You are on page 1of 167

June 2013






Language: English
Number of pages: 167
Author: Global Strategy, Inc.
4250 Alafaya Trail, Ste. 212
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
Tel: +1 407 951 6750
Other Reports: Are you interested in Reports for other
sectors and countries? Please find more Reports here:


5.4. The Internet and Consumer Empowerment: Social Media29

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _______________________6

2. INTRODUCTION _____________________________8


6.1. Overview ______________________________ 34


6.2. Key Drivers_____________________________ 34

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW__________________________9

6.3. Current Performance ______________________ 35

3.1. Country Information _______________________ 9

6.4. Specialization and Competition _______________ 36

3.2. Food Industry Overview ____________________ 12

6.5. Outlook _______________________________ 37

6.6. Growth and Competition ___________________ 37

4. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT________________15
4.1. Authorities _____________________________ 15
4.2. Labeling _______________________________ 16
4.3. Certifications ____________________________17

6.7. Life Cycle ______________________________ 38

6.8. Products and Services _____________________ 38
6.9. Competitive Landscape ____________________ 40

4.4. Facility Registration _______________________ 18

7. ORGANIC AND NATURAL FOOD ______________ 41

4.5. Nutritional Analysis _______________________ 18

7.1. Regulations and Labeling ___________________ 41

4.6. Shelf-Life Study __________________________ 18

7.2. Market Size and Trends ____________________ 42

4.7. Bar Code Registration______________________ 18

7.3. Market Dynamics ________________________ 44

4.8. U.S. Agents _____________________________ 19

7.4. U.S. EU Organic Equivalence Agreement _______ 45

4.9. Canned Foods ___________________________ 19

4.10. Seafood & Juice (HAACP) __________________ 20
4.11. Food Ingredients & Food Additives (GRAS)
Notifications _______________________________ 21
4.12. Color Additive Requirements ________________ 21

8. DAIRY ____________________________________ 51
8.1. Life Cycle ______________________________ 52
8.2. Products and Markets _____________________ 52
8.3. Locations ______________________________ 54

4.13. EPA and Pesticide Regulations _______________ 22

9. FUNCTIONAL FOOD ________________________ 56

4.14. Food Safety Modernization Act (2011) __________ 23

9.1. Industry Overview ________________________ 57

4.15. Further Information ______________________ 24

9.2. Industry Dynamics _______________________ 58

9.3. Key Players, Categories and Emerging Products ____ 59

5. FOOD INDUSTRY ___________________________25

5.1. Sales and Sales Growth _____________________ 25

9.4. Key Factors to Drive Demand of Functional Foods __ 61

5.2. Industry Structure ________________________ 26

10. PROCESSED FOOD ________________________ 62

5.3. Trends and Developments ___________________ 27

10.1. Top-Line Drivers ________________________ 62


10.2. Segments _____________________________ 62

14.2. Restaurant Cuisine and Menu Trends __________ 94

10.3. Top 20 Food Processing Companies ___________ 63

14.3. Restaurant Health & Wellness Trends __________ 95

10.4. Market Demand _________________________ 67

14.4. Snack & Beverage Restaurants _______________ 95

10.5. Issues Affecting the Industry ________________ 69

14.5. Fast Food & Convenience Stores ______________ 96

14.6. Foodservice Contractors ___________________ 97

11. SAVORY SNACKS _________________________70

11.1. Market Size and Value _____________________ 70

15. INNOVATION ____________________________ 101

11.2. Market Segmentation ______________________71

15.1. Industry Innovation ______________________ 101

11.3. Market Share ____________________________71

15.2. Innovation Case Study: US Food Processor_______103

11.4. Key Drivers ____________________________ 72

15.3. Innovation Case Study: European Food Processor _ 104

11.5. Demand ______________________________ 73

15.4. Food Industry Innovations _________________105

11.6. Outlook _______________________________ 73

15.5. Open Innovation in the Food Industry __________ 107

11.7. Barriers to Entry _________________________ 73

15.6. Food & Beverage Innovation and Trends websites _ 108

11.8. Imports _______________________________ 74

16. INDUSTRY TRENDS _______________________ 109

12. BEVERAGES ______________________________75
12.1. Competitive Landscape ____________________ 75
12.2. Sectors _______________________________ 76
12.3. Product Segments and Major Market Brands _____ 78

17. CONSUMER TRENDS _____________________ 113

17.1. Consumer/Cultural Trends__________________ 113
17.2. Food, beverage and ingredient trends __________ 114

12.4. Products, Operations and Technologies _________ 80


12.5. Sales & Marketing _______________________ 81

18.1. Food Distribution Channels _________________ 117

12.6. Indicators and Trends _____________________ 82

18.2. Other Distribution Issues __________________ 118

12.7. Opportunities __________________________ 83

18.3. Marketing Strategies______________________ 118

18.4. Route to Market Considerations ______________ 125

13. PRIVATE LABEL ___________________________84

13.1. Food _________________________________ 85
13.2. Beverages _____________________________ 86
13.3. Consumer Insights _______________________ 88

14. FOODSERVICE ____________________________92

14.1. Restaurant Sector Insights __________________ 92

18.5. Marketing Agreements and Strategic Partnerships _ 126

18.6. Contract and Tort Issues ___________________ 126
18.7. Exploring and Evaluating Market Opportunities ___130
18.8. Marketing Agreements ____________________ 131
18.9. Cooperation with U.S. Companies _____________ 132



FOOD SUPPLIERS ___________________________134
20. HOW TO ENTER THE MARKET ______________136
20.1. Importing into the USA ____________________136
20.2. Company Assessment _____________________143
20.3. Competitive, Customer and Market Landscape
Assessment ________________________________143
20.4. Branding _____________________________143
20.5. Pricing, Promotion and Competitiveness ________144
20.6. Market Analysis_________________________ 145
20.7. Logistics ______________________________ 145
20.8. Pricing _______________________________146

21. SUMMARY _______________________________147

22. AUTHORS OF THIS STUDY _________________148
PUBLICATIONS _____________________________149

1. Executive Summary
The United States is the worlds largest national economy, with a per capita GDP of $48,387 in 2011. The country has a
population of 311.9 million, with over 20 percent of the population living in the top eight urban centers.
The Food and Beverage industry is both large and extremely complex, consisting of multi-tiered supply chains. It is also
subject to extreme competition and a heavy regulatory burden. Keeping track of industry and consumer trends is critical. A
well-informed management team is the first line of defense in such an environment. The industry is fragmented, with
production divided among all types of companies.
Product Categories
In 2011, packaged food sales totalled US$331.86 billion in the United States. The top five categories were bakery, accounting
for 21 percent of total packaged food sales, dairy (16 percent), frozen processed food (10 percent), confectionery (10 percent)
and sweet and savory snacks (10 percent).
The fresh food market had a total volume of 77.5 million tons in 2011. Meat products dominate the market with 31 percent
market share, followed by vegetables (25 percent), fruits (23 percent), starchy roots (7 percent) and eggs (6 percent). During
2006-2011, the U.S. fresh food market was stagnant with a CAGR of 0.1 percent
The organic food market in the United States accounts for over 45 percent of the global organic food market. Organic food sales
totalled $29.2 billion in 2011, representing a CAGR of 9.7 percent between 2006 and 2010. Fruit and vegetables dominate the
market, with 38 percent share, followed by prepared food products (21 percent), dairy (15 percent), beverages (13 percent),
bread and grains (11 percent) and meat, fish and poultry (2 percent).
In 2012, the total U.S. dairy market was estimated at $89.3 billion and is projected to grow moderately during the five years to
2017, with revenue rising at an annualized rate of 0.7% to $92.3 billion. The dairy market in the United States accounts for 15
percent of the global dairy market. Cheese dominates the market, with 40 percent share, followed by milk (34 percent), yogurt,
cream cheese and cottage cheese (12 percent), spreadable fats (8 percent), cream (5 percent) and chilled desserts (1 percent).
Distribution Channels
Grocery retail sales were valued at $571 billion and foodservice sales were estimated at $477 billion in 2011. In 2010,
supermarket sales dominated the grocery retail market, with 36 percent share, followed by supermarkets (29 percent).
Grocery retail sales grew by a 2.2 percent CAGR between 2006 and 2011.
In 2010, approximately 46 percent of the foodservice market composed of fast food establishments and 49 percent of fullservice restaurants. The foodservice market was stagnant, with a CAGR of 0.6 percent during 2006-2011. However, this was an
improvement from the recession when the foodservice market was hit particularly hard.
Primary Demand Drivers

Demographics (particularly trends in population, age, household size, and disposable income)

Consumer trends
Profitability Drivers

Good product mix

Efficient operations

Superior service

Effective marketing


Market Potential
Total food consumption is forecast to increase by a CAGR of 3 percent during the five years to 2016, due to the growing U.S.
population. Food consumption in the U.S. is expected to reach $968 billion by 2016.

Canned food value sales are forecast to grow by a CAGR of 3.6 percent to 2016, driven by increasing consumer
demands for convenience.
There is high demand for frozen food products, particularly from supermarkets and restaurant chains. The frozen
food market is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent, reaching $96.4 billion in 2016.
The organic food market is forecast to grow by a 9.7 percent CAGR between 2011 and 2016. The market is forecast to
reach $46.5 billion by 2016, which is an increase of > 50 percent since 2010.
The growth of the dairy market is forecast to slow, with a CAGR of 3.6 percent between 2011 and 2016, reaching $89.3
billion in 2013. The dynamic yogurt sector in the United States is expected to continue to grow, due to the on-going
trend towards healthier options.
The grocery retail market is expected to grow by a CAGR of 3.5 percent to 2016.
The foodservice sales are expected to grow by a 3.2 percent CAGR to 2015, reaching $562.5 billion. The highest
growth is forecast in foodservice establishments in travel locations (i.e. motorway service / rail stations).

Import Trends
Top food and beverage imports to the United States include beverages, with 17 percent share, fish (12 percent), fruit (10
percent), coffee, tea and spices (8 percent) and vegetables (7 percent). Canada was the United States largest import source,
with 18 percent share, followed by Mexico (15 percent), China (5 percent), Brazil (4 percent) and Thailand (4 percent).


2. Introduction
This research was carried out by Global Strategy, Inc. (, a U.S. business development and market research
consulting firm on behalf of OSEC Business Network from March to May 2013.
Research Objective
The main objective of the study is to provide Swiss food & beverage exporters a solid understanding of historical, current and
future trends of the U.S. food & beverage market, focusing on the following topics:

Regulatory environment
Key segments
Forecasts and growth drivers
Market and consumer trends
Recommendations on successful market entry
Trade events, publications and associations

United States of America
Period of analysis
2009 2012
Target categories

Speciality and gourmet stores

Organic and natural foods

Functional foods

Processed foods



Private label

Secondary research (in-depth analysis of published sources, government statistics, and in-house expertise) and primary
research with select information sources.
Information Sources

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency

Trade associations

Industry publications and databases

Company reports

Expert interviews


3. General Country Information and Food Industry



Official name
Head of state
Monetary unit
Total area (sq mi)
Total area (sq km)
Urban-rural population
Life expectancy at birth
GDP per capita
Unemployment rate
Trade volume
Major trade items

Currency rate

United States of America

President: Barack Obama
Washington, D.C.
Dollar (U.S.$)
2011: 311.9 million (2012 estimate: 314.25 million)
Urban: (2011) 82.4%
Rural: (2011) 17.6%
Male: (2011) 76.3 years
Female: (2011) 81.1 years
$15.09 trillion US dollar (2011)
$48,387 (2011)
7.9% (January 2013)
Export: $1.5 billion Import: $2.23 billion
Export: automotive, automotive parts, semiconductor, computer related goods, aviation,
Import: automotive, automotive parts, raw petroleum, computer related items,
pharmaceuticals, apparel
1 US dollar = 0.94 CHF
English is the official language. Spanish is spoken by over 10% of the population. Hawaiian
is an official language in Hawaii.
A large percentage of Americans are Christians.

Native American food includes various breads, soups and wild green salads. Colonists from Europe brought their own culinary
America became a melting pot for people from all over the world. Today, food in the USA reflects this cultural diversity. The
Spanish influence is particularly evident in parts of the country colonized by Spain.
The American food industry is internationally known for fast-food chains such as McDonald's. American-style cookies, muffins
and bagels have also made an impact on the international snack food market.
The United States is a leading industrial power with a highly diverse and technologically advanced economy.
The US has benefited from a wealth of resources. It has enormous tracts of fertile land suitable for supporting livestock and
growing timber and crops (barley, maize, oats, wheat, potatoes, groundnuts, fruit, cotton and tobacco) and possesses huge
resources of coal, petroleum, natural gas, iron, gold, silver, copper, lead, phosphates, zinc, magnesium and uranium. A large
labour force runs its industries: iron and steel, paper, chemicals, motor vehicles, aerospace, electronics, computer hardware,
telecommunications, computer software, clothes and food processing.


Entrepreneurial skills combined with scientific knowledge and technological advances have put the US at the fore of world
industry and commerce. An early example of American know-how combined with commercial success was the production of
the Model T Ford and Henry Ford's factory in Detroit.
The US has led the world in research and development, for example, in the space industry. In 1958 NASA, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, began operating at Cape Canaveral. The facilities at the Cape grew to become the John
F Kennedy Space Centre. The Centre has led to aircraft and electronics manufacturing becoming an important sector of the
The services sector is by far the largest earner of the country's Gross Domestic Product. Tourism is an important industry
within services. Tourists from abroad are attracted to the US by theme parks and National Parks. With its long coastline the US
has some good beaches. In the winter, skiing is available in a number of States, for example, Colorado and Utah.
In October 2008 US financial institutions experienced one of the worst disasters since the Great Depression in the 1930s. The
US Treasury was forced to initiate a huge billion dollar financial bail-out plan. However, economists stated that the country
had learned how to avoid a situation similar to the Depression but others pointed out the future uncertainty.
Sports is important in the US and is part of American school and college life. Team sports include baseball, basketball,
American football, soccer, hockey and lacrosse. Other popular sports include tennis, swimming, ice skating and skiing.
Rodeos and car racing are both very American activities. Fishing and hunting are traditional outdoor pursuits.
New Year's Day, Inauguration Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Independence
Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
States and Territories
There are 50 US states and 1 district: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia,
(Washington, DC), the capital. New York is the largest city.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in the Caribbean, is a dependent of the USA but retains commonwealth status. The United
States Virgin Islands is a US Caribbean Territory. The US also has Territories in Oceania.



Region 1 (Northeast)

Division 1 (New England) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut

Division 2 (Mid-Atlantic) New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey

Region 2 (Midwest) (Prior to June 1984, the Midwest Region was designated as the North Central Region.)

Division 3 (East North Central) Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio

Division 4 (West North Central) Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa
Region 3 (South)

Division 5 (South Atlantic) Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida

Division 6 (East South Central) Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama

Division 7 (West South Central) Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana

Region 4 (West)

Division 8 (Mountain) Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico

Division 9 (Pacific) Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii

Time in the United States
Time in the United States, by law, is divided into nine standard time zones covering the states and its possessions, with most of
the United States observing daylight saving time for approximately the summer months. The time zone boundaries and DST
observance are regulated by the Department of Transportation. Official and highly precise timekeeping services (clocks) are
provided by two federal agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (an agency of the Department of
Commerce); and its military counterpart, the United States Naval Observatory (USNO). The clocks run by these services are
kept synchronized with each other as well as with those of other international timekeeping organizations.




In the U.S., the retail grocery store and supermarket industry, with 40,229 stores, totaled about $634.2 billion in revenues
during 2012, according to U.S. Department of the Census figures. However, food products and beverages in America and
elsewhere are sold at a wide variety of stores other than supermarkets. To get the full picture in the U.S., it is important to
consider food and beverage sales, estimated at $450 billion at 55,683 non-traditional food-sellers, such as wholesale clubs and
dollar stores, as well as $165.6 billion at about 154,373 convenience stores (C stores).
The restaurant and bar industry accounted for another $529.7 billion in revenues in the U.S. during 2012, according to the
Bureau of the Census. The National Restaurant Association estimated that, for 2013, its industry would employ 13.1 million
people at 980,000 locations.
Estimates of industry revenues can vary widely, due to many factors. For example, a large portion of supermarket sales is made
in non-food items such as drugs and personal care goods, and many types of non-food stores sell small amounts of specialty
food products. Also, National Restaurant Association estimates of total annual revenues ($660.5 billion projected for 2013, up
about 5%) are higher than figures gathered by researchers at the Census, and both groups may miss revenues earned by
caterers and other non-traditional prepared food sellers. All things considered, $1.75 to $1.85 trillion is a reasonable projection
for total U.S. retail food and beverage industry revenues for 2013.
The fresh food market had a total volume of 77.5 million tons in 2011. Meat products dominate the market with 31 percent
market share, followed by vegetables (25 percent), fruits (23 percent), starchy roots (7 percent) and eggs (6 percent). During
2006-2011, the U.S. fresh food market was stagnant with a CAGR of 0.1 percent


