Audrey Altmann: Taking the pulse of online grocery shopping (USA)

The internet has allowed consumers to drive the ultimate motivating force in retail: convenience. E-commerce purchases let customers shop for nearly unlimited items from anywhere, not just brick-and-mortar stores, and those items can arrive at their doorsteps within hours. That convenience has extended to buying groceries; several retailers such as Walmart and Giant’s Peapod have launched their own internal online grocery services while online services such as Instacart and Shipt have delivery options from several different grocery retailers. All of these options have led to online grocery shopping being more accessible to consumers than ever, and more customers are turning to the services for the level of convenience they now expect when shopping.

A study by Edison Trends found Instacart has 59% of the market share for grocery delivery, making the service larger than Amazon and Shipt in the US. The report also noted Instacart’s top 2019 retail performers, including Publix, Kroger, H-E-B, Costco and Whole Foods Market -- which ended its partnership with Instacart in May following Amazon’s acquisition of the retailer in 2017. Top-seller Publix does not have its own delivery service, making it a perfect match for Instacart users seeking to buy its products, as well as the convenience of online shopping.

Who is grocery shopping online?

A report by media and marketing firm Valassis -- titled “Unpacking the Dynamic Online Shopper: Grocery & Retail” -- found that nearly a third of US consumers have made an online grocery purchase in the past year from being surveyed. Those numbers change based on community type: 48%, 25% and 19% of consumers in urban, suburban and rural areas, respectively. These figures signify how using online grocery services is somewhat dependent upon where customers live, i.e. whether those people have ideal access to these services. Consumers in urban areas are less likely to have vehicles to transport grocery purchases, but those same communities are more likely to have several options for grocery ordering and/or delivery services.

According to the Food Marketing Institute’s US Grocery Shopper Trends report, Generation X saw the most growth in online shoppers in 2019, while baby boomers’ and millennials’ online grocery shopping also grew slightly. The growth in each age category demonstrates that these grocery services are being used by people of any age, not just consumers who have had online shopping as an option for most of their lives.

Why make an online grocery purchase?

According to the Valassis report, 72% of the overall consumers who have made an online grocery purchase also say they still do a majority of their grocery shopping in a brick-and-mortar store. While these people have placed at least one online order, this statistic indicates that these services haven’t drastically altered most consumers’ grocery shopping habits. Making online grocery orders to either be delivered or picked up is likely being used for specific needs or situations rather than a regular practice.

For example, half of American shoppers who already purchase groceries online say that they are likely to use the services more during the holiday season, which was reported in a study by ServiceChannel. People clearly wish to use these types of services during busy shopping periods, perhaps because they don’t have time or because they wish to avoid the crowds. The key factor here, yet again, is the convenience of online shopping.

Features and accessibility

Several grocery ordering services have recently debuted new innovations that make grocery delivery or pickup even more accessible to consumers.

Walmart has introduced an in-home grocery delivery option in select cities that allows workers to enter customers’ homes via a preinstalled smart lock and leave the order in the garage, on the kitchen counter or even directly in the refrigerator. The convenience of this type of online purchase now means buyers don’t even have to be at home to receive potentially perishable items.

This summer, the retailer also added Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, also known as food stamps, as a payment option for online grocery orders at more than 2,500 pickup locations. This addition enables SNAP customers to have a similar level of convenience in their grocery shopping as customers who pay with cash or credit and ensures that Walmart’s online grocery service are accessible for different populations.

To drive more online grocery purchases on its e-commerce platform, Amazon recently made grocery delivery free for all of its Prime members in the US. The service offers quick delivery times through Amazon’s Prime Now service, which delivers within hours and offers products from both Amazon Fresh and Whole Foods Market.

“[R]etailers and brands are working quickly to improve the experience and make the process more streamlined through e-commerce optimization,” Julie Companey, Valassis’s director of grocery marketing, told Supermarket News. “Those who create the right omnichannel promotional campaigns can gain a leg up and engage consumers while they are in the planning phase.

