Regional differences and responsibility

It is hardly news when a special interest group criticizes the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals. So, a recent report from WASH (World Action on Salt and Health) would normally hardly catch our attention, except for one difference.

In WASH's international survey of breakfast cereals they discovered that not only are there big differences in salt and sugar content in global cereal brands, but that even among specific brands there can be dramatic differences from country to country. Again, the fact that there are regional variations among brands is no big shock, but upon closer examination these differences represent some disturbing implications.

The survey revealed, for example, that Kellogg's Honey Smacks have 25% more sugar in Mexico than the same cereals in Belgium, Spain, Morocco, Norway, Qatar, Kuwait and UAE. Similarly, Kellogg's Corn Flakes has 46% more salt than the same product in Argentina and Brazil. Again, this is likely due to different taste preferences in the various countries, but WASH is rightly concerned that big cereal companies like Kellogg and Nestle/General Mills are irresponsible in even offering foods with such high levels of sodium and sugar. The Honey Smacks example is particularly troubling since Mexico already has one of the highest obesity rates in the world.

Again, this all has to do with reputation and public relations, an issue we examined last week. Cereal companies are not immune from this public scrutiny, and need to work harder to establish themselves as brands that can be trusted by consumers who are increasingly cynical of cereal.

What impact will new GMO disclosures have?

I recently noticed that a number of cereal boxes from Kellogg, General Mills and Post were starting to appear on grocers' shelves with an inconspicuous phrase indicating that they are made with genetically modified organisms (GMO's). This is the result of a new federal law that will require certain foods to be labelled as such.

Pressure has been mounting for this type of legislation, as many consumers are concerned about the health effects of GMO ingredients. This labelling will provide people the information they need to make informed choices.

Of course, a brief mention on the side of a cereal box is likely to be missed my most people, but it does raise the question as to whether this will have a further negative impact on the sale of major brands of breakfast cereals. Will this give health-conscious consumers one more reason to look for alternatives? Certainly, some cereals are non-GMO, but more are not. Cereal manufacturers will need to pay close attention, and respond accordingly if it appears that this labelling further tarnishes cereal's reputation.

General Mills and numbers

Cereal companies continue to look for an edge in today's competitive market. This means finding a way to stand out among the countless varieties of cereals on the grocers shelf. Recently, we've seen some creative innovation among some upstarts, but the big companies sometime appear a little more desperate.

A good example of some puzzling attempts comes from General Mills. Like all the big companies they've been trying to figure out how to have consistent revenue growth from cereal. It hasn't helped that they've recently had some public relations disasters which have not helped their cause. Their latest tactic is go for the nutrition conscious consumers, knowing that many are looking for cereals with more protein and less carbs. So, they recently introduced some protein-rich varieties of certain cereals, most notably Cheerios Protein, in two flavors, Oats & Honey and Cinnamon Almond. There are others as well, including a Fiber One Protein cereal.

It sounds good, except for one thing. In order to achieve this perception of high protein they've been less than forthcoming. They tout the fact that Cheerios Protein contains 11g of protein per serving with milk. That's all fine and dandy, but when you look a little closer at the numbers it's not as impressive as it might appear. First, that number does include milk. Factor that out (because you will probably use milk regardless whatever cereal you eat) and you are left with 7g of protein per serving. Still not shabby, but again somewhat misleading. A careful look at the Nutrition Facts reveals that these calculations are based on a 55g serving. What is interesting to note is that original, regular Cheerios have 3g of protein per serving. Obviously the new Protein variety has much more. Right? Not so quick. Regular Cheerios is based on a 28g serving, half the size. So, if you compare by equal weight measurements the actual difference is far less impressive, probably closer to a 1g margin. Looking at the Fiber One Protein cereal comparison with its original counterpart, the same game is being played.

To be fair, General Mills is truthful, both implicitly and explicitly. Cheerios Protein does have more protein, but the problem is that it's really not that significant. Oat-based cereals are already higher in protein than most cereals, so considering the real advantage of this new product this whole thing appears to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Consumers who don't take the time to read the labels or who are not well-versed in nutrition might be left with an impression that is well overstated.

It is shenanigans like this that is turning off many consumers to the mainline cereal brands. If General Mills wants to strengthen their market share a good place to start might be with less hype and a higher degree of honesty and transparency.

Cereal targeted in new nutrition ratings

Cereal has long been a target of nutrition advocates, mainly because such a popular food consumed at the most important meal of the day has not always been a paragon of good nutrition. There have been moves to curtail the advertising of unhealthful cereals, especially to children. In recent years cereal companies have responded by tweaking their recipes to at least appear more nutritious.