Food retailing is rapidly becoming more diverse and sophisticated in emerging markets. For example, modern convenience
stores are widespread in major Asian cities, such as the large number of highly popular 7-11 stores found in Thailand. Also,
discount stores that sell food products, among other items, are increasingly popular, evidenced by the rapid growth of WalMart in Mexico and Latin America, and the fast spread of stores in China owned by Wal-Mart and its competitors including
Carrefour. Nonetheless, outside of the major cities, much of the food retailing in emerging markets is conducted by modest
local markets, often run as family operations.
The entire food industry, from growing to processing to retailing, is an extremely competitive field where profit margins are
typically so low that it is often challenging to maintain profitability. The processed food industry worldwide has been hindered
by high energy costs and changing consumer tastes. High feed costs have been extremely damaging to poultry and livestock
firms, and fertilizer, which is typically manufactured from petrochemical sources, has seen very high costs in recent years.
In the U.S. and Europe, where the economies have been facing slow growth, consumers are shopping for bargains. Generic
store brands are growing in market share while higher-priced name brands have suffered from slower sales. Supermarket
chains such as Kroger, Safeway and others have been forced to modify their merchandising to meet the needs of cost conscious
In the U.S., the supermarket industry is under attack by discounter Wal-Mart in particular, as well as by Costco and
Target. (Wal-Mart gets more than one-half of its U.S. revenues from grocery sales.) Vast changes are sweeping through the
supermarket sector as a result, as major firms such as Safeway and Kroger have cut prices and lowered operating costs
dramatically, while Albertsons sold itself to private investors. Wal-Mart has by far the leading market share of American
supermarket sales.
Meanwhile, Americas leading drugstore chains, CVS and Walgreens, are dramatically expanding their food and beverage
departments. Discount chain Target has put an increased emphasis on its grocery sales as well.
Overall, private-label sales (in supermarkets, drug stores and mass merchandisers) grew 3.92% to reach $92.7 billion in the
U.S. in 2011 over the previous year, according to the Private Label Manufacturers Association.
The types of technologies affecting the food industry have evolved over time. From mechanized tractors and implements to
diesel trucks to flash freezing, food technology has moved on to become high-tech. Today, computerization also has made
marked changes in the food industry: Electronic data interchange ensures that inventories and shipments are well managed so
the local grocer does not run out of the products that are selling quickly. Point-of-sale systems at the cash register capture
minute-by-minute sales data. Biotechnology is making sweeping changes at the ground levelin seed stocks and agricultural
animal health. In fact, gradual genetic improvement of grain seeds like rice and wheat, combined with better fertilizers and
other technologies, created a green revolution. Now, genetically modified seeds are gaining ground with the promise of crops
that not only resist insects and have extremely high yields per acre, but also produce high levels of desirable nutrients and
Growing health concerns are significantly impacting all sectors of the food industry, as obesity levels continue to rise to
alarming proportions in the U.S. and elsewhere. Various branches of the U.S. government, including the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), along with a host of consumer groups, are squaring off with food producers over nutrition and the
responsibilities and ethical issues inherent in the production and marketing of food. Childhood obesity is a particular target. In
the U.S., where soaring health care costs are a prime concern, $147 billion in yearly medical costs were linked to obesity in
2008. In the massive health care act passed in 2010, the U.S. federal government set up a requirement that all restaurant
chains with 20 or more restaurants post calorie counts for menu and buffet items.
Even local governments, such as the cities of New York and Chicago, are increasing regulations aimed at the food
industry. These include Chicagos famous 2006 ruling outlawing of the sale of foie gras (liver from geese kept in cages and
force fed to increase fatChicago repealed the law in 2008), and New York Citys 2007 regulations requiring that chain
restaurants prominently post nutritional values of menu items. This followed New York Citys earlier restrictions on the use of
trans fats in restaurant foods. City officials estimated that 56% of New Yorks adults are either obese or overweight, a common



problem throughout America. Local public school boards around the U.S. are enforcing better nutrition in meals and snacks
served at schools.
American food processors are dramatically altering their strategies to serve consumers who are concerned about better
nutrition and fewer sugars and fats in their foods. Many chain restaurants are likewise seeing excellent sales from lower-calorie
foods. McDonalds soaring success with salads is an excellent example. Snack food makers are likewise offering more and more
reduced fat items.
Meanwhile, the soda industry is going though immense changes due to consumer trends. At one time, soda manufacturers and
marketers assumed that there was limitless worldwide growth to be enjoyed in soda sales. However, the real growth in
beverages lately has been in bottled waters and energy drinks. As a result, 2009-10 saw dramatic regrouping at PepsiCo and
Coca Cola when the firms announced their intent to acquire the massive companies that did much of their bottling under
license agreements. These soft drink giants have attempted to cut costs, streamline operations, and distribute new products as
a result of these mergers
In North America (as well as Asia, Europe and elsewhere), producers and retailers of foods (including restaurants) are now
faced with the challenge of positioning their brands to represent consistent quality and food safety. Companies that rise to this
challenge will have significant competitive advantage. This food safety positioning will go hand-in-hand with growing demand
to satisfy additional consumer concerns about environmentally-sound food production methods, fair trade, fair use of labor
and humane treatment of agricultural animals. However, a focus on such concerns as fair trade can add dramatically to costs.



4. Regulatory Environment
National regulations, authorities, certifications, labeling, customs regulations for food products imported
from Switzerland

Two regulatory bodies oversee food and beverage safety in the United States. Eighty percent of the food supply is governed by
the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which safeguards against food adulteration (contamination) and food labeling
(misbranding). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) accounts for the other twenty percent and oversees meat
(beef, lamb, pork), poultry, eggs, and products made from them. In light of recent food recalls including a salmonella peanut
butter outbreak in 2009 and salmonella egg outbreak in 2010, in January 2011 The Food Safety Modernization Act was signed
into law. The legislation gives the FDA more authority to test and recall suspected contaminated foods and beverages.
FDA food regulations reach all foods and all beverages distributed in interstate commerce in the U.S.A. except for products that
are regulated exclusively by the USDA. All imported foods and imported beverages (including juices) are already in interstate
commerce when they reach the U.S. port of entry. Therefore, for Swiss companies exportig food or beverages to the U.S.A.,
FDA will have jurisdiction over the product when it arrives (and even before it arrives).
FDA food regulations and FDA beverage regulations cover domestic and imported food safety, food adulteration
(contamination), and food labeling (misbranding). FDAs food regulatory authority is very far-reaching, and includes:

fresh produce (fresh fruits and vegetables), usually concerned with pesticide residues or microbiological
processed foods (dry goods, canned foods, acidified foods, prepared meals, etc.), usually interested in microbiological
contamination, insect, bird, rodent or other animal filth, submission of scheduled process documentation for canned
foods, and all food labeling requirements, such as Nutrition Labeling in foods and beverages;
dietary supplements and nutritional supplements, related to dietary ingredient and finished product safety, Dietary
Supplement Facts labeling, and other permissible dietary supplement labeling and marketing claims;
infant formulas, with respect to conformity to FDA minimum nutrition requirements and product labeling
fruit and vegetable juices, carbonated drinks, and functional beverages (such as energy drinks and antioxidant
drinks), usually considering safe and permissible food additives and ingredients, safe color additives, percent-juice
declarations, juice labeling requirements and Nutrition Facts labeling for all types of beverages and drink products;
bottled water, related to conformity to FDAs regulatory bottled water standards, chemical contamination and
microbiological contamination;
dairy products (cheeses, milk and milk products, yogurts, etc.), many of which are standardized foods and must meet
specific FDA regulatory food standards;
seafood products (fin fish, crustaceans, etc.), usually for compliance with processing requirements (HACCP, or
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations), microbiological contamination, decomposition (and
histamine production), and anti-biotic or other animal drug use in aquaculture seafood;
food ingredients (nutritive ingredients and non-nutritive ingredients), with respect to generally recognized as safe
(GRAS) status,
functional food ingredients (emulsifiers, anti-caking agents, etc.), related to appropriate intended uses and
declaration in food label ingredient declarations
food color additives, natural flavors and artificial flavors, spices, seasonings, and vitamins added to food
food contact surfaces (containers, utensils, food manufacturing surfaces, beverage containers and food containers),
some alcoholic beverages (beer, wine)



Most foods do not require FDA approval before being sold in the U.S. Most individual food items also do not require food
registration or listing. However, all food establishments that manufacture, pack and hold (store) food are subject to FDA Food
Facility Registration. FDA Food Facility Registration must occur before the imported foods arrive in the U.S. for human or
animal consumption.
Some food products are subject to special and additional regulations, including low acid canned foods (LACF), acidified foods
(AF), infant formulas, pasteurized grade A dairy products, food colors, food contact surfaces and food contact materials, and
alcoholic beverages (although alcoholic beverages are permitted for sale in the U.S. by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB)). FDA regulates imported foods differently by requiring some pre-market review or FDA approval prior to
importing food for commercial distribution in the U.S.
Some foods are called standardized foods because FDA has established food standards for them. These additional
requirements apply to a variety of foods, ranging from milk chocolate to salad dressings; and yogurt and fruit preserves to
bottled water. Most foods, however, are non-standardized foods. If a food is a standardized food, it must meet the standard
established by FDA or the food will be considered adulterated and misbranded. All foods are subject to specific food naming
regulations, and that applies to standardized foods and non-standardized foods alike.
Food labels must be correct or the foods are misbranded under U.S. law. That is, the food labels must bear all the required
information in the correct formats using the correct fonts and information placements, and food labels may not bear labeling
claims or statements that are not permitted by FDA regulation.
The fact that FDA does not pre-approve most foods or labels does not mean that FDA will be lenient when FDA finds
adulterated or misbranded imported foods. FDA will certainly take action. Therefore, it is critical for food companies to make
sure that their foods and food labels comply with FDA requirements, or they are likely to be stopped by FDA when they are
imported. Fixing the problem at that stage is very expensive.
There are many specific requirements for many different foods that must be met before foods are imported into the U.S. Foods
must be wholesome, unadulterated, properly labeled in all respects, come from FDA-registered manufacturers, packers and
storage facilities, and, where required (which is rare), they must have the appropriate pre-approvals and product registrations.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), FDA has jurisdiction over all food labels, except meat, dairy, and egg
products. FDA food label regulations include requirements concerning mandatory declarations of most information contained
on food labels, such as the statement of identity, net quantity, ingredients, Nutrition Facts, allergen risks, and food label
claims. FDA regulations also permit certain conventional food labels and beverage labels to bear various types of food label
claims, such as nutrient content claims, structure or function claims, and health claims, under strictly regulated conditions and
To comply with FDA food regulation, most food labels and beverage labels must contain Nutrition Facts declarations that
conform to very specific requirements related to formatting, nutrient names and amounts, and Percent Daily Value
Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), FDA standardized and limited the types of claims permitted
on food labels to include: health claims, nutrient content claims, and structure or function claims.
Health claims characterize the relationship between a substance and a health-related condition (e.g., A diet low in sodium
may reduce high blood pressure.).
Nutrient Content Claims characterize the level of a nutrient in food (e.g., Good source of protein.).
Structure or function claims describe how a food or beverage affects the structure or function of the body (e.g., Supports
healthy blood circulation.)
Food labeling on websites is a complex area of federal law because both FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
regulate food website and beverage website advertising. Therefore, websites that promote and advertise foods and beverages


for sale must comply with both FTC and FDA laws and regulations. Federal law governing claims on such websites is
particularly confusing because while FDA regulations limit the types of permissible claims, FTC regulations are not as
restrictive. FTC regulates all food advertising claims under a truthful and not misleading standard. In addition, both FDA and
FTC law require that all claims be substantiated, i.e. supported by adequate scientific evidence.
In the United States, food and beverage product labels must contain the following basic information:

The name under which the product is sold

List of ingredients
The net quantity of pre-packaged foods in each package, listed in both metric and American units (e.g. Net Weight:
16oz (400g))
Name, address and contact details (phone, fax, e-mail, web address) of the manufacturer, co-packer or importer (this
should be a U.S. address)
Place of origin (e.g. Product of Switzerland)
Expiration date for consumption, including the day, month and year
Special conditions for keeping or usage

Various certifications are available to specialty food manufacturers which can both improve their business practices and make
their finished products more marketable. Depending on the specific, target demographics, manufacturers could look at a
variety of certifications that highlight the quality practices, value chains, religious affiliations and social impacts. Analyzing
what certifications, if any, to pursue is entirely up to the leadership of the manufacturer and should be done in conjunction
with a well-thought-out pricing model and competitive analysis. Many companies choose to limit the amount of information
on a label that does not bring either legal compliance or consumer recognition.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization): a global network that identifies and develops International
Standards for business, government and societies. ISO has developed 2 sets of standards: ISO 9000 for quality
management and ISO 14000 for environmental management

HAACP (Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points): a systematic, preventive approach to food safety that addresses
physical, chemical and biological hazards as a means of prevention rather than finished product inspection. HACCP is
used in the food industry in the United States, and is required for all imported food products in the juice, seafood or
meat categories.

Organic: In the United States, the National Organic Program (NOP) was enacted as federal legislation in October
2002. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers. Certification is handled by state, nonprofit and private agencies that have been approved by the USDA. Quality Assurance International (QAI), a private
U.S. corporation, is the largest organic certification body in the U.S. Federal organic legislation in the U.S. defines
three levels of organics.

Fair Trade: Though not as popular in the United States as it is in Europe, a Fair Trade certification can offer a unique
selling point to your products. Fair Trade certification can yield certified products an additional retail margin of
approximately 10-20 percent higher than the non-certified varieties. While there is no formal definition of what
constitutes a fair trade, the most commonly referred to definition comes from FINE (Fairtrade Labeling
Organizations International (FLO), International Fair Trade Association (now known as the World Fair Trade
Organization WFTO), Network of European Worldshops (NEWS), and European Fair Trade Association (EFTA).

Religious: Various religious organizations offer certification programs, with the Islamic Halal and the Jewish
Kosher being the most popular. These certifications are relatively inexpensive, and the process is quite straight
forward, though specifics range, depending on the type of product. When debating whether or not to pursue such
religious certifications, manufacturers should refer back to their business model and examine their target
demographics. In New York City independent supermarkets, as an example, a Kosher certification might come in
handy. If a manufacturer were targeting demographic markets with a high Muslim population, then a Halal
certification would make sense.



Social: Many manufacturers look towards social certifications as a way of not only contributing to their own corporate
responsibility, but also as a way of distinguishing themselves from their competitors. Social certifications can take on
many forms; from standardized certification like The Rainforest Alliance or Breast Cancer Awareness.


FDA regulation requires food facility registration of all food manufacturers no matter where they are located if their food is
distributed in the U.S. for human or animal consumption. This requirement applies to foreign food manufacturers and
exporters of conventional foods, beverages, dietary supplements and food additives and ingredients. The food facility
registration is required under the Bioterrorism Act (BTA). FDA will issue import refusals for an imported food or imported
beverage manufactured by a foreign facility that is not registered under the BTA. Compliance with this required process is
referred to as Registration of Food Facilities.
Although registration for each food facility used to be required only once, new Food Safety Modernization Act registration
changes now require a biennial registration renewal for all food facilities. Additionally, all changes or modifications to the
required information must be included by way of food registration updates submitted to FDA. The Food Facility Registration
Number of every foreign manufacturer of imported food or imported beverages must be declared to FDA and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (Customs) prior to the arrival of the imported food or beverage. This submission happens through the FDA
Prior Notice filing.


Conducting a full, nutritional analysis at a certified laboratory is required for all food products entering the United States.
While you will not be required to show proof of all analyses conducted, your nutritional label must be one hundred percent
accurate, and this accuracy can only be achieved through proper, laboratory analysis. Inaccuracies on a nutritional panel do
result in heavy fines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Depending on the country, costs range dramatically from
public-sector laboratories to private companies. Samples may also have to be sent abroad, if the required analyses are not
available in locally. The required analyses for all food products entering the United States are:

Fat Profile (total fat; saturated fat; mono-saturated fat; transfat from fatty acids)
Sugar Profile (fructose; glucose; sucrose; maltose; lactose)
Total Dietary Fiber
Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Carbohydrates by Calculation
Calories by Calculation
Calories from Fat


Analyzing the shelf-life of any food product is a requirement for importation into the United States. Shelf-life is defined as
the length of time that food, drink, medicine, chemicals and other perishable items are given before they are considered
unsuitable for sale, use or consumption. Shelf-life is commonly examined using two types of stability testing: either real-time
stability tests or accelerated stability tests. During each, a product is stored at elevated stress conditions, including
temperature, humidity and PH for a required amount of time to measure chemical and micro-biological changes in the
product. A thorough shelf-life analysis from a certified laboratory is required.


In the United States, most supermarket retailers can only read Universal Product Codes (UPC), which is a barcode type used
throughout North America, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand for tracking food items in stores. The most


common form is the UPC-A code, consisting of twelve digits. UPCs are uniquely assigned to each product by the manufacturer.
UPCs are critical, because it is the only way retailers and distributors track the success or failure of a product. All sales data is
generated based on the UPC for each unique product. When registering UPCs, manufacturers must acquire all codes through
the international organization known as GS1.

4.8. U.S. AGENTS

Foreign food manufacturers and foreign beverage manufacturers that are subject to FDA Food Facility Registration
requirements must also appoint a U.S. Agent for FDA purposes. The FDA U.S. Agent acts as FDAs primary point of contact for
the foreign food or beverage manufacturer.
U.S. Agent information is submitted electronically through FDAs electronic systems during the food facility registration
process. Each foreign establishment may designate only one U.S. Agent. The foreign food facility may also designate its U.S.
Agent as its official correspondent.
Responsibilities of a U.S. Agent
The U.S. Agent may be called upon to speak to the FDA for the foreign registered manufacturer, packer or storage facility.
Therefore, it is critical that the U.S. Agent understands the FDA regulations that govern the imported food or imported
beverage and the manufacturing process regulations that the foreign manufacturer must follow.
Many U.S. Agency services sell agency and facility registration services, primarily. Although they may also perform some
rudimentary regulatory reviews, many lack substantive experience in FDA law, FDA regulations, and FDA enforcement actions.
You are required to select a U.S. Agent to comply with U.S. law and FDA regulation. You should select a U.S. Agent that is also
capable of providing comprehensive regulatory compliance services that ensure your imported foods comply with all FDA
requirements and are successfully imported, marketed, and distributed in the United States.


Canned foods (low acid canned foods, or LACF products, and acidified food canned food products) are subject to special FDA
permit controls, which are implemented through FDA Food Canning Establishment (FCE) regulations and FDA Scheduled
Process Identification (SID) filings. The FDA canned food regulations are in addition to the Bioterrorism Act (BTA) food
facility registration, U.S. Agency, Prior Notice, and FDA food ingredient regulations and FDA food processing and food label
FCE Registration
All low acid canned food (LACF) and acidified canned food manufacturers must submit a Food Canning Establishment (FCE)
Registration with FDA before exporting to or distributing canned foods in the United States. The FDA FCE Registration is in
addition to FDAs Bioterrorism Act Food Facility Registration requirement. When the FCE Registration is submitted to FDA,
the manufacturer must also submit to FDA its Scheduled Process filings for all of its commercially sterile, acidified and lowacid canned foods to obtain a Scheduled Process Identification (SID) Number from FDA for each specific canned food and
aseptic or acidified food process.
Scheduled Process Identification
Any low acid canned food processor, which is required to submit an FDA FCE registration must also submit to FDA a
scheduled process filing form. The canned food manufacturers Scheduled Process must be electronically transmitted to and
reviewed (and accepted) by FDAs Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) before any canned food import
shipments occur.
The Scheduled Process form will contain necessary information about the manufacturers aseptic or acidification processes for
producing commercially sterile low-acid canned foods or properly acidified food and eliminating the risk of botulism poisoning
in the food product. Ordinarily, a separate process filing form must be submitted for each separate acidified food or LACF
canned or bottled product.
Modifications in the manufacturing process or changing the container type used (e.g. glass, metal, etc.), or acidulators or
aseptic processing equipment will require the FCE manufacturer to submit updated SID forms. There are other important food
manufacturing details that are required in order to obtain proper SID Number compliance.




