December 3, 2008
Small Stores to Encourage Fruit and Veg Consumption
By Bernice Hurst, Managing
Partner, Fine Food Network
British public health
minister, Dawn Primarolo, has announced a pilot scheme designed to encourage
more consumers to eat fruit and vegetables by funding corner shop promotions.
Focusing on the northeastern part of the country, £800,000 ($1.12m) will
be spent over the next three years.
Twelve stores have agreed
to participate so far, with a target of 120 by spring 2009. The funding
is meant to improve both selection and presentation in an effort to reduce
obesity through healthier diets. There will also be a “dedicated project
coordinator,” according to a report on The Food & Drink Innovation
Network.
The coordinator’s responsibilities
will include advice on “maximizing profits, minimizing waste and displaying
and promoting the new fresh produce to the local community.” Shop
owners will also be able to link up with local initiatives, such as cooking
clubs, in a bid to help their customers learn how to build fruit and vegetables
into their diet.
Explaining the scheme’s
rationale, Ms. Primarolo said, “Around half of secondary school pupils
tend to go to corner shops on the way to or from school to buy snacks,
so it’s essential they’re offered a healthy option.”
James Lowman, chief executive
of the Association of Convenience Stores added,
“We are excited about being part of this flagship project… Convenience
stores trade at the heart of communities throughout the country and ensuring
there is a strong selection of healthy, fresh produce on offer is an important
step forward in tackling obesity.”
The department said it
chose the North East “due to its poor general health record compared
to other parts of the country, in particular with regards to low life expectancy
and high levels of childhood obesity. Concentrating the initial phases
of this activity in this region will contribute to the Department of Health’s
work to reduce health inequalities in England.”
When shops in Scotland
trialed a similar scheme, profits were said to increase from 20 percent
to 400 percent.
Discussion
questions: What do you think of the U.K. government’s initiative to promote
fruit and vegetables at corner shops? What government incentives do you
think convenience stores and supermarkets should be offered to drive
healthier eating? Should the government be getting involved to this degree?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I think it’s a good idea, particularly as the government foots the bill for healthcare as was pointed out above. I don’t see that it’s very much different from all the corn subsidies, so it’s not really a question of government intervention vs. no government intervention. Thanks to those corn subsidies, less healthy products are much more affordable than the healthy ones.
Until that barrier is removed, it doesn’t really matter whether or not people are educated. If they can’t afford the vegetables and fruit they’re going to opt for $1 corn-fed beef burgers. Better to intervene for products that are known to be healthier, no?
Good luck! Kids like junk. They won’t pick fruit and vegetables over chips and Reese’s cups when their parents aren’t around. Eating is a learned lesson. If kids are obese, chances are their parents are too. Teach the parents first since they are the one’s passing down the eating habits. If the government wants to stop obesity, then they should first stop letting food stamp recipients spend their certificates on Oreo’s and soda. The government should improve and intervene where they already participate. Control the food stamps so they can only be used on staple items like milk, bread, fruit, vegetables, cereal, meat, medicine and toiletries. This would go a long way in keeping kids healthy and teaching families good eating habits.
We spend trillions on interventionist activities on foreign soil. We spend billions on war ships and missile defense systems that are never used. It seems like consensus is that it is fine to spend to kill but intrusive of government to try and help people to live longer and healthier. It used to be “guns or butter” now the choice is “guns or fruits and vegetables” and I think too many Americans choose guns no matter what the choice is. Who are we to criticize the more civil and humane Brits?
I am not a big fan of government programs. However, when the government is also footing the bill for the entire healthcare system, it does make some sense to invest in activities that may ultimately save on healthcare costs.
Certainly, the retailers need some guidance. Fruit and vegetables have not been an important segment for their success. Even if fruit and vegetables were an important part of the retail mix 40 years ago, they slowly drop down and out as customers bought less and less. I don’t imagine there are many people operating those stores who have any idea on how to handle and merchandise these categories.
However, the program can’t just be directed at the retailers alone. The program must include education in the schools and in the media. This education must be an important part of the healthcare system. Changing eating habits are hard and slow. Even with the shock of discovering one has heart disease or diabetes, many have great difficulty in making dietary changes.
We want people to snack on apples rather than Snickers! There are a lot of messages out there for Snickers. I don’t know if any entity but the government can match that effort for apples.
If the UK government sincerely wants people to eat more fruits and vegetables, promoting the corner store is not the answer. All they need to do is to execute a promotion in the local pubs, offering a free 1/2 pint of lager with every fruit or vegetable purchased and consumed. Do that, and it’s a done deal! The Brits will now eat more fruits and vegetables.
This is a job for the industry–not government or is it givernment?
There are plenty of opportunities for different segments of the retail food business to promote fruits and vegetables. Let’s explore that first–and to its fullest–before getting involved with government programs or support which rarely work.
I’m sure European food associations could come up with appropriate responses to the issue.
Interesting idea to have the government be able to advise a small business on how they will maximize profits. Well meaning but I’m not buying this. Consumers already know what foods are good for them and they do not need an intrusive government telling them what foods to eat. It’s unlikely the government is going to be able to influence food choices. They might be better off funding drug rehab and alcohol programs.