One of the tactics used on many cereal boxes are simplified nutrition statements and graphics to help consumers make better choices. While this has likely assisted (or at least swayed) people's decision making in the store, there are still tons of sugared, artificially-flavored cereals sold each year. Let's face it, people buy cereal for more than nutrition, and for some it is still very confusing.

For several years now the Maine-based Hannaford Supermarket chain introduced the "Guiding Stars" program which displays up to three stars for food products to indicate their relative nutritional value. In a recent study of that program cereals that didn't qualify for a star saw a reduction in sales by at least 10 percent.

If such a program were to be more widely adopted, what would be the impact on our buying habits and our health? Certainly, there is much to be said about giving consumers information to make good nutrition decisions. But, can a star system really address the complexities of food and nutrition? Who determines the rating system, and how valid is it? And, could it give people a false sense of security on their overall eating habits?

One thing is for sure, the pressure is still on the cereal aisle. At least this approach takes the onus off the manufacturers to convey all the information, although they will still be forced to work harder to meet consumer demand.

In the end it's about choice. Giving consumers information is valid, but let's remember that there are many reasons why people buy the cereals they do. Many will make decisions despite the number of stars on the grocers on the shelf.

(Source: AP)

The British retreat

There has been considerable buzz in recent weeks over the 50th anniversary this month of the "British Invasion", the craze of rock and pop music from the United Kingdom that found its way to the U.S. When it comes to breakfast cereal, the Americans can take credit for the invasion going the other direction. Britons enjoy a hearty breakfast, and cereal is almost as popular there as it is in the U.S.

For the most part companies usually tailor their products for different countries and regions, taking into account cultural and taste preferences. While the U.K. has many of the same cereal brands and varieties, they are not always the same. For example, a recent report in the Daily Mail showed that major cereal brands in Britain contain 30% more sugar than their U.S. counterparts. This has raised particular concern because English children are among the fattest in Europe. It appears that while U.S. formulas changed over the years because of public pressure, the recipes in Britain have remained largely unchanged. But, this is not likely to continue. For instance, market analysts estimate that sales of Kellogg's Frosties (i.e. Frosted Flakes in the U.S.) have dropped over 18% in the last year largely because of negative publicity in the U.K. concerning sugar in cereal. There has even been a proposal to ban sugared cereals altogether.

The point in all of this is that times are changing. The days of hyper-sweetened cereals are coming to an eventual end as consumers vote with their wallets. This trend has already been well underway in the U.S., and is now taking place in other major markets like the U.K. This British retreat from the cereals of the past is one further indicator that the place of cereal in our lives is changing. At one time cereal was marketed, especially to children, as a fun experience. In an age of health and environmental concerns, and belt-tightening we are losing much of that. The focus today is on health and value, and we are losing much of the emotional element behind our daily breakfast bowl.

Only time will tell what impact this will have on our love affair with cereal.

How healthy are "Natural" cereals?

Recently, a study from The Cornucopia Institute has stirred considerable discussion because of their claim that many so-called "natural" breakfast cereals are merely marketing hype, and deceptive. Compared to organic cereals, they often contain residues of toxic pesticides and genetically modified ingredients; and sometimes are even more expensive.

The "Cereal Crimes" report is certainly worth reading, even just for its exposure of the marketing of cereal brands. There is no doubt that many companies are jumping on the "natural" bandwagon to entice consumers. It should be pointed out, however, that Cornucopia enters the discussion with its own biases, "promoting economic justice for family scale farming". Obviously, for them large food corporations are a threat on a number of levels.

Cereal mascots given reprieve

A long, on-going controversy has been over the use of cartoon characters to market cereal, especially sugared ones targeted to children. The fear for manufacturers has been that the government would step in and regulate this, and ultimately prevent the use of mascots and other enticing images for children.

The industry can sigh a temporary breath of relief, as U.S. government officials recently indicated that they won't tamper with these brand icons at this time. Nevertheless, things could still change down the road, and at minimum there is still the possibility of further restrictions on nutritional composition of foods targeted to children, even if in the form of voluntary guidelines.

In any case, Tony the Tiger, Cap'n Crunch and others are safe, for now at least!

(Source: USA Today)

Cereal claims

This is hardly news, but nutritional labeling on many foods, and cereal in particular, is often hype more than substance. Now, there is evidence that seems to support the contention that cereal box claims are misleading.