FDA has issued specific processing regulations (good manufacturing practices or GMP regulations) governing seafood products
and juices. These regulations, called FDA Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations, require all seafood
and many juice processors to identify the hazards that have the potential of contaminating the product through the stream of
raw materials into the processing facility, or through the processing steps themselves which, if such hazards occurred, would
render the food products unsafe for consumers. The HACCP regulations require seafood and juice manufacturers to identify,
define, and monitor Critical Control Points (CCPs) in their processing steps to minimize, reduce or eliminate these hazards and
thereby reduce the safety risks associated with such products. The HACCP regulations apply to domestic and foreign seafood
and juice manufacturers alike.
There are specific HACCP regulations that apply to U.S. seafood importers and juice importers. These importer requirements
must be met. FDA inspectors will eventually arrive at the importers company and verify HACCP compliance and, ordinarily,
FDA will request a copy of the foreign food processors HACCP plan in English. These HACCP regulations are in addition to
FDAs food facility registration requirements under the Bioterrorism Act, FDAs FCE and SID requirements for canned food
manufacturers, and FDA food labeling requirements.
Foreign Seafood or Juice Manufacturers
Under FDA HACCP regulations, seafood processors and juice manufacturers and importers must comply with federal
regulations related to HACCP planning and management. HACCP Plan refers to documented procedures which ensure food
safety by analyzing food processing to discover and mitigate risks associated with biological, chemical, and physical
contamination. Compliant HACCP plans include the following basic elements:
1: Conduct a hazard analysis;
2: Determine the critical control points (CCPs);
3: Establish critical limits;
4: Establish monitoring procedures;
5: Establish corrective actions;
6: Establish verification procedures; and
7: Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures.
When FDA finds a problem with imported seafood or imported juice, the agency often will ask to see the importers and the
foreign suppliers HACCP Plans. If your product is subject to the FDA HACCP regulations, it is important to conduct a hazard
analysis of the product and the manufacturing/handling/shipping processes to correctly identify potential hazards. Such
potential hazards must be controlled at appropriate points and these controls must be documented.
On many occasions, international suppliers and processors simply borrow HACCP plans from others in the industry. This is a
common and dangerous mistake since each HACCP plan must be specifically tailored to particular products and processes
within a specific facility. Another common mistake, particularly among multiple food processors, is to over-commit in the
HACCP plan and then fail to implement the plan completely.
If FDA discovers you fail to implement your own HACCP plan completely, FDA will not consider you to have reached HACCP
compliance. Borrowing a template or boilerplate HACCP plan increases the risk that you will over commit and not implement
the written HACCP plan.
Under FDA regulations, seafood or juice products manufactured without a valid HACCP plan are adulterated. Merely failing to
have a HACCP plan is evidence under the FDA regulations that the seafood or juice was processed under unsanitary
conditions. FDA regularly places foreign processors with inadequate (or no) HACCP plans on FDA Import Alert. Thereafter,
FDA will automatically detain future shipments from that foreign processor without conducting any physical examination or
sampling of the shipment. FDA concludes that the articles from that processor appear to be adulterated due to insanitary
conditions at the manufacturing facility, and therefore FDA will not permit the FDA detained articles to be reconditioned or
released for U.S. sale. This effectively bans the foreign supplier's product from the U.S. market.
Domestic HACCP Inspections
FDA regularly inspects domestic seafood and juice manufacturers, processors, packers, storage facilities, and importers to
ensure they have implemented the agency's HACCP regulations.


When FDA detains imported seafood or juice based upon violations detected through sampling and analysis, the agency
requires the importer to show that it performed the required Affirmative Steps under the FDA HACCP regulations that apply
to seafood importers. FDA often asks for this evidence before considering a request to recondition an imported FDA-detained
shipment due to certain HACCP-related violations.


As food research and technology advances, new food ingredients are often introduced into food manufacturing and the U.S.
food supply. However, food additives may only be used in conventional foods if they are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS),
if they are the subject of a food additive regulation, or if they are prior sanctioned additives (food ingredients that have been
used safely in the food supply prior to January 1, 1958).
Food additives achieve GRAS status in two primary ways. First, the manufacturer self-affirms the GRAS status of the
ingredient. In this scenario, the manufacturer maintains documentary evidence of the safety of the ingredient, including its
natural or artificial derivation, the related processing, and the effects of its consumption under specified intended uses.
Second, the manufacturer can submit a GRAS Notification filing to FDA, containing similar documentation. Through this
process FDA is not determining GRAS status of the food additive. Rather, FDA is merely stating it does not object to the
manufacturers assessment of the ingredient as GRAS for the intended uses and at the levels described in the GRAS
Notification. Many U.S. finished food manufacturers will only purchase food ingredients or food additives if they have, at a
minimum, an FDA No Objection letter to a GRAS Notification.
If a manufacturer is using a food additive substance which is not already designated as GRAS by FDA regulation or for which
FDA has not issued a No Objection letter, then it is particularly important for the manufacturer to be able to show and must
maintain documentary evidence that the particular ingredient or food additive is GRAS.
Although FDA does not require manufacturers to submit GRAS self-assessments, the agency could disagree with a
manufacturer and take regulatory action against a food containing a food additive that FDA believes it can prove is not GRAS.
This is far easier for FDA to do at the imported food level of distribution because FDA already has very broad authority to issue
FDA import detentions, FDA Import Alerts and FDA import refusals for foods that appear to be in violation of federal law or
FDA regulations. Therefore, it is very important for foreign food additive and food ingredient manufacturers to have evidence
regarding the GRAS status of their food additives and food ingredients.
Foods containing additives, which are not GRAS, are adulterated as a matter of federal law. Foods, which are deemed
adulterated, are subject to FDA import detention, FDA Import Alerts, and FDA import refusal of admission. In addition,
importing adulterated food may subject the manufacturer or importer to administrative and criminal penalties.


FDA strictly regulates color additives for use in the manufacture of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. Under U.S.
law, all color additives for use in cosmetics must have specific FDA approval for their intended cosmetic applications. FDA
requires that color additives receive either batch certification (to ensure composition and color standards compliance) or an
exemption from certification by FDA regulation.
Use of an unapproved color additive or unsafe color additive violates FDA regulations. In addition, all color additives must be
properly declared on food labels and beverage labels. Otherwise, the presence of the undeclared color additive will cause the
imported food or imported beverage to be misbranded and possibly adulterated under U.S. law, depending upon the color
additive that is present.
Color Additives Used in Other Countries, But Not in the U.S.A.
Some food color additives and beverage color additives used commonly in other countries are illegal or not permitted for food
use in the United States. Using illegal food colors or non-permitted food colors in any food or beverage will likely result in FDA
import detentions and delays, FDA Import Alerts, and FDA import refusal of the product because it bears or contains an unsafe
color additive.
Color Additive FDA Import Alerts
FDA has a specific Import Alert for foods and beverages from foreign manufacturers and shippers that have been found to
contain illegal food color additives and non-permitted beverage colors. FDAs listing of the foreign manufacturer or shipper on


FDA Import Alert is particularly troublesome for the foreign food or beverage manufacturer. The use of an unsafe color
additive is a formulation problem that can only be remedied by reformulating the product. FDA routinely tries to capture such
shipments containing non-permitted food colors or illegal beverage colors in order to place the foreign manufacturer on FDA
Import Alert. Once on an FDA Import Alert, the foreign manufacturers imported food must be tested by private lab analyses to
prove that the illegal or non-permitted color is not in the product anymore. This creates
uniform FDA enforcement in all ports of entry making it difficult, if not impossible, to evade FDAand significantly
increases the costs to the importer. Foreign manufacturers can petition FDA for removal from FDA Import Alerts, but specific
criteria must be followed and evidence must be submitted for FDA review.
Undeclared Color Additives; Improper Declaration of Color Additives
Other routine problems involving imported food or imported beverage color additive violations include failing to declare on the
food label or the beverage label the presence of a color additive. Such foods or beverages are considered misbranded under the
Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and are subject to FDA import detention, FDA Import Alert, and FDA import refusal of
admission. Again, FDA ordinarily will pursue such situations by adding the manufacturer or shipper on an FDA Import Alert,
which lists the product that FDA found contained an undeclared color additive as well as its foreign manufacturer and foreign
Improper declaration of color additives (for instance, failing to use the color's correct name as defined by FDA regulation or
failing to use its common or usual name on the food label or the beverage label) also results in a misbranded food or beverage.
It is important that foods, beverages, dietary supplements, drugs, and cosmetics in particular declare all color additives in the
product label's Ingredients Statement.
FDA has issued hundreds of Import Alerts covering imported food, imported beverages, and imported cosmetics that contain
illegal colors, non-permitted colors, undeclared colors, or uncertified color additives. Proper product formulation, color batch
certification, and ingredient labeling is critical to obtaining and maintaining access to the US market.
Parallel Imports and Color Additives in Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics
In some instances, foreign firms manufacture the same foods, beverages, drugs and cosmetics using different color
formulations for different markets. When a parallel importer purchases a food, beverage, drug, or cosmetic manufactured for a
non-U.S. market and diverts it into the U.S. market, FDA may discover the presence of an illegal color. In that case, FDA will
take action against the manufacturer, potentially even placing the manufacturer on FDA Import Alert.
Foreign manufacturers who have discovered that parallel shippers have exported their products (with illegal colors) to the U.S.
must then demonstrate to FDA how they are controlling their supply chains to reduce the likelihood of future diversion.
Without such evidence, FDA may not be willing to remove the manufacturer from an FDA Import Alert list.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of pesticide chemicals in foods through a regulatory tolerance
publication process. Under EPA regulations, certain pesticide chemicals may be used in specific foods, for particular reasons,
and at particular exposure levels. The amounts and kinds of pesticide residues permitted to remain on food vary according to
pesticide residue tolerance levels published by EPA, which specify the maximum amount of pesticide residue permitted to
remain on a food approved for pesticide application. Pesticide residues without pesticide tolerances are not permitted at all.
Pesticides that have EPA pesticide residue tolerances for some foods but not others may only be used on those foods on which
the pesticides are EPA approved for use and in a way that the residues remain at or below the published pesticide residue
Although EPA approves pesticide usage on foods and establishes pesticide residue tolerances by regulation, FDA enforces
pesticide regulations. The majority of FDA enforcement surrounding pesticide use in foods is focused upon imported raw
agricultural commodities and imported processed foods.
When FDA determines that a food was exposed to a pesticide for which EPA has not established a tolerance, or if a residue
exceeds the EPAs pesticide residue tolerance level, the imported food will be subject to FDA import detention, FDA Import
Alerts, and FDA import refusal of admission. FDA will often place the specific grower or food processor and the specific
imported food on FDA Import Alert. As a result, FDA will automatically detain future imported foods shipped by that grower


or processor until FDA receives evidence that establishes future shipments are not likely to contain the illegal pesticide or
pesticide residues above the EPA pesticide residue tolerance.


President Barack Obama signed into law the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) on January 4, 2011. FSMA is the
greatest expansion of FDAs food regulatory authority since the enactment in 1938 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. It aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus of federal regulators from responding to contamination
to preventing it.
FSMA enlarges FDAs power to regulate the safety procedures, domestically and internationally, for the producing,
manufacturing, packaging, storing, and transporting food. Also, FSMA provides FDA with new powers to regulate food imports
by increasing FDA's ability to inspect foreign and domestic facilities, increasing FDA's enforcement powers, (including
broadening FDA's administrative detention powers and FDA's ability to obtain information), and granting FDA the authority to
issue mandatory recalls. Food manufacturers, importers, and distributors must begin preparing now to comply with the new
Import Certification Requirement
Under the FSMA, as a condition of granting admission to an article of imported food, FDA can require that the an agent or
representative of the government of the exporting country from which the food originates, produce an affidavit declaring that
the food complies with the requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
If FDA requires an import certificate for an imported food, and the importer does not possess a valid certificate, the food must
be refused admission. FDA may refuse an import certificate if FDA determines it is invalid or unreliable. At any time, FDA may
require that the certificate be renewed.
In determining whether to require the certificate, FDA must consider:
1. the known safety risks of the food;
2. the known safety risks of the country, territory, or region of origin of the food; and
3. FDA must find that the food safety programs, systems, and standards in the country, territory, or region of origin are
inadequate to ensure safety and that certification would assist FDA in making an admissibility determination.
Administrative Detention
Under the FSMA, effective July 3, 2011, FDA possesses significantly more power to administratively detain foods. Prior to
FSMA, FDA needed credible evidence or information that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals to detain that article of food. FSMA permits FDA the authority to
administratively detain an article of food if FDA has reason to believe that the article of food merely is adulterated or
misbranded. FDA must issue an interim final rule implementing this amendment by May 4, 2011.
Mandatory Recall Authority
Under the FSMA, FDA has new authority to order a mandatory recall when it believes there is a reasonable probability that a
food is adulterated or misbranded, and that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences
or death to humans or animals. The rule requires FDA to give the responsible party an opportunity to conduct a voluntary
recall; upon refusal, the mandatory order can issue and the party has an opportunity to participate in an informal hearing
within two days after the order has issued.
Inspection-Related Refusal Power
Under the FSMA, FDA may refuse food that derives from a foreign facility (or government) operator that refuses to permit FDA
inspectors to inspect the establishment. For purposes of this provision, the refusal is deemed to have occurred if it is not
permitted during the 24-hour period after a request is made, or after such other time period as agreed upon by FDA and the
HARPC Risk Prevention
Under the FSMA, effective July 4, 2012, food facilities must maintain Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls
(HARPC). The HARPC requirements are similar to the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements


which apply to processors of low-acid canned foods, seafood and juice, except that HARCP applies to nearly all food facilities.
Exempt facilities are (1) those subject to Standards of Produce Safety, (2) those subject to HACCP and low-acid canned food
standards, and (3) those subject to Dietary Supplement current Good Manufacturing Practices.
Under HARPC each facility must:

conduct hazard analysis;

develop and implement preventive controls and monitor the controls effectiveness;
develop a written plan for controlling the hazards;
reanalyze processes for potential hazards at least every three years;
verify the effectiveness of the controls; and,
maintain records of the verification process.

FSMA requires FDA to issue regulations which will define a small and very small business, entities exempt from HARPC
Foreign Supplier Verification Program
Under the FSMA, effective January 4, 2013, importers must verify the safety of the food offered for import using the new
Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP). (The requirement doesn't apply to firms that import products from foreign
suppliers subject to low-acid canned food regulations, seafood or juice HACCP.) Under this plan, every subject importer must
establish a program through which it verifies that its
foreign supplier complies with HARPC or Standards for Produce Safety, and also verifies that that the food is not adulterated
and misbranded because it fails to disclose the presence of major food allergens.
Importers must maintain records for two years that substantiate compliance with this requirement. Importers that fail to
comply with this verification program violate FDCA and are prohibited from importing food into the United States.
Voluntary Qualified Importer Program
Under the FSMA FDA must create the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP), which is a voluntary, fee-based program
that offers its members an expedited importation process. An importer becomes eligible when FDA determines that the food
offered for import is safe and the foreign facility obtains certification by third-party auditors (which verifies that the facility
complies with the relevant regulations. Once admitted to the program, FDA reviews an importer's eligibility at least once every
three years.
The program will offer a large importer an effective means to shorten the delays inherent with importing foods. The program
will particularly assist an importer of perishable foods, because importation will take less time.


FDA Food Guidance Regulations
FDA Bottled Water and Water Beverage Regulations
US Dept. of Agriculcture (USDA) Information, Regulations, Programs and Services
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
Food Safety Modernization Act
EPA Pesticide Regulations



5. Food Industry
Retail: Market size, market structure players, competition, challenges
The U.S. food marketing system links farms to consumers via food manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing (food stores and
foodservice facilities).
Food wholesaling consists of that part of food marketing in which goods are assembled, stored, and transported to retailers,
foodservice operators, other wholesalers, government, and other types of businesses. The retail food industry has changed
significantly over the past 2 decades, as warehouse club stores, drugstores, and other nontraditional foodstores have increased
their share of food sales. Changes in consumer food choices are reflected in food retailing, including the introduction of new
products to meet new consumer demands.


The 212,000 traditional foodstores in the U.S. sold $571 billion of retail food and nonfood products in 2011. Grocery stores,
including supermarkets, accounted for the largest share of foodstore sales (91.0 percent), followed by convenience stores
without gasoline (5.5 percent). Specialized foodstores, including meat and seafood markets, produce markets, retail bakeries,
and candy and nut stores, accounted for the remaining 3.4 percent of the total.
Figure 1: Traditional food store sales by segment 2011

Grocery store sales increased in 2010 and 2011, following the 2007-09 recessiona period of economic uncertainty in
which traditional grocery retailers experienced negative inflation-adjusted growth. During the past decade, there were many
years in which grocery store sales growth (in current dollars) exceeded the rate of inflation. Inflation-adjusted sales growth was
small, averaging 0.08 percent per year. The slow and negative inflation-adjusted growth in annual sales at traditional grocery
stores was likely due in part to increased competition from nontraditional food retailerssuch as warehouse clubs,
supercenters, drugstores, and other retailersas more consumers economized on food spending.



Figure 2: Growth of sales at grocery stores, 2000-11


Sales by the 20 largest food retailers totaled $418.0 billion in 2011, accounting for 63.7 percent of U.S. grocery store sales, an
increase from 39.9 percent in 1993. Although shares held by the largest 4, 8, and 20 supermarket and supercenter retailers has
decreased slightly since 2008, the longer term trend shows an increasing concentration of sales among the largest grocery
retailers. One contributing factor to such increases over the past decade has been the rapid growth of Wal-Mart Supercenters.
Their food and nonfood grocery sales amounted to an estimated $109.4 billion in 2011, making it the largest U.S. retailer of
grocery products. In comparison, second-place Kroger, the largest traditional grocery retailer, had sales of $71.1 billion in 2011.
Figure 3: Top 4, 8 and 20 firms share of U.S. grocery store sales, 1993-2011



Mergers and acquisitions contributed to increasing shares of the largest 4, 8, and 20 grocery retailers during the mid-to-late
1990s; however, divestitures and internal growth have played the greatest role in changing industry structure since 2007:

The acquisition of 1,124 Albertson's supermarkets in 2006 by Supervalu boosted its ranking from the eighth-largest
grocery retailer in 2005 to the fourth-largest in 2011.
In 2007, 12th-ranked A&P Tea Company acquired Pathmark, operator of 141 supermarkets in the New York
metropolitan area.
In 2007, Publix Supermarkets acquired 49 Albertson's supermarkets located in Florida.
Among natural foods and organic retailers, 10th-ranked Whole Foods Market purchased Wild Oats, operator of 110
supermarkets, in 2007.