V

USA: FDA Issues 2019 Voluntary Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards

• FDA issued the 2019 edition of the Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (“Retail Program Standards”) on November 14.  The Retail Program Standards define the key elements of an effective retail food regulatory program for state, local, tribal, and territorial food regulatory jurisdictions. The Retail Program Standards also provide recommendations for designing and managing retail food regulatory programs and help regulatory jurisdictions facilitate more effective inspections, implement foodborne illness prevention strategies, and identify program areas in need of improvement.
• The 2019 edition incorporates changes based on recommendations discussed at the Conference for Food Protection 2018 Biennial Meeting. Such changes include updates to the standard that assists food regulatory jurisdictions in developing and implementing a program policy, as well as a new tool that helps food regulatory jurisdictions assess their food safety risk factors and interventions.
• The Retail Program Standards are designed to help food regulatory programs enhance the services they provide to the public. When applied in the intended manner, the Program Standards should:
  • Identify program areas where an agency can have the greatest impact on retail food safety
  • Promote wider application of effective risk-factor intervention strategies
  • Assist in identifying program areas most in need of additional attention
  • Provide information needed to justify maintenance or increase in program budgets
  • Lead to innovations in program implementation and administration
  • Improve industry and consumer confidence in food protection programs by enhancing uniformity within and between regulatory agencies
• According to the FDA, achieving national uniformity among regulatory programs responsible for retail food protection in the U.S. has long been a subject of debate among the industry, regulators, and consumers. As our readers may know, since 1993, the FDA has published the FDA Food Code, which is a model code that assists food control jurisdictions at all levels of government by providing them with a scientifically sound technical and legal basis for regulating retail and food service establishments. While the adoption of the FDA Food Code has been a keystone in the effort to promote greater uniformity, the Retail Program Standards address a missing link in that uniformity by establishing recognized standards for the regulatory programs that administer the Food Code.

W

USA: Hey influencers! The FTC is talking to you - new guidance from the FTC

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released new guidance regarding influencer marketing. The FTC breaks down the basics of advertising disclosures for social media influencers through a series of do’s and don’t’s as to how, when, and where to disclose a “material connection” to a brand.

As social media platforms seemingly multiply by the day, savvy brand owners and their influencers alike seek new ways to engage with consumers and raise brand awareness. Yet as brands disperse their advertising among a fleet of influencers, all involved must understand and abide by basic truth-in-advertising principles. To this end, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently released new guidance aimed at explaining these requirements to influencers so that they – and the brands they represent – comply with federal law.

What’s Happening?

The FTC’s new Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers and its accompanying videos represent the first time the FTC is speaking directly to influencers themselves to remind them of their legal obligations when posting on social media. These publications build upon and clarify key guidance from the FTC concerning influencer marketing, namely the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and a 2017 Frequently Asked Questions guidance document.

The new guidance comes as no surprise because FTC enforcement action against influencers is on the rise. This trend began in 2017 when the FTC sent dozens of educational warning letters to numerous influencers and settled its first formal complaint against two influencers in the online gambling industry for failing to disclose their ownership of the company they endorsed.

The FTC’s Thinking

This new guidance applies to all posts – even those posted by influencers abroad – if it is reasonably foreseeable that a post may affect U.S. consumers.

As such, the FTC reiterates that it is the influencer’s own responsibility to disclose any “material connection” to a brand, which includes any personal, family, employment, or financial relationship. Financial relationships are not limited to monetary compensation but refer to the influencer’s receipt of “anything of value” from the brand, such as free or discounted products or any other perk in exchange for mentioning any product or service offered by the brand.

Even connections such as tags, likes, pins, or other similar ways of showing someone likes a brand or product can constitute endorsements that require disclosure. Influencers cannot rely on others for disclosures nor presume their followers’ knowledge of their existing relationship with a brand.

Where and How to Disclose

Influencers must always ensure that consumers can see and understand a required disclosure.

• As to placement, disclosures should be placed within the endorsement itself. Disclosures should not be mixed among a string of hashtags nor appear only:
  • on a profile page or “About Me” page,
  • at the end of a post or video or in a video’s description, or
  • anywhere that requires a consumer to click “More.”

Consumers are also more likely to notice disclosures conveyed both visually and aurally. For example, when endorsing a product during a live video stream, any disclosure should be repeated periodically so viewers who only see part of the stream receive and understand the disclosure.

The FTC is therefore cracking down on influencers who bury their disclosures at the end of posts among numerous hashtags or distract from a small-print written disclosure during an engaging video. Instead, the FTC encourages influencers to make their disclosures one of the first things consumers see or hear.

• As to content, disclosures should be simple and clear, using terms like “advertisement,” “ad,” “sponsored,” “[Brand] Partner,” or “[Brand] Ambassador” with or without hashtags. The FTC cautions against using vague and confusing terms like “sp,” “spon,” and “collab,” or stand-alone terms like “thanks” or “ambassador.”
• A platform’s built-in disclosure tool may not be sufficient and influencers should always consider adding their own disclosures.

Finally, influencers must also remember basic truth-in-advertising principles such as (i) don’t endorse a product you haven’t tried, (ii) don’t say you think a product is great when you actually believe it’s bad, and (iii) don’t invent claims that require proof the brand may not or does not have, such as health claims.