A University of Yale study published in Public Health Nutrition found that most parents misinterpreted the claims made on cereals targeted to children. Except for cereals purported to be organic, parents were more likely to purchase the products because of their understanding of the claims. The study recommended increased regulation of nutrition claims.

I know that we can’t control how people interpret information, even if it is accurate. But, in a highly competitive cereal market it is incumbent on manufacturers to remain on the high road when creating their packaging and marketing. Their reputation depends on it.

Source: BakeryandSnacks.com

Innovation through research

Followers of this blog will know that I believe the future of cereal will hinge on innovation. There are many ways for companies to stand out from their competitors and that can include ingredients, cereal forms, packaging, marketing, etc. But, with the ongoing rise in health awareness by consumers, innovative nutrition research that leads to "functional foods" is another area that holds great promise.

Nutritional innovation in cereals is not new, but there may be signs this is increasing. For example, Kellogg recently announced funding of research at a Belgian university into cereal-derived prebiotics. The use of prebiotics and probiotics (both of which enhance intestinal microflora) is not new in cereal, but the fact that Kellogg is pouring money into this is significant. According to Vice-President Margaret Bath, "this is the first time that in its hundred-year history that Kellogg's is financing fundamental university research".

Of course, it is yet to be seen whether this research results in real innovation for consumers, but it may be the initiative that cereal companies need to take for long-term success.

(Source: Kellogg and BakeryandSnacks.com)

Technorati Tags: cereal, Kellogg, research, nutrition, prebiotic, probiotic, breakfastbowl

Post joins the bandwagon

We've been noting the increasing trend for healthier cereals, especially among those targeted to children. General Mills and Kellogg have been making changes in this direction in recent years, but now Post has announced reduced sugar for its Fruity and Cocoa Pebbles cereals. But, notably absent, are Alpha Bits and Golden Crisp, the latter in particular a cereal with over 50% sugar. So, does this represent a true philosophical shift for Post, or is it merely a public relations move?

Technorati Tags: cereal, sugar, Post, breakfastbowl

Weaning Kids Off Sugar

Sugar has been a mainstay in breakfast cereal for decades, but new developments this week suggest that its significance may be waning.

First, a new study from Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity (and reported in Time) reveals that children eat less sugar if they're allowed to sweeten the cereal themselves. This suggests that the high levels of sugar in many cereals may not be necessary to satisfy the sweet teeth of children.

Not likely a result of this study, but coincidentally General Mills has announced that they will continue to lower the amount of sugar in children's cereals to no more than 10 grams per service (source: StarTribune.com) This fulfills what they were promising exactly one year ago and is further indication of the growing awareness among consumers of health issues and the desire for more nutritious options.

Cereal is evolving.

Technorati Tags: cereal, sugar, General+Mills, breakfastbowl

Special K gets a fiber boost

In some ways this is hardly a story with reporting, but on the other hand it is significant.

In recent years Kellogg has given new life to one of its core cereal brands, Special K. By focusing on weight loss, they have created a whole range of cereals, bars, and drinks under the Special K label. The effort has paid off, making Special K Kellogg's number one brand.

But, there was always one thing that puzzled me. For such a health conscious cereal, Special K was significantly lacking in fiber. Even Apple Jacks and Froot Loops have been boosted with additional fiber. It looks like Kellogg has finally realized the inconsistency and has added fiber (for a total of 3g per serving) to many of its Special K cereals, except its original variety.

It's long overdue.

Technorati Tags: cereal, Kellogg, Special+K, fiber, breakfastbowl

Kellogg reducing salt in the U.K.

I was gone for a few weeks in January, but the cereal world continues to evolve...

Sugar has been a big culprit in many breakfast cereals, and most companies have been taking steps to reduce it. Now, word comes from the United Kingdom that Kellogg will be reducing salt in many of its cereals there by up to one third. On the one hand, this represents the overall trend toward a stronger nutrition focus in cereal. On the other hand, this particular announcement is also reflective of the evidence that British cereals may be higher in salt than their U.S. counterparts.

Nevertheless, we will watch to see if the reduction of salt expands across the ocean and to other companies.

(Source: Daily Mail)

Technorati Tags: cereal, Kellogg, nutrition, salt, breakfastbowl

General Mills to further reduce sugars

General Mills announced today that they will be further reducing the sugar content in cereals. Specifically, this applies to cereals advertised to children and the sugar levels will be brought down to "single-digit" levels per serving.