Between 2007 and 2011, the share of grocery sales by the top 4, 8, and 20 grocery retailers remained unchanged.


Nontraditional stores
Since the late 1990s, nontraditional retailers have steadily increased their relative share of food-at-home sales, compared with
traditional retailers. Nontraditional stores' share of food-at-home sales increased from 13.7 percent in 2000 to 21.5 percent in
2011 (traditional foodstores and nonstore food salessuch as mail order, home delivery, and direct sales by farms, processors,
and wholesalersaccount for the remaining shares). Most of the growth in food sales is due to supercenters and warehouse
club stores, whose sales more than doubled over the period. More recently, dollar storessuch as Dollar General and Family
Dollarand drugstoressuch as Rite Aid, CVS, and Walgreenshave increased sales by expanding retail food offerings.
Figure 4: Food-at-home sales by type of outlet, 2000-11

Source: USDA, ERS, Food Expenditure Table



Traditional foodstores
In response to the sales inroads made by nontraditional retailers, traditional grocers are expanding the number and types of
product offerings, designing new store formats, and using innovative instore technologies. Hannaford Supermarkets, a division
of Delhaize Group (Belgium), introduced "Guiding Stars," a simplified nutrition label to help consumers make more healthful
food choices. According to a recent ERS article, leading supermarket chains are expanding their private labels (store brands) to
meet the needs of economizing consumers. Many food retailers such as Safeway, Kroger, and Giant Eagle have added gasoline
pumps in their parking lots and other locations. In addition, some supermarkets offer promotional tie-ins to grocery
purchases, such as gasoline discounts, in an attempt to increase sales.
With many consumers seeking organic and natural foods, traditional supermarkets have responded by adding such products to
their shelves. Kroger, Giant Food, and Shaw's all offer corporate-brand organic or natural products (Naturally Preferred,
Nature's Promise, and Wild Harvest). Publix has introduced its GreenWise supermarkets featuring organic produce, meats
with no added hormones, and more healthful prepared foods, along with conventional grocery items (see Introduction of New
Food Products With Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-Related Claims, 1989-2010).
Local foods
Rising consumer interest in knowing where food is produced has sparked increases in purchases of locally grown food.
Supermarkets have responded by emphasizing local offerings such as fresh fruits and vegetables, baked goods, meat, poultry,
and dairy products, depending on the location and time of year. Safeway, Kroger, Food Lion, and H-E-B Grocery Company are
some of the largest supermarket chains that promote a variety of locally grown or produced foods. Other sources of local food
include farm-direct and farmers' markets. While many local foods are promoted as "organic" or "natural," retailers often claim
that local foods support local agriculture and are more environmentally friendly.
Food service
In competing for consumers' food dollars, foodservice operators, including restaurants, fast food outlets, and institutional
foodservice operators in schools, hotels, and recreational sites, have increased their share of total food expenditures over the
years. By 2011, food-away-from-home spending by households and businesses accounted for 48.7 percent of all food spending,
up from 47.1 percent in 2000 and 43.0 percent in 1990. Prior to the current recession, the share of household expenditures for
prepared foods and meals had risen due to changes in household compositionsuch as more single-person households and
more households with two working adultsas well as increased household incomes and changes in consumer preferences for
convenience foods.
Figure 5: Sales of food-at-home and away-from-home, 1960-2011

Source: USDA, ERS, Food Expenditure Tables



In response, some supermarkets have expanded the variety of ready-to-eat entrees and meals in their prepared food
departments. Many stores have added a seating area to challenge fast food outlets for business. For example, Wegman's Food
Markets, a Rochester, NY-based operator of 81 supermarkets, introduced the Market Caf, an instore foodservice option
containing a wide range of prepared and made-to-order foods. In the mid-2000s, the annual sales of prepared foods sold in
supermarkets grew 4 to 4.5 percent annually, compared with 2 to 2.5 percent for other grocery products.


The emergence of user-generated content (UGC) via social media channels from the Web 2.0 era has had a dramatic impact on
the current commercial environment. Businesses can no longer simply publish content they wish potential customers to see;
the social media landscape has instigated a power shift from the business towards the consumer.
Communication is truly changing as a result of social media utilization and thus the dynamics of human relationships take on a
new perspective. The rules of relationship marketing have been redefined. Indeed social media platforms allow consumers to
form a sort of tribal community around a product or brand. However, businesses that adopt social media as a strategy must
accept that they are losing an element of control to the consumer. For many businesses today social media is their largest web
presence, overtaking their company websites and email programs. Thus social media has mutated how businesses interact and
communicate with their customers as well as how they establish and implement their customer relationship management
(CRM) policies. The main difference between traditional CRM and social CRM is that the latter involves the customer
proactively. The customer is empowered and improving the customer experience is a central goal.
The internet has become an enabler of global marketplace, overcoming issues such as time and distance and empowering
consumers to communicate with peers, quickly form and change their own opinions and ultimately to define brands by
themselves. The digital era has redefined contemporary consumption, transforming consumers from their former passive roles
into an active group.
This change is a direct result of the Web 2.0 era in which internet savvy consumers have unlimited access to information as
well as the ability to interact freely with other consumers as well as brands and businesses. Web 2.0 is a concept that describes
the evolution of the internet from a static environment to an interactive community. It views the internet as a space where web
content and applications are constantly modified and adapted by users through collaboration and participation.
Relationship Marketing
Relationship marketing is a concept that is applicable inside a firm as well as outside; it is a process, a chain of activities. The
concept relies on the success of three vital areas: an interaction process, a planned communication process that supports and
enhances relationships and finally the creation of value. Evidently social media provides an ideal channel for all three
elements. Indeed, many believe that the network society offers an area of huge potential to marketers to develop their
relationships with consumers. This is because relationship marketing is underpinned through shared communication.
Although consumers may become emotionally involved with a brand in traditional relationships, they do not interact with the
brand or enter into dialogues directly and thus the relationship is one directional. Social media eliminates these barriers,
allowing brands to develop stronger bonds with the consumer much like a human relationship. The social media empowered
consumer has emerged.
Businesses can no longer adopt a trial-and-error approach to social media as new research finds a link between social media
and business metrics such as consumers' likelihood to purchase or interact with companies through leading social channels,
according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2013 Social Media Benchmark Study,SM released today.
The inaugural study is based on responses from more than 23,200 U.S. online consumers who have interacted with a company
via the companies' social media channel. Fielded from November to December 2012, the study measures the overall consumer
experience in engaging with companies through their social platforms for both marketing and servicing needs across more than
100 U.S. brands in six industries: airline, auto, banking, credit card, telecom and utility. The study establishes performance
benchmarks and industry best practices that provide insights to companies to help them maximize their social media efforts.



"This is a unique, comprehensive consumer study that defines consumer expectations in the ever-changing social space and
measures companies' performances against those benchmarks," said Jacqueline Anderson, director of social media and text
analytics at J.D. Power and Associates. "This study provides companies with the framework they need to begin effectively
integrating social media into their business strategies. It also illustrates the relationship between a positive social media
experience and consumer purchase intent."
Key Findings

67% of consumers have used a company's social media site for servicing, compared with 33% for social marketing.

Younger consumers (18-29 years old) are more likely to use brands' social media sites for servicing interactions (43%)
than for marketing (23%).

The automotive industry balances marketing and servicing engagements better than any other industry included in
the study.

Consumer expectations for social interactions vary across industries, although quality content and responsive service
representatives are keys to higher satisfaction levels.
Consumer Trends: Online Grocery Shopping
As the popularity of online shopping grows, consumers are beginning to explore new digital shopping categories, including
groceries. A new survey from finds that 15 percent of U.S. adults have shopped for groceries online. An
additional 19 percent said they don't currently, but plan to in the future. This survey was conducted online within the United
States by Harris Interactive on behalf of CouponCabin from January 29 th to 31st, 2013, among 2,109 U.S. adults ages 18 and
The high cost of food may prompt some shoppers to click their way through their grocery list. The majority, 91 percent, of U.S.
adults indicate they are at least somewhat aware of rising food prices due to weather-related issues in 2012. In addition, 70
percent of U.S. adults who haven't shopped for groceries online said they would be at least somewhat likely to do so if online
groceries were less expensive than buying them in the store. Eighteen percent said they would be very likely to do so.
"The combination of high food prices, busy families and easy Internet accessibility has led to an increased interest in online
grocery shopping," said Jackie Warrick, senior savings advisor at "Consumers have long bought items like
apparel and electronics online. Now, they're seeking out ways to further take advantage of online shopping."
For some consumers, the desire for online groceries has yet to be met. In fact, nearly four-in-ten (39 percent) of U.S. adults
wish their local grocery store offered a delivery service.
A variety of reasons were cited as plusses to hitting the virtual supermarket aisles. When asked what they believed to be the
positive aspects of ordering groceries online, U.S. adults selected the following:

Saves time 65 percent

Less likely to impulse buy because you're not tempted by the items in the store 56 percent
Saves money sometimes because there are better prices 41 percent
Makes it easier to plan menus because you can add items to your virtual "cart" throughout the week 38 percent
Can help you eat healthier because you're not tempted to buy junk food 36 percent
Other positive aspects 13 percent
There aren't any positive aspects to ordering groceries online 13 percent

Not everything about ordering groceries online is peachy keen. When asked what they believed to be the negative aspects of
ordering groceries online, U.S. adults selected the following:

It's difficult to select certain items you want without seeing them in person, such as produce or meat 73 percent
You have to wait at home during a specific time window for the items to be delivered 58 percent
Not every item you want is available 49 percent
Can't use paper coupons 46 percent
More expensive 40 percent
Other negative aspects 9 percent



There aren't any negative aspects to ordering groceries online 5 percent

Regardless of the sentiment toward online grocery shopping, consumers should do their homework ahead of time to maximize
the convenience and savings. Warrick offers the following tips for online grocery shopping:

Menu plan as you go: One of the best perks of online grocery shopping is that you can add items to your cart over time
as you think of them. Even better, planning like this prevents you from impulse buys if you were at the supermarket.
Before you hit "buy," though, do a run-through of your meals for the week and make sure you see all the items you
Don't forget your coupons: Some online grocery services offer discounts for first-time users or local specials, so search
for those savings ahead of time. In addition, many will accept manufacturer coupons for items you purchase and then
credit your account once they are processed. There can be a short lag time, but with patience you can save a few bucks.
Make sure to check the grocery provider's terms and conditions ahead of time.
Factor in the fees: Depending on whether you use a national online grocery provider or a local supermarket, there is
going to be some type of flat fee, likely coupled with a tip. Make sure you take those costs into account before you part
with your hard-earned cash.

Social Media Servicing vs. Social Media Marketing

The study focuses on two types of social media engagements, marketing and servicing, and provides best practices for each.
Marketing engagements include connecting with consumers to build brand awareness and affinity, in addition to promoting
coupons and deals. Servicing engagements include answering specific consumer questions or resolving problems.
The study finds that social marketing engagements vary by age group. Nearly one-third (39%) of consumers 30-49 years old
and 38 percent of those 50 years and older interact with a company in a social marketing engagement context, while only 23
percent of consumers who are 18-29 years old interact with companies. In contrast, 43 percent of consumers who are 18-29
years old use social media for servicing interactions, while 39 percent of consumers who are 30-49 years old use social for
servicing needs. Only 18 percent of consumers who are 50 years and older interact with a company via social for a servicerelated need.
"While there are vast differences among age groups in the frequency of servicing and marketing engagements, there is a
consistency in the impact on brand perception and purchase intent through both types of engagement," said Anderson.
"Companies that are focused only on promoting their brand and deals, or only servicing existing customers, are excluding
major groups of their online community, negatively impacting their satisfaction and influencing their future purchasing
decision. A one-pronged approach to social is no longer an option."
Companies need to understand how their consumers use social media and then develop a strategy that addresses their usage
"If your customers want service and you're pushing discount coupons out to them while ignoring their attempts to connect with
you, you're going to end up with dissatisfied customers," added Anderson.
The study finds a correlation between overall satisfaction with a company's social marketing efforts and consumers' likelihood
to purchase and their overall perception of the company. Among highly-satisfied consumers (satisfaction scores of 951 and
higher on a 1,000-point scale), 87 percent indicate that the online social interaction with the company "positively impacted"
their likelihood to purchase from that company. Conversely, among consumers who are less satisfied (scores less than 500),
one in 10 consumers indicate that the interaction "negatively impacted" their likelihood to purchase from the company.
The study also finds that some industries are more successful than others at implementing best practices into their social
media engagement strategies than others. When looking across industries, the auto industry performs particularly well in both
marketing and servicing social media interactions, the only industry to do so. Other industries performing well are wireless in
social servicing interactions and utility in social marketing interactions.



Mobile Technology and Social Media to Increasingly Influence Consumer Food Purchasing
Public relations firm Porter Novelli, in a recent report, argues that mobile technology and the social media will continue to
change the consumer's relationship with food and will play a key role in their food purchases.
According to Keith Taylor, Director, "Mobile technology is tapping into the desire for convenience, driving more informed
choices and enabling more spontaneity. "People are using their phones to look up recipes as they grocery shop. Taylor goes on
to say: "Users have all the information they could possibly want or need, right in their pockets. Most also have a network of
people offering or asking for suggestions. Purchases may be less planned, but theyre better informed than they were even a
year ago".
According to Porter Novelli, food manufacturers and retailers will have to ensure that they become part of the "conversation",
and, ultimately, part of the purchasing decision.
"If you have a major food brand and you dont have a community manager, hire one now", says Taylor.
Israel Mirsky, who is Executive Vice President, Emerging Media and Technology for Porter Novelli in New York, believes that
the social media and mobile phone applications are helping consumers to become more aware of what they eat.
"Recent research indicates that consumers globally are becoming more concerned with calories than with organic or healthy
eating choices. As consumers share information with one another about what matters to them when it comes to staying healthy
and eating right, the best-substantiated wisdom count your calories seems to be bubbling to the top. Put simply, the
Internet is helping consumers get smarter about what they eat", claims Mirsky.
"Mobile applications like Calorie Counter and Food Tracker/DailyBurn help people track the calories they ingest and burn
more easily than ever before. The apps are consultative (Should I have the chicken salad or the salmon with risotto?). Food
diaries have been found to be one of the most effective vehicles for developing and maintaining healthy eating habits a food
diary thats easy to use and carry is likely to have a strong impact on your eating habits", he also says.
"Apps that help identify responsibly sourced foods are proliferating witness Seafood Watch, which helps identify whether the
sushi on the plate is ocean-friendly or not, aiming to inform consumers at a glance whether theyre contributing to
overfishing", adds Mirsky.
Joel Johnson, the company's Executive Vice President, Integrated Planning Director, provides more detail on how social media
and its resulting business is spreading.
"Social commerce or socially enabled e-commerce is now mobile enabled. In Germany, Barcoo links products with customer
reviews right at the shelf through a mobile app for smartphones. The data possibilities are virtually endless: from user reviews
and ratings to price comparisons or even allergy information. But, its impossible to look at the impact of mobile technologies
on our purchase decisions without first understanding and acknowledging that consumer demand for information about food,
food technologies and even the environmental or cultural impact of eating are driving a broader conversation", he says.
The implication is that consumers are defining the relationship they want to have with producers, retailers and marketers of
food the purchase funnel is the battleground, and mobile technology is likely to be the bridge between the product, consumer
and brand. Mobile technologies are transforming the purchase funnel. Though it was never really linear (anyone or anything
could interrupt a purchase decision, enabling consumers to skip whole steps), smartphones empower consumers to make more
informed decisions as they move from say, trial to loyalty. For example, tasting a fine wine in your wine shop doesnt have to be
the last step before trial in fact, it could be the first step in establishing a relationship with the brand through conversation.
In addition to enabling a mobile information search, smartphones might help a consumer to like the wine on Facebook, tweet
the tasting or bookmark the wine to a favorites list", adds Johnson.
Johnson goes on to say: "Mobile allows consumers to capture the experience in a social network, start a dialogue with the
producer or note it for consumption later. On the brand side, the producers can leverage a single experience into a broader
shared one with fans, followers and even critics in online conversations (providing, of course, they have the earned media
assets to do this a community, a community manager and branded social network activity). The brand can now keep the
consumer engaged in a conversation about its product, whether that consumer has purchased the product or not".


The following mobile developments are expected to impact the relationship between consumers and the food they eat:

More mobile apps will connect consumers at the shelf with their social network and affinity groups.

More producers will enable their food products to be scanned and uploaded via mobile, images, QR, bar codes and
augmented reality readers.

More brands will try to influence consumers at the shelf through location-based services like Gowalla and

In the U.S., well see more FCC, FTC and FDA involvement in claims from user reviews, comparison data and other

PR crises will sprout up around food, as marketers struggle with increased scrutiny from consumers demanding more
transparency (either through mobile social networks or mobile commerce).

Retailers will move to act as middlemen, with their own mobile technologies helping to influence the consumer at the
shelf which sets the stage for a potential marketing conflict of interest between individual brands and producers.

The growth of mobile food trucks that rely on social media technologies to alert followers. Trucks are increasing in
popularity due to the economic downturn, Millennials impact on lifestyles and an increasing public interest in food



6. Specialty and Gourmet Stores

With grocery stores and supermarkets accounting for 91% of the $571 billion food retail market in the United States, there is
little room for other food retailers to get a foot in the door. Specialty food stores cannot compete with large supermarkets on
price, but they can capture a share of food retail based on quality, expertise and uniqueness.
Recent economic conditions have also disrupted growth opportunities for the Specialty Food Stores industry. Americans
tightened their purse strings and largely became price-conscious, with discretionary and high-end food spending taking a hit
during the recession. Instead of buying marked-up specialized products, Americans traded down to generic and cheaper
supermarket food items. As a result of these trends, industry revenue is expected to decline at an average rate of 0.2% per year
from 2008 to 2013. The average decline caused establishment numbers to stall, with the number of stores only increasing at an
average 0.2% per year to 46,380 stores. Since the economy slowly started to bounce back in 2010, though, consumers have
gradually bought more specialized food products. As disposable income grows, the demand for industry products will grow and
push up revenue 1.5% in 2013 to $8.1 billion.
Because of the specialized nature of goods sold in this industry, the majority of sales come with a high level of added value.
Industry margins are traditionally high per unit sold, relative to the paper-thin earnings of their supermarket counterparts. In
2008, profit margins amounted to 5.8% of revenue; however, after a massive drop in demand, margins fell to about 2.0% in
2009. In 2013, market watchers expect the industry to earn about $291.6 million before taxes, amounting to 3.6% of total
revenue. Still, this figure is highly variable, and it depends largely on the size and specialization of the retailer.
From 2013 to 2018, the industry is expected to benefit from a rise in sales. As consumers regain their level of comfort in
spending, industry sales and establishments will grow accordingly. Consumer sentiment and disposable income are forecast to
increase, prompting consumers to expand their spending. Analysts expect revenue to increase 1.3% per year to $8.6 billion
over the five years to 2018. Rising demand for organic foods will help boost sales; however, it will be offset by increased
competition from grocery stores as they expand their product offerings to include specialty goods.