The promotion of good health is a win-win for everyone even if sponsored by the “government.” If the greater public becomes healthier, the effects and burdens on the insured, the taxpayer, and also the government itself, becomes less, and the fact that small businesses are getting a boost makes this even more appealing. It’s a much better way to go than bailing out businesses that fail.
I have a corner market in Arizona at the main gate of the University of Arizona. We made a commitment to ourselves and the community to offer as many organic, locally grown and healthy foods as we can get our hands on. We have a vast selection of fruits and vegetables that are beautifully displayed, ready to eat and purchased in quantity. We do not carry items that contain high fructose corn syrup or aspartame. We have delicious sandwiches and salads prepared at local businesses that are delivered daily for consumption. We have found that our customers are thrilled to be given so many healthy options. In a society that has junk food on every corner (yes, even in the UK) it’s smart to offer and promote a different lifestyle. And, as another person pointed out, this country provides healthcare to their citizens. Of course government funds should be spent on prevention and not just treatment.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
I think it’s a good idea, particularly as the government foots the bill for healthcare as was pointed out above. I don’t see that it’s very much different from all the corn subsidies, so it’s not really a question of government intervention vs. no government intervention. Thanks to those corn subsidies, less healthy products are much more affordable than the healthy ones.
Until that barrier is removed, it doesn’t really matter whether or not people are educated. If they can’t afford the vegetables and fruit they’re going to opt for $1 corn-fed beef burgers. Better to intervene for products that are known to be healthier, no?
Good luck! Kids like junk. They won’t pick fruit and vegetables over chips and Reese’s cups when their parents aren’t around. Eating is a learned lesson. If kids are obese, chances are their parents are too. Teach the parents first since they are the one’s passing down the eating habits. If the government wants to stop obesity, then they should first stop letting food stamp recipients spend their certificates on Oreo’s and soda. The government should improve and intervene where they already participate. Control the food stamps so they can only be used on staple items like milk, bread, fruit, vegetables, cereal, meat, medicine and toiletries. This would go a long way in keeping kids healthy and teaching families good eating habits.
We spend trillions on interventionist activities on foreign soil. We spend billions on war ships and missile defense systems that are never used. It seems like consensus is that it is fine to spend to kill but intrusive of government to try and help people to live longer and healthier. It used to be “guns or butter” now the choice is “guns or fruits and vegetables” and I think too many Americans choose guns no matter what the choice is. Who are we to criticize the more civil and humane Brits?
I am not a big fan of government programs. However, when the government is also footing the bill for the entire healthcare system, it does make some sense to invest in activities that may ultimately save on healthcare costs.
Certainly, the retailers need some guidance. Fruit and vegetables have not been an important segment for their success. Even if fruit and vegetables were an important part of the retail mix 40 years ago, they slowly drop down and out as customers bought less and less. I don’t imagine there are many people operating those stores who have any idea on how to handle and merchandise these categories.
However, the program can’t just be directed at the retailers alone. The program must include education in the schools and in the media. This education must be an important part of the healthcare system. Changing eating habits are hard and slow. Even with the shock of discovering one has heart disease or diabetes, many have great difficulty in making dietary changes.
We want people to snack on apples rather than Snickers! There are a lot of messages out there for Snickers. I don’t know if any entity but the government can match that effort for apples.
If the UK government sincerely wants people to eat more fruits and vegetables, promoting the corner store is not the answer. All they need to do is to execute a promotion in the local pubs, offering a free 1/2 pint of lager with every fruit or vegetable purchased and consumed. Do that, and it’s a done deal! The Brits will now eat more fruits and vegetables.
This is a job for the industry–not government or is it givernment?
There are plenty of opportunities for different segments of the retail food business to promote fruits and vegetables. Let’s explore that first–and to its fullest–before getting involved with government programs or support which rarely work.
I’m sure European food associations could come up with appropriate responses to the issue.
Interesting idea to have the government be able to advise a small business on how they will maximize profits. Well meaning but I’m not buying this. Consumers already know what foods are good for them and they do not need an intrusive government telling them what foods to eat. It’s unlikely the government is going to be able to influence food choices. They might be better off funding drug rehab and alcohol programs.
The promotion of good health is a win-win for everyone even if sponsored by the “government.” If the greater public becomes healthier, the effects and burdens on the insured, the taxpayer, and also the government itself, becomes less, and the fact that small businesses are getting a boost makes this even more appealing. It’s a much better way to go than bailing out businesses that fail.
I have a corner market in Arizona at the main gate of the University of Arizona. We made a commitment to ourselves and the community to offer as many organic, locally grown and healthy foods as we can get our hands on. We have a vast selection of fruits and vegetables that are beautifully displayed, ready to eat and purchased in quantity. We do not carry items that contain high fructose corn syrup or aspartame. We have delicious sandwiches and salads prepared at local businesses that are delivered daily for consumption. We have found that our customers are thrilled to be given so many healthy options. In a society that has junk food on every corner (yes, even in the UK) it’s smart to offer and promote a different lifestyle. And, as another person pointed out, this country provides healthcare to their citizens. Of course government funds should be spent on prevention and not just treatment.