The trend toward healthier cereals is growing, largely the result of pressure from advocacy groups concerned about the marketing of unhealthy cereals to children. Kellogg has already reduced sugar content in many of its cereals, and both Kellogg and General Mills have boosted their cereals with fiber.

General Mills admits that reducing sugar can impact cereal taste. But, they believe that "technology, time and investment" is allowing them to reach their goal.

This evolution to more nutritious cereals is a reality we must accept. While classic cereal brands targeted to children will persist, they will certainly never again be as many of us remember them from our childhoods.

Technorati Tags: cereal, General+Mills, sugar, nutrition, breakfastbowl

More dubious labels

Following soon after the controversy over the Smart Choice Program, a new controversy has emerged over Kellogg's recent immunity claims printed boldly on several cereal boxes. Essentially, they are playing on the current flu fear by giving the impression that cereal has some special immune strengthening qualities. In truth, these qualities are simply the vitamins in the cereal - a significant overstatement.

Kelly Brownell, of Yale University's Center for Food and Policy says "this one belongs in the hall of fame. By their logic, you can spray vitamins on a pile of leaves, and it will boost immunity".

Based on the widespread negative media attention this is receiving, it is obvious that Kellogg (and other companies) have to stop trying so hard to get a sales edge. Exaggerated claims do nothing to help their brand credibility.

(source USA Today)

UPDATE: November 4th - Kellogg announced today that they will be discontinuing this packaging. (source BrandWeek)

Technorati Tags: cereal, Kellogg, nutrition, breakfastbowl

Dumb choices

A few weeks ago I reported on the controversy brewing over the Smart Choices Program launched by a number of food manufacturers, including cereal companies.

Things got more exciting recently when the FDA sent a warning to these manufacturers stating the new labelling may be misleading, and calls for a more a standardized system for such simplified nutritional labelling.

In response, General Mills announced this week that they will be abandoning the Smart Choices symbol.

Smart move.

Technorati Tags: cereal, labelling, nutrition, breakfastbowl

Smart Choices?

Critics have been out in full-force the last few weeks after the introduction of the Smart Choices Program, a labeling program sponsored by large food manufacturers, including breakfast cereal companies such as Kellogg and General Mills. The Smart Choices checkmark will appear on a wide range of food items if they meet certain nutritional standards.

An obvious lightening rod for criticism are cereals, since a number of sugar-laden ones like Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops will bear the logo. Even the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are expressing some skepticism of the program.

Obviously, this is a great marketing tool directed at confused and harried shoppers. But, in the end will the apparent low standard backfire? Today's savvy consumers are increasingly demanding much more.

(Source: New York Times)

Technorati Tags: cereal, labeling, nutrition, breakfastbowl

Cheerios and cholesterol - Take two

Only just months after the FDA reprimanded General Mills for cholesterol reduction claims with Cheerios, the company has turned up the heat, now claiming that "Cheerios can help reduce cholesterol 10 percent in one month". New boxes are beginning to appear in supermarkets boldly stating the claim, and a special website is devoted to the message.

This all comes as a result of a clinical study released in April by Provident Clinical Research that revealed these results.

There is no word as to whether the FDA will be content with this new health claim.


Technorati Tags: cereal, General+Mills, Cheerios, cholesterol, breakfastbowl

Kellogg adds fiber

Over the past few years we have seen cereal manufacturers modify their recipes to make them more attractive to nutrition-conscious consumers, and to avoid the negative perceptions associated with some breakfast cereals. The latest is Kellogg, who just one year ago reduced sugar in some cereals. Now, they have announced that by the end of 2010 80% of their cereals will contain at least 3 grams of fiber. Apple Jacks and Froot Loops will be the first to experience this boost. This is somewhat similar to General Mills' decision several years ago to include whole grains in most of their cereals.

In reality, adding fiber (which will likely be the insoluble type) to cereals otherwise high in sugar, and artificial flavors and colors is somewhat disingenuous. Ultimately, it's nothing more than a marketing ploy.

Technorati Tags: cereal, Kellogg, fiber, nutrition, breakfastbowl

Cheerios and health claims

General Mills has been slapped by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because of health claims that appear on Cheerios boxes. The claim is that you could "lower your cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks", which is too specific for the FDA and treads into drug claim territory.General Mills countered saying that the claim has been on boxes for more than two years and is backed by a strong clinical study.

In a highly competitive environment cereal companies are doing all they can to stand out and gain an edge. In this case General Mills may have gone a little too far.

Sources: Reuters, General Mills

Technorati Tags: cereal, General+Mills, Cheerios, cholesterol, breakfastbowl