Operators in this industry face competition from major grocery stores like Safeway, Albertsons and Winn- Dixie. These stores
leverage economies of scale and scope when purchasing goods from manufacturers and wholesalers in bulk at lower prices,
allowing them to pass these savings on to consumers through
lower retail prices. Additionally, the growing presence of online retailers, who take advantage of low overhead costs to reduce
price and increase profit at the expense of industry operators, has created another competitor. External competition is
expected to increase slowly during 2013, indicating a potential threat to the industry.
The level of household disposable income affects the purchase and consumption of industry merchandise. As the level of
disposable income increases, consumers are more willing to purchase goods outside of their staple dietary requirements. Per
capita disposable income is expected to increase slowly during 2013.
An increase in the level of health-consciousness boosts demand for specialized food stores because they provide higher-quality
products, including organic and health foods. This driver is expected to decrease marginally during 2013; nevertheless, many
Americans are aware of the benefits of eating healthier, so this slight decline is not expected to affect the industry.
The level of population growth has an effect on demand for industry products. When growth occurs within the target market,
there will be an increase in demand for specialty foods and other goods. This driver is expected to increase slowly during 2013.



Figure 6: Percapita disposable income / Healthy eating index

Per capita disposable income


Healthy eating index


06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


Source: U.S. Census Bureau


Niche food retailers are getting their hopes up as consumers slowly return to their stores after a period of declining sales and
limited growth. The Specialty Food Stores industry found it increasingly difficult to operate in a volatile economic climate
during the five years to 2013. Declining household wealth, rising unemployment, tight credit conditions and an unclear
economic picture forced Americans to cut back on discretionary spending. Industry operators sell food that is considered a
luxury; the food is sold at a higher markup than at supermarkets and grocery stores, making it a pricey substitute. The higher
price tag has directly affected sales, with revenue expected to decline at an average rate of 0.2% per year to $8.1 billion over the
five years to 2013.
Severe weaknesses in household sentiment and disposable income resulting from the recession led to revenue declines of 5.8%
in 2008 and 4.4% in 2009. The majority of products sold by this industry are nonessential foods, such as dessert items or
specialty coffee, which consumers tend to drop first when they cut spending. According to the National Association of Specialty
Food Trade, sales of established mass-market brands of coffee such as Folgers and Maxwell House increased during the
recession, while sales of smaller, more specialty brands declined or stagnated. Consumers largely traded down quality in favor
of cost savings from supermarkets.
Sales continued to decline in 2010, though other retail stores experienced revenue growth as the economy began to recover.
Consumers were still hesitant to shop at specialty food stores; disposable income had only increased 1.0% and these goods
substitute products, such as mass-marketed desserts, could be easily purchased at cheaper outlets. In 2011, however,
consumers slowly eased back into shopping at specialty food stores for items that are difficult to find elsewhere.
In 2013, industry analysts expect the Specialty Food Stores industry to continue its recovery, aided by minor increases in
household wealth and heightened demand for organic and health foods. Revenue is estimated to increase 1.5% in 2013,
following growth of 2.5% in 2012. After years of declining profit and industry exits, surviving stores are expected to capitalize
on the improving economy to regain their share of the US retail market. In 2013, profit before tax is expected to amount to
$291.6 million, representing about 3.6% of total revenue.



Figure 7: Industry revenue

% changes
















% changes


Source: Global Strategy, Inc.

Throughout the past five years, the organic and health food segments of the Specialty Food Stores industry have remained
relatively consistent, not succumbing to the declines of the industry as a whole. These segments include specific vegan,
vegetarian, natural and organic specialty stores. Increased consumer health awareness has caused many individuals to alter
their eating habits over the period. The reason for consistent and often growing demand for these segments is the increasing
popularity of vegan, vegetarian and organic diets.
According to the Organic Trade Association, US sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1.0 billion in 1990 to
$29.2 billion in 2011 (most recent data available). In fact, sales of organic food increased nearly 9.0% from 2010 to 2011,
signifying a steady growth in demand for healthier food products. While many of these goods can be purchased in mainstream
stores such as supermarkets and mass merchandisers, 40.0% of organic food purchases were made in natural and specialty
food stores in 2012. The health food segment accounts for a relatively small share of industry revenue, but it represents one of
the bright spots for the industry in recent years.
In addition to organic and health foods, more specialty retailers are offering allergy-sensitive food. For instance, many
Americans are avoiding gluten due to allergies or health preference. Because of this trend, more industry operators are selling
gluten-free cereals, breads, desserts and more.
While these trends are not expected to rescue the industry from its revenue declines over the past five years, the popularity of
organic and healthy eating throughout the United States offers a great deal of potential growth for the industry beyond 2013.


Specialty food stores sell a variety of gourmet food, including nuts, ice cream, spices, tea, coffee, bakery goods, health foods and
confectionery products. The industry is characterized by a large number of small, local and independent operators, which is
reflected in the low concentration and high share of nonemployer firms (about 70.0%).
The National Association for the Specialty Food Trade (NASFT) identified several unique trends that have emerged. Operators
continually assess niche markets rather than take on larger food industries. Some operators, for example, have opened retailrestaurant stores. With this structure, retailers expand by opening a cafe or restaurant alongside their store, creating a special


experience and particular culture. The concept also works in reverse, with restaurateurs becoming retailers and providing
themselves entry into the food retail market.
According to NASFT, supermarkets and traditional grocers are attempting to maintain sales and revenue by catering to an even
larger market by diversifying into specialty and gourmet foods. Intense competition within the Supermarkets and Grocery
Stores industry is responsible for this trend, and it threatens to affect sales for specialty food stores.
A study by the Food Marketing Institute found that among 77 companies representing 4,208 stores, about two-thirds have
diversified into a gourmet and specialty food format. This trend has created an even dimmer environment for retailers in the
industry, squeezing many companies out of the market altogether.
Over the five years to 2013, the number of companies operating in this industry has only increased at an average rate of 0.2%
per year to 42,923 firms. However, most of the decline in companies took place from 2008 to 2010. Since then, the industry
has been steadily expanding. Most companies operating in the industry are single-location, nonemployer firms. Employment
and wage figures for the industry have followed the same pattern over the past five years, with growth being wiped out by the
recession. From 2008 to 2013, employment numbers have declined at an average annual rate of 0.3% to 116,368 workers,
despite the recent recovery.

Sales growth is on the horizon for the Specialty Food Stores industry, driven by an increase in consumer sentiment, a rise in
disposable income and continual demand for organic goods. However, these sales will be slightly offset by increased
competition from mainstream grocery stores and supermarkets. In the next five years, revenue is projected to increase at an
average of 1.3% per year to $8.6 billion in 2018. In 2014, revenue is forecast to increase 1.9% to about $8.3 billion; consumers
will spend more money on discretionary goods than in prior years. The national unemployment rate is expected to improve,
which will enable more people to spend money on products. Also, as consumers continue their trend toward healthy organic
foods, revenue will expand.
Consumers are expected to increase their spending in the next five years. Consumer sentiment will rise at an average annual
rate of 1.8% from 2013 to 2018 as consumers regain confidence that the economy has stabilized. In addition, disposable income
is forecast to increase at an annualized rate of 2.1% per year. As consumers gain confidence and their wallets become fuller,
they will buy more discretionary products, such as gourmet foods. Americans will slowly return to their more expensive eating
habits, and industry sales will rise.
However, the survival of each company will be based on the variety of their product offerings and consumer demand for each
product. For instance, specialty coffee retailers and organic food stores are expected to experience higher revenue because
Americans still heavily demand these products. Other stores, such as spice stores, may experience weaker sales because many
Americans will choose to eat out instead of cooking at home. Therefore, industry growth will be generated from incremental
increases associated with new store growth; the number of specialty food retail outlets is forecast to rise at an annualized rate
of 1.1% to 49,082 establishments at the end of 2018. While each has limited employment opportunities, the growth in retail
stores will likely cause a parallel increase in industry employment and wages through 2018.
Profit margins (earnings before interest and taxes) will remain relatively stable at an average of 3.6% of revenue, rising slightly
towards the end of the period. The cost of sales may rise for some stores depending on the ingredients of their goods. For
instance, candy stores may have higher purchasing costs since the price of sugar is projected to rise 3.0% in 2014, while this
rise will be offset by lower cost of inputs for other retailers.


Future areas of growth will arise from demand for organic food. According to the US Department of Agriculture, organic food is
by far the fastest-growing food industry in the world, with growth occurring in new farms, products and processors. Stores are
projected to experience growing demand for organic food over the next five years and beyond. Currently, organic food sales
account for 4.2% of total food sales, but they are projected to account for more than 5.0% of the US food market by the end of
2018 based on current growth rates. While sales generated by the organic market are small, they are growing much faster than
the food industry as a whole. Because organic food is consumer driven rather than marketing driven, health issues, obesity and



concerns about artificial pesticides will boost demand. Fruit and vegetables will likely be the main product segment, followed
by nutrition bars and other packaged foods.
Organic food prices are typically higher than nonorganic food. Many consumers may desire to start purchasing organic goods,
but they will not actually do so until the latter half of the five-year period, when disposable income grows more quickly. Higher
prices result from the inability to capture economies of scale because production is usually more labor and management
intensive and occurs on a smaller scale.
Similar to the previous five-year period, the industry will face intense external competition, especially from grocery stores and
supermarkets. On top of that, the Specialty Food Stores industry has dealt with increased competition from nontraditional food
operators, such as mass merchandisers and big-box stores. These competitors offer many of the same goods at lower prices;
therefore, to keep food retail market share, grocery stores and supermarkets will continue to diversify their product offerings
and supply gourmet and specialty foods. As a result, supermarkets have taken market share away from specialty food retailers.
For instance, grocery stores are increasing the amount of organic produce they carry.
According to the Organic Trade Association, specialty retailers accounted for 45.0% of organic food sales in 2008 but only
36.5% in 2011 (latest available data) because external competitors, notably supermarkets, provided more organic options. This
is expected to increase immensely in the next five years as more and more Americans choose to buy organic.
Such competition is expected to become even more strenuous as mass merchandisers carry more organic foods, stealing sales
from specialty stores and grocery stores. Establishments such as Target and Walmart already carry organic goods. As mass
merchandisers continue to sell organic goods, grocery stores will diversify further and carry more goods that are similar to
specialty food retailers.


Analysis of this industry suggests that it is currently in the mature phase of its life cycle. Industry value added, a measure of the
industrys contribution to the overall economy, is expected to grow at an annualized rate of 2.1% for the 10 years to 2018, in
step with the US economy, which is expected to grow at an average of 2.1% per year over the same time period. Such
similarities mean the industry is not losing ground compared with other industries, but also that it is not finding new markets
for growth.
Retailers are likely to spend fewer resources expanding the number of stores, choosing rather to focus on existing stores. Also,
unprofitable outlets are likely to close down as retailers find it increasingly difficult to operate in such a volatile climate.
However, organic food stores and gourmet coffee shops are expected to
expand because demand for their products has consistently grown over the past five years. Furthermore, this industry operates
in an overall competitive food market, therefore the need to develop and improve existing products is important to the growth
of the industry. Some recent examples include the development of new candy and confectionery creations, and soft drink
Technological advances that have infiltrated this industry have largely focused on the application of computer-scanning cash
registers and automated warehouse control. This has not been significant enough to alter the industrys life cycle. The market
for goods supplied by this industry has experienced very little change in recent years. The dominant buyers of industry goods
continue to be consumers who are 18 to 35 years old. At the same time, confectionery wholesalers, dairy product wholesalers
and other grocery wholesalers have remained the main suppliers of merchandise.


Together, bakery products and candy account for over half of the industrys sales. Stores in this industry often specialize in a
single product or similar products, most commonly dessert shops. The rise in healthier eating and lifestyle, and the efforts to
combat child and adult obesity is expected to negatively affect the share of bakery and confectionery products sold in this
industry in the next five years.
The US census refers to dairy items as milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream and eggs. Note that this industry does not include
ice cream parlors, because the industry excludes businesses that sell products for immediate consumption. This product line is


expected to account for an estimated 10.0% of industry revenue in 2013, down from recent years. Sales for dairy products by
specialized retailers have been affected by the ability of supermarkets to penetrate and gain market share in these product
lines. This is especially relevant, because a sharp decline in consumer spending has greatly intensified competition among
Specialized coffee and tea stores often sell only gourmet and rare blends, since popular brands are carried by larger grocery
stores and supermarkets that are able to charge lower prices. Therefore, these are premium stores dedicated to the more
sophisticated and avid coffee and tea drinkers. In the past three years, market share has slightly declined for this segment of
the industry, with tight-spending consumers trading down to less expensive varieties. In 2013, coffee and tea are expected to
account for about 5.0% of total industry sales.
Other specialized food stores in this industry sell products such as nuts, spices, soda, bottled water and many types of organic
and health foods. Organic food sales have grown extremely rapidly over the current period, relative to other segments; this
trend is expected to continue strongly over the next five years, with intensifying consumer shifts towards healthy dieting. Food
shops specializing in niche products tend to be most successful in this industry, as they face little external competition from
other retail giants. These shops make up a huge portion of industry sales, at roughly 30.0% in 2013.
Niche and specialty food item purchases are driven primarily by household disposable income and overall consumer
sentiment. Gourmet food retailed in this industry is correlated with the luxury market and often retailed at higher prices.
Households with higher levels of income are more likely to afford more expensive products, such as gourmet cheeses or
premium coffee. By contrast, consumers with lower levels of disposable income may be limited in their purchases, choosing
more generic brands at the supermarket. Income growth softened considerably over 2008 and 2009, which has had a
significant effect on luxury food spending.
Although income is a large determinant, household spending perceptions also indicate household purchasing patterns.
Movements in sentiment take into account household finances, business conditions, unemployment, inflation, interest rates,
income and government economic policy. Consumer sentiment experienced a massive drop of 25.5% over 2008, and dipped a
bit further in 2009. Consumer sentiment recovered in 2010, rising 20.6%. Consumers are expected to have even higher
confidence in the economy in 2013 as the stock market is stabilizing and disposable income rises.
Demand is also correlated to the price of industry products relative to other retail sources. In general, store prices may be
slightly higher than supermarket and grocery store prices due to higher operating costs incurred by the smaller operators in
this industry. Supermarket operators and other grocery retailers are able to buy in bulk at a discount, thereby offering goods at
cheaper prices.
Lastly, eating trends also has an effect on the amount of demand for this industrys products. For instance many Americans are
choosing to purchase more organic foods due to health reasons. As such, the revenue for organic food stores has flourished.
When consumer eating trends change specific stores within this industry benefit.
Niche food retailers do not directly participate in international trade, rather, food retailed is often sourced from a variety of
domestic and international locations. The majority of operators in this sector are American-owned and earn their sales
domestically; however, some domestic players own foreign operations. Analysis indicates there are no significant foreign
players operating in this industry.
The industry does not trade in exports but it may be affected by them. Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Inc. manufactures
and retails chocolate candy and sells its goods through factory outlet malls, regional malls and at tourist areas. In addition to
the stores it operates across 40 states, the company also has stores in Canada, Guam and the United Arab Emirates. In total,
there are eight company-owned stores and almost 400 franchises.
Other operators include Candy Bouquet, which is a candy store franchise business. The company has more than 600 stores
across 44 countries worldwide, spanning from New Zealand to Romania. In 2004, the company joined with Asian partners to
form Candy Bouquet Asia Ltd. Its headquarters are now situated in Kuala Lumpur. Candy Express is a candy retailer with
about 80 stores that are spread across the United States and other countries.



Following its acquisition of Sweets from Heaven, Fuzziwigs Candy Factory operates more than 72 stores across the United
States, the Bahamas and Indonesia. Another specialty shop that operates overseas is Godiva Chocolatier Inc., which is a
manufacturer and retailer of chocolate goods with a network of boutique stores worldwide, including 200 in the United States.


Players in this industry are mostly small private operators, the majority of which employ fewer than five staff members. Most
players (about 88.0%) operate as standalone establishments, though a few have expanded their original stores to multiple
locations. These stores remain fairly local and specialized, though, so they are not significant players on a national scale.
In the absence of major players, this industry is characterized by a large number of small players, about 70.0% of which are
nonemployer establishments. Establishments that employ four or fewer people account for about 60.0% to 70.0% of the
industry. The industry is expected to have a low concentration level in 2013 and, due to the nature of the industry, will remain
highly fragmented through the outlook period to 2018. In such a fragmented industry, specialized food stores have individually
carved out a niche following by specializing in certain items, such as health foods, premium coffee or organic treats. Many
establishments prefer to remain small and local to preserve uniqueness and community loyalty.
As the economy continues to recover, many of the specialty food stores that were pushed out of the industry during the
recession will return. Higher disposable incomes and improved consumer sentiment will make entry into the industry more
enticing, thus further fragmenting it. As such, the number of specialty food stores is expected to increase at an annualized rate
of 1.1% in the five years to 2018. Growth will likely be offset by mass merchandisers and supermarkets inclusion of specialty
goods, but will remain healthy, especially from 2013 to 2015, on the back of the buying local trend currently observed in most
retail industries.