Next steps

The FTC states that these disclosures are an important step towards keeping influencer recommendations honest and allowing consumers to weigh the value of influencer endorsements. This new guidance also ensures that brands and their influencers will know what to do to stay on the right side of the law and avoid enforcement action by the FTC.

With the FTC’s enforcement focus now clearly directed at influencers themselves – and not just the brands they represent – be on the look-out for more #bad #ads caught in the FTC’s crosshairs.

[View source - https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/hey-influencers-the-ftc-is-talking-to-50618/]

BARCELONA 4.12.2019: Xerrada sobre “El que mai s’ha dit sobre la seguretat alimentària” - Lluis González Vaqué

Dia i hora: Dimecres, 4 de desembre de 2019 a les 18 hores

Lloc: Sala d'actes de la Demarcació de Barcelona del CETAFC

c/ Enamorats, 62-64 Baixos,  Barcelona (plànol situació)

Informació i confirmació d'assistència (gratuïta):
Sandra Comellas - barcelona@agrifor.org

EU: Where do we stand on nutrition and health claims?

Fifteen years ago, products on sale in the European market could bear nutrition claims such as “90% fat free”, while, generally, no health claims related to human disease were permitted on the labels. Now, both nutrition and health claims are highly regulated and only those authorized can be used in relation to most food.

In 2003, the Commissioner David Byrne explained that a new regulation was needed for the consumer to “receive accurate and meaningful information while food producers will be able to use serious and scientifically substantiated claims as a marketing tool without being drowned out by the many unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims that currently exist on the market.”

After three years of negotiations, Regulation (EC) n°1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (the NHCR) was adopted. It aimed to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market whilst providing a high level of consumer protection.

But the entry into force of the NHCR did not fully correct a the numerous discrepancies both in the definition of the terms used and the conditions warranting the use of claims. It was left to the Court of Justice to clarify the provisions and scope of this regulation.

The NHCR applies to “nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications, whether in the labelling, presentation or advertising of foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer”. The regulation does not define the term “commercial communication” nor does it clarify the meaning of “delivered as such to the final consumer”.  

In 2016, the Court of Justice got the chance to clarify whether communication exclusively addressed to health professionals falls within the scope of the NHCR. The Court concluded that a nutrition or health claim aimed at promoting a food to be delivered as such to the final consumer, even though, for instance, only mentioned in a commercial communication addressed to health professional, will fall within the scope of the NHCR and therefore will have to comply with the pertaining requirements. The Court also clarified that the concept of a ‘commercial communication’ must be understood as covering, inter alia, a communication made in the form of food advertising, designed to promote, directly or indirectly, those foods.

Today, most of questions regarding the scope of the NHCR have been answered. But some shadows areas persist. Perhaps the biggest of them all being whether the NHCR remains “fit for purpose”.

Facing the boom of the clean label trend and the shift toward natural solutions, the long-awaited outcome of the reevaluation of the NHCR (REFIT) could revive interest in a regulation that has not yet delivered all its promises. Future will tell if still waters run deep.

Katia Merten-Lentz

This article was first published by Food Navigator on November 7, 2019. 

Katia Merten-Lentz - CBD Food and Drink Products in the EU: The Newest Hot Commodity or a Regulatory Headache?

Cannabidiol (‘CBD’) has burst onto the world stage in recent years, and the EU is no exception, with shops selling CBD products opening up in various countries across Europe. While CBD can be incorporated into cosmetics and used for medical uses, it is quickly gaining traction in the food and drink market, with CBD found in supplements, infused into teas and coffees, cocktails, confectionary and a variety of other edible items.

Increased consumer demand is driving producers desire to enter the market

As more and more consumers become eager to try food and drink containing CBD, producers are keen to meet new demand for edible goods containing the CBD compound. Products that contain CBD, however, must comply with complex legal and regulatory requirements before their food or drink can be purchased, and CBD food producers have been grappling with restrictions set at EU level, as well as ensuring they’re meeting national regulations in each of the markets where they want to sell their goods. As a result, desire remains high to bring CBD food and drink products onto the market, although ensuring these goods are fully compliant with new regulations has created additional complexities that must be overcome before market entry can be achieved.

What are Cannabinoids and Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol?

CBD is generally made from the Cannabis sativa L. plant, which is a variety of industrial hemp. The plant itself is made up of nearly 500 different compounds and of these, 100 are cannabinoids which, depending on the compound, have either psychoactive or non-psychoactive effects. CBD is one of these non-psychotic compounds, and is now commonly – but often, not legally - found in food products such as dietary supplements like tinctures Actually certain member States ( but not all, for instance Belgium has zero tolerance) permitproducts which contain  levels of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (‘THC’) at less than 0,2%.

