage to an actual hot dog. But it does display the versatility of this particular sandwich.

But back to the hot dog itself. It’s sort of a microcosm history of processed foods in a bun. Its sausage precursors were developed to extend shelf life of perishable meat, likely not the prime cuts. Salt, saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and smoke were used as preservative agents and to improve color, texture and flavor. Inexpensive fillers were sometimes added (think boudin and haggis). So despite the current (mis)perception of modern food technology, today’s hot dog would definitely be something your grandmother recognized as food, including the infamous pink “goo," which is nothing more than uncooked, emulsified meat.

Although that may be changing—and many would say for the better. According to the NHDSC, the popularity of high-protein foods and interest in natural and organic products is driving hot-dog sales. Product development activity is centered on varieties with reduced fat, increased protein and a wide range of flavors such as honey and brown sugar, barbecue, Cajun, hot and spicy, bacon, and teriyaki. The group cites consumer research that points to convenient packaging, preparation and usage information as high priorities. The push for healthier formulations also includes lower-sodium, natural ingredients and cures, and even alternative proteins, plant as well as animal.
So as you sit down to your holiday hot dog, topped with whatever makes you happy—even ketchup—consider the history, the science, and even the art, of the humble hot dog.

SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING: Marketing the Science Behind Your Food, Beverage Products

 Marketing the Science Behind Your Food, Beverage Products

Judie Bizzozero

May 22, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• in

Given the increasingly short attention span of today’s consumers—not to mention their constant connectivity to a plethora of digital devices—effectively communicating any kind of marketing message has become a novel challenge. The enormity of the task is further heightened with the complexity of conveying a product’s science.
In “Sure-Fire Ways to Make Your Science More Consumer-Friendly," a free report from SupplySide R&D Insights, author Jeff Hilton shares seven tactics to make complex scientific topics interesting and easy for consumers to learn. As co-founder and partner of BrandHive, a marketing and branding agency servicing an international clientele, Hilton knows it’s vital for brands to develop materials that effectively help consumers read, understand and remember a product's science. Above all, he notes that no longer will one strategy suffice—marketers must employ a variety of techniques for maximum impact.

One tip is for product marketers to tell a story. Although some may think consumers are motivated solely by facts, the reality is most people receive and store information more readily in story form. Stories are easy to process and remember because they string data together in a sequence (a typical “science story" sequence has a puzzle in the beginning, research in the middle, and solution/result at the end). The consumer follows the sequence in order to recall the data and stores a single data set, rather than separate data bits, allowing for easier retrieval.

Another tactic is to present technical information in different formats, such as visuals, audio and video. The use of music, sound effects, rhymes and infographics can help activate different areas of the consumer’s brain, better drawing them into the story. Any aids that reduce the amount of energy a consumer needs to process information make a brand appear straightforward, helpful and truthful.

To learn more about these strategies and see the full list, download the free report at rd.supplysideinsights.com.

Free Trade: Ottawa sees no abuse of rights linked to Colombia free trade impact: NDP

Ottawa sees no abuse of rights linked to Colombia free trade impact: NDP

Miners leave the tunnel after their shift at La Flauta coal mine in Tausa, Colombia on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013. (AP / Fernando Vergara)

Share:

The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:57PM EDT 

OTTAWA -- The NDP and civil society groups are accusing the federal government of whitewashing human rights abuses in Colombia in its latest report on the impact of the free trade agreement with Canada.

The government quietly tabled the human rights report last week and, like last year, said it found no evidence the agreement had an impact in a country notorious for human rights abuses.

The NDP, along with Amnesty International and the Assembly of First Nations, say if Ottawa didn't find abuses, it's because they didn't look deeply enough or averted their eyes.

They noted that the report specifically excludes any activity in the mining sector, a key area of Canadian foreign investment in Colombia and also a traditional area of conflict with indigenous populations.

As well, they say, the government again restricted the ability of opponents to voice concerns by only allowing six days to respond to an online posting calling for submissions.

The result was that the government received only two submissions this year, after getting none in 2013.