7. Organic and Natural Food

Organic food is produce that has been independently certified to have been grown free of chemicals. Market values are taken at
retail selling price (RSP). The US organic food market has experienced strong growth in recent years. Over the forecast period
ending 2016, the market is predicted to continue to experience strong growth.
The US organic food market had total revenues of $29.2 billion in 2011, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)
of 9.4% between 2007 and 2011. In comparison, the European and Asia-Pacific markets grew with CAGRs of 8.1% and 15.4%
respectively, over the same period, to reach respective values of $28.7 billion and $4.3 billion in 2011.
Fruit and vegetables dominate the market, with 38 percent share, followed by prepared food products (21 percent), dairy (15
percent), beverages (13 percent), bread and grains (11 percent) and meat, fish and poultry (2 percent).
The performance of the market is forecast to accelerate, with an anticipated CAGR of 9.7% for the five-year period 2011 - 2016,
which is expected to drive the market to a value of $46.5 billion by the end of 2016. Comparatively, the European and AsiaPacific markets will grow with CAGRs of 6.8% and 14.8% respectively, over the same period, to reach respective values of $39.8
billion and $8.6 billion in 2016.


Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved
methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological
balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.
Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture. As consumer interest continues to gather
momentum, many U.S. producers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are specializing in growing, processing, and
marketing an ever-widening array of organic agricultural and food products. This section summarizes growth patterns in the
U.S. organic sector in recent years, by market category, and describes various research, regulatory, and other ongoing
programs on organic agriculture in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The National Organic Program regulates all organic crops, livestock, and agricultural products certified to the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards. Organic certification agencies inspect and verify that organic farmers,
ranchers, distributors, processors, and traders are complying with the USDA organic regulations. USDA conducts audits and
ensures that the more than 90 organic certification agencies operating around the world are properly certifying organic
products. In addition, USDA conducts investigations and conducts enforcement activities to ensure all products labeled as
organic meet the USDA organic regulations. In order to sell, label, or represent their products as organic, operations must
follow all of the specifications set out by the USDA organic regulations.
If a product has the USDA organic seal, it is certified organic and has 95 percent or more organic content. For multi-ingredient
products such as bread or soup, if the label claims that it is made with specified organic ingredients, those specific ingredients
have been certified organic.
There are other voluntary labels for livestock products, such as meat and eggs. Animal raising claims must be truthful and not
misleading. USDAs Food Safety Inspection Service verifies the truthfulness of these claims:

Free-range. This label indicates that the flock was provided shelter in a building, room, or area with unlimited access
to food, fresh water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their production cycle. The outdoor area may or
may not be fenced and/or covered with netting-like material. This label is regulated by the USDA.

Cage-free. This label indicates that the flock was able to freely roam a building, room, or enclosed area with unlimited
access to food and fresh water during their production cycle.



Natural. As required by USDA, meat, poultry, and egg products labeled as natural must be minimally processed and
contain no artificial ingredients. However, the natural label does not include any standards regarding farm practices
and only applies to processing of meat and egg products. There are no standards or regulations for the labeling of
natural food products if they do not contain meat or eggs.

Grass-fed. Grass-fed animals receive a majority of their nutrients from grass throughout their life, while organic
animals pasture diet may be supplemented with grain. Also USDA regulated, the grass-fed label does not limit the use
of antibiotics, hormones, or pesticides. Meat products may be labeled as grass-fed organic.

Pasture-raised. Due to the number of variables involved in pasture-raised agricultural systems, the USDA has not
developed a federal definition for pasture-raised products.

Humane. Multiple labeling programs make claims that animals were treated humanely during the production cycle,
but the verification of these claims varies widely. These labeling programs are not regulated under a single USDA

No added hormones. A similar claim includes Raised without Hormones. Federal regulations have never permitted
hormones or steroids in poultry, pork, or goat.


Burgeoning consumer interest in organically grown foods has opened new market opportunities for producers and is leading to
a transformation in the organic foods industry. Once a niche product sold in a limited number of retail outlets, organic foods
are currently sold in a wide variety of venues including farmers markets, natural product supermarkets, conventional
supermarkets, and club stores.
Since the early 1990s, certified organic acreage has increased as producers strive to meet increasing demand for organic
agricultural and food products in the United States. The dramatic growth of the industry spurred Federal policy to facilitate
organic product marketing, and is leading to new government activities in research and education on organic farming systems.

U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion in 1990 to $26.7 billion in 2010. Sales in 2010
represented 7.7 percent growth over 2009 sales. Experiencing the highest growth in sales during 2010 were organic
fruits and vegetables, up 11.8 percent over 2009 sales

Organic food and beverage sales represented approximately 4 percent of overall food and beverage sales in 2010.
Leading were organic fruits and vegetables, now representing over 11 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales.

Total U.S. organic sales, including food and non-food products, were $28.682 billion in 2010, up 9.7 percent from
2009. Organic non-food sales grew 9.7 percent in 2010, to reach $1.97 billion.

Mass market retailers (mainstream supermarkets, club/warehouse stores, and mass merchandisers) in 2010 sold 54
percent of organic food. Natural retailers were next, selling 39 percent of total organic food sales. Other sales occur via
export, the Internet, farmers markets/ Community Supported Agriculture, mail order, and boutique and specialty

Certified organic acreage in the United States reached more than 4.8 million acres in 2008, according to latest data
posted by USDA. U.S. total organic cropland reached 2,655,382 acres in 2008, while land devoted to organic pasture
totaled 2,160,577 acres.

California leads with the most certified organic cropland, with over 430,000 acres, largely used for fruit and vegetable
production. Other states with the most certified organic cropland include

Wisconsin, North Dakota, Minnesota and Montana. Forty-five states also had some certified organic rangeland and
pasture in 2008; of those, 13 states had more than 100,000 acres each, reflecting the growth in the U.S. organic dairy
sector between 2005 and 2008.



Certified organic cropland acreage between 2002 and 2008 averaged 15 percent annual growth. However, it still only
represented about 0.7 percent of all U.S. cropland, while certified organic pasture only represented 0.5 percent of all
U.S. pasture in 2008. Overall, certified organic cropland and pasture accounted for about 0.6 percent of U.S. total
farmland in 2008.

Fresh produce is still the top-selling organic category in retail sales. Meanwhile, the organic livestock sector has seen
growth, with 2.7 percent of U.S. dairy cows and 1.5 percent of layer hens managed under certified organic systems.

According to Organic Monitor estimates, global organic sales reached $54.9 billion in 2009, up from, $50.9 billion in
2008. The countries with the largest markets are the United States, Germany, and France. The highest per capita
consumption is in Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria.

The U.S. organic food industry crossed a threshold in 2000: for the first time, more organic foodwas purchased in
conventional supermarkets than in any other venue.

Growth in retail sales has equaled 20 percent or more annually since 1990. Organic products arenow available in
nearly 20,000 natural foods stores, and are sold in 73 percent of all conventional grocery stores.

According to USDA estimates, U.S. certified organic cropland doubled between1992 and 1997, to 1.3 million acres and
have tripled again from that period to 2010.

The new U.S. Department of Agriculture standards for organic food are expected to facilitate further growth in the
organic foods industry.

Fresh produce is the top-selling organic category, followed by nondairy beverages, breads and grains, packaged foods
(frozen and dried prepared foods, baby food, soups, and desserts), and dairy products. Organic dairy has been the
most rapidly growing segment, with sales up over 500 percent between 2004 and 2010.

Nine USDA agencies have expanded research, regulatory, and other programs on organic agriculture.

The main regulatory program is the creation, implementation, and administration of the USDA organic standard.
Other programs include crop insurance for organic farmers, information provision, and promotion of organic exports.

The United States organic food market grew by 9.4% in 2011 to reach a value of $29.2 billion.
Figure 8: United States organic food market value: $ million, 2007-2011

United States organic food market value: $ million, 2007-2011


$ million





















CAGR: 20072011





Source: Organic Trade Association

Rivalry is heightened by limited product differentiation and negligible switching costs for buyers. However, healthy market
growth tends to alleviate the threat somewhat. As individual consumers, buyers have limited power. However, consumer
demand for organic food drives growth and will likely increase choice as retailers stock a greater variety of organic products.


Suppliers are relatively small-scale farmers, whose influence on the market is essentially limited. However, many have
integrated forwards and sell directly to end-consumers, strengthening their position somewhat. There is a strong threat from
non-organic substitutes, which are cheaper to buy and are sold in greater volumes.
Buyers in this market are numerous, with many being individual consumers holding little financial muscle. This weakens buyer
power. Increasing consumer demand for organic food weakens buyer power somewhat, as retailers must then stock such
products. Additionally, the rising presence of legislation concerning the development of organic land and food production
methods is increasing the need for large retailers to integrate organic food products into their product range.
However, the diversity of other products sold by most retailers strengthens their power. While switching costs for
endconsumers tends to be negligible, a number of retailers operate incentive schemes for frequent shoppers and this can help
secure customer retention. Price sensitivity is lowered, as consumers generally accept that organic foods cost more to produce.
Although the key segments of this market (fruit & vegetable, prepared foods, dairy, beverages, bread and grains, meat, fish and
poultry) are quite diverse, there is essentially limited product differentiation within each category, which enables buyers to
shop elsewhere. Overall, buyer power is moderate.
Organic food has a close association with direct sales to the public. Large quantities of organic food are sold through farmers
markets. This is a form of forward integration, which enhances supplier power. However, individual suppliers are relatively
small-scale, so their influence on the market is not great. The nature of the organic food business means that the raw material
is very important, as it allows players to market their products with the organic label and command a higher price.
Additionally, the geographical location is of great importance to the retailer. Retailers and suppliers often have long-term
contracts, which increase supplier power. Some retailers also put emphasis on offering local produce which severely limits their
choice of supplier.
A few of the significant players dedicated to organic produce are also committed to certain standards when dealing with their
suppliers, particularly in developing countries; this means that even smaller suppliers have significant power. However, the
entrance of large retailers into the market could increase the pressure on smaller suppliers. As there are still many smaller



organic farmers who supply the bulk of the market, large retailers are usually at a distinct advantage in this market, as they
command far more power. Overall, supplier power is weak.
As suppliers generally depend on retailers to sell their products, growing consumer demand for organic food products is likely
to drive the growth of retail outlets. The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) represents the
worldwide body of organic agriculture and provides a platform for global exchange and co-operation, although regulation
differs regionally.
Labeling in the US is overseen by the National Organic Program. Compliance with legislation regarding organic labeling can be
costly and may deter new entrants. Additionally, the large size of leading incumbents may serve to put off new entrants,
although the diverse nature of the leading players' revenue streams means that there is less likelihood of retaliation. Strong
historic growth that is predicted to continue in the forecast period is likely to attract new entrants. Overall, there is a strong
threat of new entrants.
The main substitutes to the organic food market include non-organic versions of the products, which are notably cheaper. For
sole organic retailers, organic products are marketed for their environmental benefits and nutritional quality, which limits the
threat of cheaper non-organic products. However, most retailers stock these non-organic substitutes, and thus their threat on
such retailers revenues is limited.
Another possible alternative to purchasing these types of products is subsistence farming; growing organic agricultural
produce for ones own consumption. However, this activity has switching costs, it is time-consuming, requires some degree of
specialist knowledge, and incurs the cost of purchasing seeds, fertilizer, and gardening products. In addition, many people do
not have the land required to make this a viable option. Moreover, quantity and quality of end produce is not guaranteed. Even
those who can successfully conduct subsistence farming are unlikely to grow everything to meet their own needs; they may still
need to purchase agricultural products from market players. For other categories, individual growth is not feasible. Overall,
there is a strong threat from substitutes.
Players within this market range from small specialized organic shops to large supermarket chains. Thus the importance of
organic food revenues differs, depending on their level of specialization. Limited product differentiation within each organic
food category and negligible switching costs for buyers heightens rivalry. This is, however, mitigated in instances where players
offer a wider selection of organic food products.
For large supermarkets, organic produce contributes a small amount to revenues; most supermarkets have not only
nonorganic food, but non-food products such as clothing, electricals and homeware to provide other sources of revenue. This
limits rivalry between these players. Low cost switching and undifferentiated products, to a certain extent, increase rivalry
between players.
Strong market growth in the US market serves to ease the degree of rivalry amongst players, as they can generate revenues
without encroaching on other players share of the market. Overall, there is a moderate degree of rivalry in this market.


On Feb.15, 2012, at BioFach Germany, European Commissioner Dacian Ciolos for the European Unions (EU) Agriculture and
Rural Development and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan of the U.S. Department of Agriculture signed an organic
equivalence arrangement between the worlds two largest markets for organic food. For further information, please visit
[The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is conducting preliminary discussions with Switzerland regarding a possible
equivalency agreement. There were meetings in November 2012 and March 2013. The next meeting is planned around June
2013. ]
Under the arrangement, the EU will recognize USDAs National Organic Program (NOP) as equivalent to the EU Organic
Program (under applicable EU regulations) and will allow products produced and certified as meeting USDAs NOP standards
to be marketed as organic in the EU. Likewise, the United States will allow European products produced and certified under
EU Organic Program to be marketed as organic in the United States.



February 15, 2012 Agreement/EU Act published following exchange of letters

June 1, 2012 Effective date that trade may begin under the arrangement

June 1, 2015 - Agreement effective for three years

EU and United States to revisit this arrangement in three years for areas of improvement and possible
elimination of the import certificate requirements
Geographic Scope of this Agreement

Product grown, processed, or packaged and certified by an accredited certifying agency (ACA) operating within their
respective country/region borders can be shipped directly to the EU/U.S. as certified organic product.

Product certified to either standard that has not been handled (touched down) in the United States or EU cannot be
shipped directly to the EU/U.S.

Product not grown, processed or packaged in the EU that is destined for the United States must be certified to the
USDA-NOP standard by a USDA-accredited certifier.

Product not grown, processed or packaged in the United States to be shipped directly to Europe must be certified to
the EU standard or certified by a Certification Body recognized by the EU as an equivalent Certification Body/Foreign
Certification Agent.
Mutual Accreditation

The EU and U.S. mutually recognize Accredited Certification Agents (ACA) and Certification Bodies (CB) as
accredited certification agents.

Product grown, processed, or packaged in the U.S./EU can be shipped directly to the EU/U.S. as certified organic

Product certified to either standard that has not been handled (touched down) in the United States or EU cannot be
shipped directly to the EU/U.S.

Product not grown, processed or packaged in the EU destined for the United States must be certified to the USDANOP standard by a USDA-accredited certifier.

Product not grown, processed or packaged in the United States to be shipped directly to Europe must be certified to
the EU standard or certified by a Certification Body recognized by the EU as an equivalent Certification Body/Foreign
Certification Agent.
Are all-natural claims losing their luster?
The phrase 'all-natural' is still emblazoned on scores of new food and beverage launches, but not quite as many as it used to be,
according to Mintel research. Speaking at the 7th annual Food Technology & Innovation Forum in 2012, Mintel Innovation &
Insight Director Lynn Dornblaser said that natural claims featured on 14% of new product launches in the US in 2010.
In 2012, that number had dipped to 12%.
There is some consumer fatigue around natural
While not a huge shift, it is perhaps an indication that natural claims are not quite as sexy as they used to be, she said.
There is some consumer fatigue around natural, and we are starting to see companies hone in on some more specific claims
But she added: Weve also seen that since 2010, there has been a drop off in no additives/preservatives claims, organic claims
and vitamin/mineral fortified claims.
Meanwhile, growth in several other claims - from ethical to plus or minus claims, functional claims and suitable for claims has also "flattened out" since 2010, she added.
However, there has been growth in some specific functional claims in areas such as heart and digestive health.



Four key consumer trends:

The bulk of her presentation focused on four key consumer trends:
Wellness is inescapable: Wellness is about spiritual and emotional wellbeing as well as healthy food, said Dornblaser. As such,
a premium Kroger private label mac & cheese product (wholesome at home) fits in very neatly with this concept.
Lynn Dornblaser: "There is some consumer fatigue around natural." Is it good for you? Maybe not in the strictest sense (its
not low in calories, fat, or sodium), but is it about wellness in a broader sense? You bet, she said. Its comforting and
wholesome, and it makes you feel good.
Mainstreaming natural: While all natural claims might have dropped off a little, she said, consumers still equate natural with
healthy, while the pressure to clean up labels is as strong as ever.
The authenticity of where: Provenance is key, but it doesnt have to be about local food. What matters is that you know where
your product comes from and you tell consumers about it, whether its from the Amazon or your local farmer, said Dornblaser.
Access anything, anywhere: Companies need to think more creatively about how to tap into the next generation of smart-phone
equipped, on-the-move consumers, said Dornblaser, whether its by adding QR codes to products enabling shoppers to access
key information about your wares in real time as they shop, or by offering novel ways to shop online.
One very interesting example of this is attempts by Tesco in South Korea and PeaPod in Chicago to create virtual stores on the
walls of railways stations or tunnels, where commuters can browse through pictures of products, scan the QR codes with their
smart phones as they walk past, and get them delivered by the time they arrive home that night.
What do consumers really think about food ingredients and technologies?
Consumers are faced with a barrage of information from the media, social networks, blogs and other sources about 'hot button'
food issues, from GMOs and food dyes to nanotechnology, said Lindsey Loving from the International Food Information
Council (IFIC)
But while it is important for manufacturers to keep on top of what is trending on social networks, traditional surveys can often
give a more representative view of what the average consumer thinks about these issues, she said.
For example, nationally representative IFIC surveys of US adults show that unprompted, consumers are not as worried about
'food chemicals' or GMOs as some commentators claim, said Loving.
Negative perceptions about certain ingredients are also reinforced by the food industry itself, with consumers often citing onpack claims such as 'no HFCS' or 'no nitrates' as evidence that something must be wrong with these ingredients, she said.
"These labels are raising awareness of an issue that many consumers might not actually be thinking about."
As for nanotechnology, research suggests that consumers are reasonably open-minded about it at the moment provided there
is a clear consumer benefit, she said.
Typically, when it comes to new technologies, consumers will ask, why are you doing this, who will benefit, and is it worth it,
she said.
Dole Foods: Experts are out, bloggers are in... (and is it more important to be 'authentic' than right?)
In a presentation about how companies can embrace social media, Dole Nutrition Institute SVP Jennifer Grossman showed
delegates a chart with 'out' on the left and 'in' on the right. 'Out' are experts and authority and 'in' are bloggers and authenticity.
So how can companies navigate a space where facts have been replaced by opinion and being authentic is more important than
being right? It's a challenge, said Grossman.