What’s the difference between CBD and THC, and what does it mean from a regulatory perspective?

All cannabinoids interact with the human body through what’s known as the endocannabinoid system which regulates several of the body’s functions. Both THC and CBD are cannabinoids, but the main difference is the interaction they have with the brain (however ingested).

The low levels of THC in foods and drinks are key because it’s this compound that’s responsible for the principal psychoactive effects of cannabis when ingested – in other words, human consumption of certain amounts of THC will get consumers ‘high.’ To have any such psychoactive effect, a considerably higher rate of THC would have to be consumed.

CBD affects different receptors in the brain and has no such psychoactive effect, but instead is thought to affect different brain processes that influence things like moods or pain, without any of the ‘high’ associated with consumption of THC.

As a result of the divergent effects of THC and CBD, the compounds could be considered very differently in terms of their regulation, given THC has a psychoactive effect which therefore means it can be linked to drug laws.

Food law aside, it is worth noting that the classification of cannabinoids is exceptionally complex, and there are still unanswered questions that relate to if having THC available in food goods is safe. ( see https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/4141)

CBD in food and drink: the food law basics

Any food that contains CBD must always comply with food legislation, notably Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on Novel Foods, in addition to the general safety principles, which state that food cannot be unsafe.

What did the modifications to the Novel Food regulation change?

In a bid to at least partially clarify the regulatory landscape that surrounds CBD food and drink, in January 2019, the European Commission and the Member States agreed to review the Novel Food regulation and by the way, amend previous entries in the Novel Food catalogue in relation to any food products that contain CBD, as well as references to the Cannabis sativa L. plant.

To give further context, it’s important to note that EU legislation lays out that foods which were not available for human consumption within the Union before 15 May 1997 are considered ‘Novel Foods’ which require further risk assessment and authorization before they can be sold in the EU market.

As a result of the amendments to the Novel Food catalogue (now a compiled EU list), some products that are derived from Cannabis sativa L. are not considered novel when using certain parts of the plant such as seeds, seed oil, hemp seed flour, defatted hemp seed, as well as other products derived from the plant, To be applicable, the varieties of Cannabis sativa L. used must be registered in the EU’s ‘Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species.’

The amended entry in the Novel Food catalogue that relates to CBD, now classifies CBD as a novel food type – a decision which was taken because the compound doesn’t have a long-standing history of consumption in the EU. (the European Commission was not convinced by the evidences provided by the Trade associations).The rule applies to both plant extracts or synthetically obtained CBD, and includes the extracts themselves as well as any food products the CBD is added to.

What do the new regulations mean for producers looking to enter products with CBD into the EU market?

As a result of the amended Novel Food catalogue, producers wishing to sell products in the EU that contain food and drink with hemp extract or CBD are required to follow the relevant process as set out in the Novel Food procedure (Regulation (EU) 2015/2283). As part of this process, food or drink producers will be required to present a case that evidences CBD as a safe, albeit novel ingredient in food and beverages if consumed in certain amounts.

What does this mean for the ingestible CBD foods already on the market?

We already see a lot of food, drinks and other ingestible CBD products in the European market, which can give the impression to potential consumers that these goods are approved at EU level. Many purchasers assume that if the sale of such products is not endorsed by the EU, it wouldn’t be possible to find them for sale. As we see with the abundance of readily-available CBD products for purchase in Europe, this isn’t always the case. But of interest please note the increasingly number of RAASFF notifications.A parallel can be drawn with insects as a food source: we now regularly find insects for sale in stores, but as yet, this food group doesn’t have any ‘Novel Food’ authorization.

Simply put, any food which is not expressly approved by the EU is considered as ‘unsafe’ – given the EU’s last ruling on the topic, CBD food and drinks currently fall into this categorization ( interesting hearing re the 0,2% limit next 23 Octobre: case (C-663/18)  .  As a result,  - except in some Member States where some hemp oils with a THC level less than 0,2% and a very simple process of extraction - any CBD food or drink product on the market in the EU, is not compliant with EU Novel Food laws.

Consequently the implementation of the following transitional measures seem difficult since almost none of the products currently on the market could be considered as lawfully placed.”

" Foods not falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, which are lawfully placed on the market by 1 January 2018 and which fall within the scope of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market until a decision is taken in accordance with Articles 10 to 12 or Articles 14 to 19 of this Regulation following an application for authorisation of a novel food or a notification of a traditional food from a third country submitted by the date specified in the implementing rules adopted in accordance with Article 13 or 20 of this Regulation respectively, but no later than 2 January 2020.”

This article was first published by Food Navigator on September 18, 2019.