However, there are also huge opportunities for companies to join the conversation and engage with bloggers and other online
influencers to find out what consumers are thinking and identify new growth opportunities, she added.
It's also important to be strategic, targeted and discerning when using social media, she said, or you can end up irritating your
audience and just contributing to the noise instead of being effective. "Be selective."
PepsiCo: When will nutrition really get personal?
PepsiCo SVP Gregory Yep kept his cards pretty close to his chest during his presentation, in which he talked about "white space
opportunities", "changing paradigms" and the importance of cross-disciplinary research (Pepsi has statisticians, biologists,
chemists, engineers and computer scientists all under one roof).
Dr Yep: 'Eventually, nutrigenomics is a tool that all food companies will be looking at'
Delegates also got a top-line view of how PepsiCo spends its R&D budget, from working with athletes at the Gatorade Sports
Science Institute to technology scouting, taste trekking around the globe and searching for the next big natural high intensity
On the subject of nutrigenomics, Dr Yep said PepsiCo does not yet have any products that embrace this technology as it is "not
But he added: "Eventually it's a tool that all food companies will be looking at."
MyPlate 2.0
In a presentation looking at how to help Americans meet the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, USDA's Dr Robert Post said that the
MyPlate design was here to stay, but that the messaging around it would evolve.
Praising the Nestle 'Balance Your Plate ' initiative as a good example of how to incorporate the MyPlate concept into nutrition
marketing, he said that USDA was currently exploring similar initiatives as part of 'MyPlate 2.0'.

Dr Robert Post: Americans are eating far too many empty calories.
As to the relationship between the dietary guidelines and what Americans actually eat, the 2010 'report card' for the nation was
"not one you want to bring home to Mom", he said. But he added. "And Mom's not doing too well herself."
However, consumer surveys showed that increasing numbers of Americans are at least trying to follow government healthy
eating advice, he said, with women, older people and highly educated Americans trying the hardest.
Think global, act local... Dairy Queen on how to make all All-American concept work in China, Singapore and Egypt



It's not in quite as many markets as McDonald's -yet - but Dairy Queen is now in 21 countries from Egypt to Saudi Arabia,
Guatemala and China, said global product development boss Dr William Barrier. And trying to strike a balance between
providing a consistent experience and catering to local tastes is an ongoing challenge.
In a presentation outlining the challenges of operating in markets where the infrastructure, regulatory requirements and
consumer tastes can be very different to those in Dairy Queen's home market, Dr Barrier described how the company had had
to adapt its supply chain and product development systems to cope.
For example, in the US, Dairy Queen typically works with Mom & Pop-scale franchisees, he said, whereas in Asia, it typically
works with large corporations operating large numbers of outlets.
Similarly, while Dairy Queen's target audience in some markets is families, in some Asian markets, it's core demographic is hip
18-32-year old Millennials looking for a more upmarket experience, in both products and decor.
As for ingredient-sourcing, there is no one-size fits all policy, he said. In China, for example, Dairy Queen quickly discovered
that finding an industrial-scale, automated supplier of chocolate brownie pieces for adding to Blizzards was not going to be
easy, while in Egypt, it is only permitted to use ingredients with a shelf-life of three months.
In the Middle East, meanwhile, it proved very difficult to find suppliers of fresh chicken, while any market entry in India will
likely involve "radical changes" to product menus, he predicted. Dr Barrier: Think global, act local
As for the development cycle for new products, this can range from six months to three to four years, depending on whether
proprietary ingredients are involved and whether the infrastructure in the market in question is in place to take new concepts
to market, he said.
On the product development front, Dairy Queen has also been working with flavors giant Givaudan to create novel variations of
the Blizzard built around concepts such as 'wellbeing' (green tea); 'rooted and real' (pink guava & almonds, ginger chocolate,
lychee cheesecake); and 'desire and delight' (tiramisu, strawberry and white & dark chocolate).
Some of these will translate into multiple markets, while others are more region-specific, he said.
Are you ready for FSMA? It's 'HACCP on steroids', says Leavitt Partners
While several aspects of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) are still being finalized, we know broadly what the FDA
expects, and many manufacturers need to ask themselves some tough questions, said Leavitt Partners senior director for food
& import safety Melanie Neumann.
One of these is: 'Do I really know who my suppliers' suppliers are?' she said. Others include, 'How robust are my supplier
assurance systems?' and 'Am I chasing up gaps/issues identified in questionnaires from overseas suppliers?'
Similarly, while the details of the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) have not been finalized yet, Neumann urged
delegates to consider whether their key overseas suppliers might benefit from being enrolled into the scheme, which would
effectively shift them into the "priority lane" in the event of any hold up at the border, she said.
Millennials, and busy energizing moments...
In a presentation exploring how to translate consumer insights into winning new products, InsightsNow CEO Dr David
Lindahl told delegates that people in focus groups are in a "rational mode".
However, when consumers go into a store, or eat your product at home, they are operating at an "emotional level", and this is
what manufacturers must explore if they are to find out what consumers really want, he said.
By thinking about a category such as meal replacement in a more open-ended way, manufacturers can also unlock new
opportunities, he suggested.



Take meal replacement, which is currently a $2.3bn category in the US. In reality, it could be worth more than double that, he
said, if you explore - via analysis of social media as well as qualitative surveys - consumers' meal replacement 'moments', what
options they have, what choices they make, and how satisfied they are with those choices.
For example, for many Millennials, meal replacement is not about drinking a Slimfast shake or having a protein bar, but eating
a pot of Chobani and a Coke Zero while making the children's lunchboxes, he said. "It's about capturing that busy energizing
Does it look like a juice? Does it pour like a juice? Is there an orange on the label? So why is there only 5% juice?
Consumers expect to see added sugar in donuts and candy bars. But when they discover reams of it in dried fruits, juices and
other products marketed as healthy foods, they feel shortchanged, and rightly so, according to one nutrition expert.
Speaking at a panel debate at the 2013 Food Technology & Innovation Forum last week, Dr Jim Painter, professor at the school
of family and consumer sciences at Eastern Illinois University, said manufacturers are required by law to list the juice content
in juice products on the Nutrition Facts panel (contains 10% juice).
But when the front of a 5% juice product looks identical to the front of 100% juice product sitting right next to it in the chiller,
how many consumers bother to flip the pack and read the small print?
Pointing at a picture of Sunny Delight, he said: Does it look like a juice? Does it pour like a juice? Is there a big orange on the
front? But its only 5% Juice
He went on to show delegates a picture of cartons of Minute Maid sitting next to each other in a chiller. One (Minute Maid
Original) had pictures of oranges on the label and the phrase 100% juice on the label.
Yet at a glance, they look much the same, he said.
He then compared Campbell Soups V8 Fusion, which has 100% juice, and V8 Splash, which looks very similar but has only
10% juice, he observed.
Heres where we are getting a little dishonest.
Similarly, dried fruits are not always as healthy as they seem, with banana chips often sold deep-fried and coated in sugar while
dried cranberries are typically made palatable through the addition of significant amounts of added sugar to combat their tart
flavor, he said.
While there are reduced sugar dried cranberries available (Ocean Spray now sells Craisins sweetened with sucralose as well as
sugar), most sweetened dried cranberries are more like gummy bears or M&Ms despite their phytonutrient content, he
claimed. Raisin juice concentrate contains small amounts of glutamic acid, and works surprisingly well in savory products
Raisin paste - produced by extruding raisins through a fine mesh screen - can help manufacturers reduce sugar in sundae-style
yogurts and cottage cheese, ice cream, fruit-filled cereal products, granola bars and extruded breakfast cereals, said Reinagel.
In bakery items, such as breads, cookies and pastries, it also inhibits molds, extends shelf-life and enhances flavor; while
adding it to burgers and other meat products increases succulence and improves flavor, she said.



8. Dairy
Companies in this industry mainly manufacture dairy products such as pasteurized milk, cream, butter, yogurt, cheese, and
dry, condensed and evaporated milk. The industry also manufactures substitute dairy products made from soybeans and other
nondairy ingredients. Frozen dairy products like ice cream and frozen yogurt are excluded from this industry.
Rapidly rising demand from growing foreign economies drove up milk and dairy product exports during the past five years,
benefiting the US Dairy Product Production industrys revenue. At the same time, heightened world demand raised the price of
raw milk, which forced the industry to pass rising costs on in the form of higher prices. According the US International Trade
Commission, exports made double-digit gains almost every year in the past five years. As a result of high export growth,
revenue is expected to increase at an annualized rate of 0.3% in the five years to 2012. This rather anemic outcome stems
largely from a 15.7% dip in 2009 revenue due to reduced disposable incomes and low world demand during the recession.
Although milk and dairy products are staples in American diets, consumers bought less of each and chose value-brand
products. In 2012, higher consumer spending was expected to boost revenue 1.0% to an estimated $89.3 billion.
The dairy market in the United States accounts for 15 percent of the global dairy market. Cheese dominates the market, with 40
percent share, followed by milk (34 percent), yogurt, cream cheese and cottage cheese (12 percent), spreadable fats (8 percent),
cream (5 percent) and chilled desserts (1 percent).
During the past decade, dairy product wholesalers and retailers have undergone consolidation. The increased concentration of
downstream markets required dairy producers to supply vendors on a national scale. Price competitiveness became
increasingly important for securing national supply contracts, but increasing input costs (a result of rising feed costs) forced
producers to raise prices. To mitigate rising costs, dairy manufacturers progressively merged, acquired competitors and formed
strategic alliances to improve efficiencies through vertical integration. For example, major player Dean Foods acquired
WhiteWave- Alpro in 2009, extending its market reach to include Horizon Organic milk and Silk brand products in its product
mix. Consequently, the number of enterprises is expected to fall 0.1% per year on average to 749 during the five years to 2012.
In the next five years, dairy manufacturers are projected to benefit from higher consumer disposable income during continued
economic recovery, which will boost revenue. Manufacturers are anticipated to introduce more high-profit products that cater
to changing consumer tastes; for instance, more firms are adding probiotics and introducing new flavors to their products.
Meanwhile, still rising feed costs will hamper profit expansion, and competition from overseas dairy producers will temper
revenue growth. The industry is forecast to grow moderately during the five years to 2017, with revenue rising at an annualized
rate of 0.7% to $92.3 billion.
Downstream demand for dairy products, such as grocery wholesalers and food-service industries, remained positive during the
five years to 2012 because milk, cheese and butter are considered staple items and are also used in products ranging from baby
formula to dried whey. As such, per capita dairy consumption generally moves in line with population growth. However, the
input price of raw milk fluctuated significantly during the past five years, causing revenue to be highly volatile. Strong export
growth drove revenue gains, but a recession-related dip in 2009 offset this growth somewhat and also contributed to increased
Global economic recovery and growth in disposable incomes finally encouraged consumers to increase their spending on
grocery items, including dairy products, further driving up industry demand from recessionary lows. As a result of contrasting
trends over the past five years, analysts expect revenue to increase at an annualized rate of 0.3%. In 2012, continued gains in
the price of milk (ongoing since 2010) are expected to boost revenue 1.0% to an estimated $89.3 billion.
Decreasing consumption among children, who have been turning to soft drinks or fruit juices, has fueled declines in fluid-milk
consumption. In addition, as children grow older, they typically increase soft drink consumption and further decrease milk
consumption. As a result, a falling percentage of raw milk has been going into fluid-milk production as milk beverages



increasingly compete with substitutes. Fortunately, consumption of other milk-based products, like cheese, whey and yogurt,
has helped offset declines in fluid-milk consumption.


The Dairy Product Production industry is expected to grow at a similar rate to the overall economy during the 10 years to 2017.
Although domestic dairy consumption is relatively stable, volatile global demand affects revenue. In particular, high global
demand drives up the price of raw milk, a major input. Therefore, producers must pass on the rising input costs to downstream
buyers in the form of higher prices, which boosts revenue. Firms can generally raise prices successfully because dairy is a staple
food product. As a result, in the 10 years to 2017, analysts estimate the industrys contribution to the economy, as measured by
industry value added (IVA), to increase at an annualized rate of 1.6%. During the same period, GDP is forecast to rise at an
average annual rate of 1.9%. The comparable growth rates indicate that the industry is in the mature phase of its life cycle.
Dairy products enjoy wholehearted market acceptance because milk, cheese and butter are staple items in downstream
industries and consumer kitchens. Per capita dairy consumption fluctuates only slightly from year to year, but it is generally on
the rise. Product development has aided growth in per capita consumption during the past five years. New yogurt flavors are
regularly being introduced, including popular desserts and exotic fruits; greater organic product offerings are tapping into
growing environmental consciousness; and functional marketing, such as promoting low-fat, probiotic and omega-3 features,
is targeting the growing population of health-conscious consumers.
Another indication that the industry is in the mature life cycle stage is that it is experiencing consolidation in response to
consolidation at the downstream retail level. Demands from newly formed national retail chains have encouraged
manufacturers to consolidate, as price competitiveness and product ranges became crucial in obtaining national supply
contracts. Therefore, mergers and acquisitions are expanding firms product mix and market reach, while also allowing them to
reduce prices. Consequently, the number of enterprises is forecast to decrease at an annualized rate of 0.5% to 717 during the
10 years to 2017.


Fluid milk and milk-based products
Fluid milk and milk-based products make up the industrys largest product mix, accounting for 42.2% of revenue. There are
two milk quality grades: grade A, or fluid milk, is suitable for direct human consumption and is either homogenized,
pasteurized or both; and grade B milk is only used in manufacturing, most often for cheese. Besides milk, this segment also
includes milk-based beverages, buttermilk, cottage cheese, milk-based chocolate drinks, heavy cream, dips, sour cream,
nonalcoholic eggnogs, flavored milk drinks, whipped cream and toppings.
According to the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), total US sales of fluid-milk products changed little during the
past two decades, with only slight declines. Consumers have slowly trended away from whole milk to lower-fat milk during the
past five years, with rising concerns for health and fat contents in their diets. Meanwhile, sales of milk-based products have
remained flat during the five-year period. While consumption for more discretionary food items, like eggnog and dips,
decreased as consumers cut back on their spending during the recession, sales of healthy dairy products, like yogurt, have
offset much of this loss as consumers became increasingly aware of the health benefits of some dairy foods.
Cheese is expected to make up the second-largest product segment at 38.4% of revenue in 2012. The segment includes
cheddar, Swiss, mozzarella, Monterey jack, blue and cream cheeses. According to the IDFA, US cheese consumption is on the
rise. Increased consumption of fast foods and ethnic foods, which often use large portions of cheese, greater varieties,
increasing food sophistication and more convenient packaging are driving cheese sales. In America, mozzarella cheese
consumption reached 11.3 pounds per capita and cheddar reached 10.4 pounds per capita in 2010. The two cheeses are the
most popular single-cheese varieties, with cheddar cheese accounting for more than 75.0% of all American-type cheese
production in 2010.
Dry, condensed and evaporated milk products
Dry, condensed and evaporated milk products account for about 16.6% of revenue in 2012. This segment includes dry whole,
nonfat, skim and butter milks as well as infant formulas. Dairy product substitutes, such as soy milk and almond milk, form
one of the leading products in this group. Dairy substitutes share of revenue continues to rise as consumers change their taste


preferences or accommodate health needs. Overall, this segments share of revenue has increased slightly during the past five
years because of the popularity of dairy alternatives that this industry produces.
Creamery butter
Butter is expected to make up the smallest product segment, contributing only 2.8% of revenue in 2012. Product shipments are
divided according to the weight of their consumer packages, with a distinction being made for shipments greater than or less
than three pounds. This product segment is expected to decrease as consumers shift toward healthier eating and, thus, become
more wary of eating butter.
Demand for dairy products is primarily determined by household incomes. In the case of staple products such as butter and
cheese, changes in household incomes have little effect on demand. In the case of milk powders, which are often regarded as
inferior products, purchases tend to fall as household incomes increase. Conversely, the consumption of luxury products such
as gourmet or specialty cheeses will increase as household incomes increase. Other determinants include price, consumer
lifestyles, population growth and demographics.
Figure 9: Dairy food segments

Total: $89.3 billion

Source: IBISWorld 2012
Price and lifestyles
Staple products tend to be price inelastic because price increases fail to cause proportional declines in product demand.
Premium cheeses are price elastic, and demand varies depending on relative product prices. After the recession, households ate
at establishments away from home due to higher disposable income. The demand for cheese increased as a result of these
lifestyle changes because cheese is used in fast food outlets, such as pizzerias, and can also be packaged in sliced or grated
Nutrition and dietary awareness are becoming an increasingly important determinant of demand for dairy products. Dairy
product manufacturers now commonly produce a range of reduced-fat or low-fat dairy products to appeal to health-conscious
consumers. For example, concerns over high fat content and the unhealthy nature of some dairy-based foods had an adverse
effect on demand for traditional dairy products such as butter.
Demographics and competition
As the population increases, demand for dairy products increases. At the same time, population demographics affect demand
for particular dairy products. Younger age groups tend to be the main consumers of dairy products.
The demand for dairy products is also influenced by competition from substitute products. In particular, fluid milk competes
with a range of beverages including soft drinks, cordials and fruit juice (milk substitutes like soy and almond milk are not



considered competition because such products are included in this industry). Competition is based on price, nutritional
content, taste, convenience, branding and advertising.
Wholesalers and supermarkets
Wholesalers and supermarkets are the most important distribution channels for dairy products and together account for about
53.5% of revenue in 2012. Dairy product manufacturers may supply supermarkets directly or a wholesaler may act as an
intermediary to deliver products to retail outlets. Fluid milk and fresh-cultured products are also sold to other retail outlets,
including grocery store chains, mass merchandisers, convenience stores, smaller retail grocery outlets, warehouse club stores
and grocery warehouses.
Strictly at the retail level, national supermarkets are expected to demand about three-fourths of segment sales. This share of
revenue increased in the past five years as consolidation of retailers led to an increased number of consumers shopping at these
larger stores. Consequently, higher volumes of dairy products have been sold to this channel.
Food-service industry
Restaurants, cafes, caterers and other hospitality venues account for about 39.7% of revenue in 2012. They use milk, cheese,
butter and cream in food preparation. In the past five years, this segments share of the market remained stagnant. Because
this market is often tied to changes in consumer spending, demand fluctuates in line with the industry. During the recession
when people had less disposable income, they went out to eat less. When disposable income levels recovered, however,
consumers ate at restaurants more, which led to a higher volume of dairy purchased by this segment.
Exports account for about 6.8% of revenue in 2012. Although this is a small share of revenue, it is up from 3.7% of revenue in
2007. Booming economies in Asia and Latin America have increased disposable incomes in those areas and provided the
opportunity to increase spending on dairy products that were once considered luxury goods.

Dairy product manufacturers tend to be located close to dairy and cattle farms given the products perishable nature and high
transportation costs. Traditionally, milk production is localized, but improvements in raw milk quality and declining transport
costs have increased competition between producers in different regions and are allowing national dairy cooperatives to
emerge. The Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic and West regions account for the largest concentrations of industry locations.
The Great Lakes region is estimated to account for 30.7% of establishments in 2012. Wisconsin is the regions greatest
contributor and the countrys largest dairy-producing state. Wisconsin accounts for 18.8% of the nations establishments.
Further, the state is home to about 14.0% of all US dairy cows, making it ideal for dairy producers to base themselves in this
The Mid-Atlantic encompasses about 16.0% of establishments in 2012. The region is home is to some of the countrys largest
population centers. The West region is estimated to comprise 14.9% of establishments in 2012. Although California is the
second-largest dairy-producing state in the United States, with 10.5% of establishments, it is the largest milk producer. The
Plains regions accounts for about 11.7% of establishments. Minnesota has 5.1%, and Iowa and Missouri follow with about 2.0%



Figure 10: Dairy plant distribution (%)

Source: IBISWorld 2012



9. Functional Food
Functional food is a food where a new ingredient(s) (or increased quantity of an existing ingredient) has been added to a food
and the new product has an additional function often related to health-promotion or reducing a disease burden.
Functional foods are an emerging field in food science due to their increasing popularity with health-conscious consumers and
the ability of marketers to create new interest in existing products. The term was first used in Japan in the 1980s where there
is a government approval process for functional foods called Foods for Specified Health Use (FOSHU).
Some countries, such as Canada, Sweden, the United States and the European Union, have specific laws concerning the
labeling of such products. The term "functional foods" does not have any legal meaning in the United States, but it is defined
by the Institute of Food Technologists as "foods or food components that provide a health benefit beyond basic nutrition."
In the United States, the kinds of claims which are allowed are overseen and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). However, some claims will fall outside the range of the FDA and be accompanied by the disclaimer: "These statements
have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent
any disease."
Such a disclaimer typically accompanies supplements rather than foods, but since the definition of functional food is still
evolving and somewhat amorphous, a functional food may also bear this warning.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) defines functional foods as foods "that include whole foods and fortified,
enriched or enhanced foods have a potentially beneficial effect on health when consumed as part of a varied diet on a regular
basis, at effective levels." The AND breaks down functional foods into four categories: conventional foods, modified foods,
medical foods, and foods for special dietary use.
Conventional Foods
These are the most basic of the functional foods because they haven't been modified by enrichment or fortification; they're still
in their natural state. Most whole fruits and vegetables fall into this category because they're rich in phytochemicals such as
lycopene and lutein, as well as other beneficial compounds.
Modified Foods
Foods that have been enriched, fortified or enhanced with nutrients or other beneficial ingredients. Calcium-fortified orange
juice, folic acid enriched breads and margarine enhanced with plant sterols are functional foods that have been modified.
Energy drinks that have been enhanced with herbs such as ginseng and guarana, as well as other potentially controversial
foods, also fall into this category.
Medical Foods
The FDA defines medical food as "food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of
a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive
nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation." Medical foods
include specialized formulas designed for people who have specific health problems. These foods require the help and
supervision of a health care provider.
Foods for Special Dietary Use
These are similar to medical foods, but they're available commercially and don't require the supervision of a health care
provider. These foods fill special dietary needs that are due to specific health conditions, such as celiac disease, lactose
intolerance, or obesity. Gluten-free foods, lactose-free dairy products and foods designed to aid weight loss are considered
foods for special dietary use if you have those conditions. Infant foods are also in this category.



Health Claims
The FDA allows certain health claims to be placed on food labels. Nutrient content claims, structure and function claims, or
health claims can be placed on labels. Nutrient content claims describe the content of the foods and can include words like
"free," "low," and "reduced." Calorie-free foods, low-fat foods and reduced-sodium foods display these types of claims.
Structure and function claims describe the role of a nutrient in the function of your body. A yogurt label, for example, can claim
"calcium builds strong bones." Health claims must be approved by the FDA. For example, foods that contain olive oil or oats
and oatmeal can make specific claims about how those ingredients affect health.
Yet, consumer skepticism persists mainly due to the fact that benefits associated with consuming the products may be difficult
to dtect. The industry suggests the establishment of a health claim regulating agency, which may increase consumer
confidence. Strict examination of some of the functional food claims may discourage some companies from launching their


The functional food industry, consisting of food, beverage and supplement sectors, is one of the several areas of the food
industry that is experiencing fast growth in recent years. It is estimated that the global market of functional food industry will
reach $176.7 billion in 2013 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.4%.
Specifically, the functional food sector will experience 6.9% CAGR, the supplement sector will rise by 3.8% and the functional
beverage sector will be the fastest growing segment with 10.8% CAGR. This kind of growth is fueled not only by industrial
innovation and development of new products that satisfy the demand of health conscious consumers but also by health claims
covering a wide range of health issues.
The U.S. functional foods market was valued at $7.1 billion in 2009 and is projected to grow to $8.6 billion in 2015, a 21%
increase driven by the increasing popularity of energy drinks and growing demand for fortified dairy products such as probiotic
yogurts. After beverages, cereal products were the next largest category, with whole grain and oat content leading the way with
heart health claims. Following that were soy products. Together, these 3 categories represent 85% of the U.S. functional food
Changing demographics, in particular the aging baby boomer population, are helping to set the foundation for future growth.
Healthcare trends, including pharmaceutical investment and research into diseases and chronic conditions that are rapidly
gaining greater significance, are a further source for potential growth. At the same time, inorganic growth to date has been
largely driven by acquisitions, licensing and partnership agreements.
The first fortified food products resulted from public health endeavors. Vitamin B-enriched flour was introduced in the 1940s
to combat pellagra; iodine-fortified salt substantially decreased incidences of goiter; and vitamin D-enriched milk virtually
eliminated rickets.
More recent initiatives, however, are emerging wholly from the private sector. In a movement that originated in Japan about
20 years ago, companies are creating and marketing functional foods, nutrient-rich products aimed at consumers who
appreciate the role of diet in their health, and seek to prevent the onset of chronic disease through the adoption of specific
Some examples of nutraceuticals in functional foods include probiotics (microorganisms that provide digestive benefits),
omega-3 (fish oil) extracts, and phytonutrients (found in plants such as soy beans, blueberries or grapes).
Functional foods are used, distributed and regulated differently from medical foods and drugs. The primary distinction is that
functional foods may be consumed freely as part of everyday life. Medical foods and drugs are used in specific cases to treat or
manage a condition under medical supervision (see table).



Figure 11: Comparing Functional Foods with medical foods and drugs


Functional foods

Medical foods

Prescription drugs


Energy enhancement;
weight management;
bolster gut, bone or heart
health; disease risk
reduction; memory

Dietary management of a disease or

condition with distinctive
nutritional requirements (e.g.
difficulty swallowing, loss of
appetitie, nutrition repletion

Treatment of disease,
symptom, or condition

Method of

No prescription or
supervision needed;
consumer selects

Used with medical supervision

Prescribed by health


Supermarkets, drugstores,
online, major retailers

Hospitals, pharmacies, drugstores,


Pharmacies, hospitals

Regulatory body

No specific body, but is

considered food and is
therefore subject to FDA

No additional FDA review /

approval needed, but must abide by
regulations concerning foods, e.g.,

FDA approval needed, a

mutiyear, multistage review

(FDA regulates and specific

health claims that might be

(FDA regulates any specific health

claimes that might be made)

As desired

As needed


As needed

Source: company reports, Nutraceutical World, The New York Times, US Food and Drug Administration, Institute of Food


The US functional foods market is estimated to be the largest in the world, representing between 35 and 50 percent of global
sales. Asia-Pacific is the next biggest market. Together, the US and Asia-Pacific are estimated to account for approximately
three-quarters of the current global market for functional foods.
Food and beverage companies are the primary force and the market is largely consolidated, with US companies playing a major
role. Yet partnerships often factor into functional food production; companies enter into these agreements largely to share
development costs and technical expertise.
Nutraceutical extraction can be relatively costly; research and development is often significant, and there can be specialized
technology needs as well. The groundwork for a product may be conducted in-house, or it may be outsourced to specialized
suppliers dedicated to food ingredient technology research and product development.



Figure 12: Functional Food Supply Chain

Agricultural & biotech

Plant yield and hardness, inputs
e.g., Monsanto, DuPont

Food and beverage

R&D, manufacturing and
e.g., Nestle, PepsiCo, Kraft

Ingredient suppliers
Food processing R&D;
Synthesis and formulation
e.g., Cargill, ADM, Danisco

Distribution to consumer
e.g., Walmart, Safeway

End consumers
of functional
Source: company reports, Nutraceutical World, The New York Times, US Food and Drug Administration, Institute of Food
Private-label brands may be poised to gain traction in the functional foods market during the current recession. These brands
tend to gain unit market share during recessionary times because of their appeal to price-sensitive consumers looking to pay
less for comparable items. From 1990 to 1991, unit share for these brands increased from 17.6 percent to 20 percent, and from
2001 to 2003, from 20 percent to 21.8 percent. The trend appears to be holding in the current downturn.
From 2008 - 2012, sales of private-label food and other consumer products increased about 10 percent annually, compared
with 3 percent growth for branded products. It is likely the trend could extend to functional foods; some manufacturers, such
as FACT Corporation, already provide functional foods through private-label retail channels.


The top 20 functional food companies are estimated to account for about 70 percent of the US market, with a small number of
multinational companies comprising a significant share. Smaller players are nonetheless able to maintain a presence by
creating niche markets; for example, Grupo Pascual produces milk drinks containing prebiotic fiber from chicory.



Figure 13: Key Functional Food Players


Key Functional Brand


Quaker, Gatorade


Vitamin Water, Odwalla

General Mills

Cheerios, Yoplait


Special K, Kashi


Capri Sun, Balance Bar


Nesquik, PowerBar


Activia, Essensis


Slim-Fast, Blue Band

Yakult Honsha

Yakult 400, Jole

Source: Natural Products Association

Figure 14: Top 10 Functional Foods Named by Consumers

1. Fruits/Vegetables


2. Fish/Fish Oil


3. Dairy


4. Herbs/Spices


5. Whole Grains


6. Fiber


7. Meat and Poultry


8. Tea/Green Tea


9. Nuts


10. Vitamins/Supplements


Source: Natural Products Association

Soft Drinks, Dairy and Energy Foods

Functional foods are categorized both by food and by health benefit. Soft drinks and dairy products constitute 60 percent of the
market among foods. The soft drink category includes enhanced water, which has grown in popularity as consumers seek
alternatives to carbonated beverages, perceived by some as high in sugar or artificial ingredients and therefore less healthy.



Dairy is gaining in popularity, driven in large part by innovations in yogurts. By now, enough consumers are likely aware of the
helpful bacteria naturally present in yogurts, increasing receptiveness to the idea of probiotic and prebiotic yogurts. Moreover,
consumers do not need to markedly change their behavior to reap the benefits associated with functional yogurtsa single
yogurt portion may be sufficient. In contrast, phytosterol-infused margarines are meant to be consumed three times a daya
behavioral change that may be undesirable to many consumers.
Foods claiming to boost energy levels constitute 29 percent of the market categorized by benefit. These products tend to have
attributes that the consumer can quickly feel, which has contributed significantly to their popularity.
Products in the gut, bone, and heart health categories comprise a sizable share of the market and have traditionally been
purchased by older consumers. Other functional foods include products with claims to help manage weight, sharpen mental
faculties, and improve infant health. These products tend to be sought by younger consumers, especially those with or
expecting children.
Products for enhanced cognitive health, such as omega-3 fatty acids, are expected to be an $8 billion market by 2013, according
to Packaged Facts. Other areas of growth are expected to be products for weight management, mood enhancement, and those
that promote healthy, beautiful skin.


Increased consumer interest in controlling their health

Certain sub-populations: baby boomers and children
Evidence-base science linking diet to chronic disease risk reduction
Opportunities to reach niche markets
Advances in technology (e.g., biotechnology, nutrigenomics)
Changes in food regulations
Escalating health care costs


Americans believe they have some control over their health and that food and nutrition play the most important role
in maintaining and improving their overall health.
Heart health and weight control are the top health concerns of Americans.
Consumers are most aware of food/health benefit associations related to their top two health concerns as well as longheld diet and health relationships.
Despite increases in awareness, the number of Americans actually consuming these foods for their associated health
benefits has generally not changed since 2005.
Americans cite price, taste, availability, and convenience, among others, as barriers to consuming functional foods.
Consumers look most frequently to medical and nutrition professionals to help them make decisions around foods
and beverages.




10. Processed Food

The Food Processing industry consists of companies engaged in processing and packaging produce, meats, fish, animal feeds,
fruit juices and dairy products. The industry includes grain milling, crop cleaning, grading and packaging, animal slaughtering
and packaging operations, seafood processing, freezing, canning operations, juice, coffee, tea, diary and all other food
manufacturers. The Food Processing industry excludes primary crop growers, classified in Fishing & Farming.
The Food Processing Industry is a mature sector that loosely tracks underlying demographic trends, such as population and
income growth. Companies generate revenue from the sale of food and ingredients to a whole host of customers, ranging from
supermarket chains and local bodegas to restaurants and other players further down the processing chain.
The food manufacturing industry is one of the United States largest manufacturing sectors, accounting for more than 10
percent of all manufacturing shipments. Demand for processed food products tends to be less susceptible to fluctuating
economic conditions than other industries.
There are approximately 28,000 establishments in food manufacturing. Large multinationals are a big presence in the
industry but although they account for 36 percent of all the jobs in the industry, they represent just over 500 of the total
number of companies. Eighty nine percent of companies employ fewer than 100 workers.


Food, of course, is one of life's basic necessities. As such, underlying demand tends to be steady through prosperous and
difficult economic times. That said, food companies benefit from population growth. Also, higher aggregate personal income
affords people "richer" diets and those on the margin may rely less on homegrown staples.
Proactive efforts are arguably most critical for top-line growth. Companies endeavor to capture a greater share of household
budgets through strong branding and the strategic positioning of their offerings. Trend-right products and re-formulations that
are easy to prepare, portable, and healthful usually gain good traction. Expansion into new geographic markets is also a key
growth driver. Cross-cultural expansion can prove difficult, though, given entrenched regional cuisine and tastes.

Food companies fall into various sub-segments, and painting them all with one broad, brush stroke can lead to surprising
deviations from expected performance. Investors should be cognizant of where a producer resides within the commodity"value added" spectrum. Poultry and other commodity-type producers have little individual influence over product pricing, and
are susceptible to such vagaries as weather-related crop damage and cross-border trade sanctions. Commodity-like producers
are also constrained by long harvest (in the case of grains) and life (livestock) cycles, and, therefore, unable to quickly adjust
"production" capacity. These factors result in relatively high earnings and share price volatility. Through innovation and
branding, successful marketers of value-added goods face less direct competition and have more control over pricing.
Accordingly, they enjoy stable returns.




Figure 15: Top 20 Food Processing Companies



Company Name

2011 Food


2011 Total

2011 Net
Income (Loss)

2010 Net
Income (Loss)

Pepsico Inc.






Tyson Foods Inc.






Nestle (U.S. &







Kraft Foods Inc.


















Dean Foods Co.






General Mills Inc.







Smithfield Foods







Mars Inc.








Coca-Cola Co.








Kellogg Co.








Saputo Inc.








ConAgra Foods Inc








Cargill Inc.





1,990 (R)



Hormel Foods








MillerCoors LLC








Dole Food Co. Inc.








Pilgrim's Pride








Hershey Co.






Source: USDA, ERS using data from U.S. Sensus Bureau, 2011 Annual Survey of Manufacturers



Industry Characteristics
Food and beverage manufacturing plants transform raw agricultural materials into products for intermediate or final
consumption by applying labor, machinery, energy, and scientific knowledge. Some products may serve as inputs for further
processing (such as syrup for manufacturing soda). In 2011, these plants accounted for 14.7 percent of the value of shipments
from all U.S. manufacturing plants. Because intermediate inputs (primarily agricultural materials) account for a relatively large
share of food and beverage manufacturers' costs, value added in food and beverage manufacturing represents a slightly smaller
share (13.7 percent) of value added in all manufacturing.
Meat processing includes livestock and poultry slaughter, processing, and rendering, and is the largest single component of
food and beverage manufacturing, with 24 percent of shipments in 2011. Other important components include dairy (13
percent), beverages (12 percent), grains and oilseeds (12 percent), fruits and vegetables (8 percent), and other food products (11
percent). Meat processing is also the largest component (17 percent) of the food sector's total value added, followed by
beverage manufacturing (16 percent).
Figure 16: Components of food and beverage manufacturing value of shipments, 2011

Meat processing is the largest single component of food and beverage manufacturing, with 24 percent of shipments in 2011

Bakery and

Grains and oil


Fruit and



Animal food
Sugar and

Source: USDA, ERS using data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 Annual Survey of Manufacturers
There are many food and beverage processing establishments (plants) in the U.S.almost 30,000 owned by about 24,500
companies in 2007, according to the most recent comprehensive data in the Census Bureau's 2007 Economic Census.
Figure 17: Components of food and beverage manufacturing: Value added, 2011

Meat processing is the largest component (17 percent) of the food sectors total value added, followed by beverage
manufacturing (16 percent)



Grains and oil

seeds 8%

other food
Bakery 13%






Fruit and

Sugar and


Source: USDA, ERS using data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 Annual Survey of Manufacturers
These plants employed about 1.5 million workers in 2011 (about 14 percent of all U.S. manufacturing employment and just over
1 percent of all U.S. nonfarm employment). The meat processing industry employed the largest percentage of food and
beverage manufacturing workers in 2011 (32 percent), followed by bakeries (17 percent), and fruits and vegetables (11 percent).
Figure 18: Food and beverage manufacturing employees by industry 2011

The meat processing industry employed the largest percentage of food and beverage manufacturing workers in 2011 (32
percent), followed by bakeries (17 percent), and fruits and vegetables (11 percent)

and torilla

Fruit and

other food

Grains and oil

seeds 3%


Animal food


Sugar and

Source: USDA, ERS using data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 Annual Survey of Manufacturer.



Food and beverage processing plants are located throughout the United States. According to the Census Bureau's County
Business Patterns (CBP), California had the most food and beverage manufacturing plants (4,514) in 2010, while New York
(2,186) and Texas (1,774) were also leading food and beverage manufacturing States. The number of processing plants for
various industry segments are also reported in County Business Patterns.
Figure 19: Total food and beverage manufacturing establishments, 2010

Food processing plants include many small local plants and relatively few large plants. However, large plants account for the
major portion of shipments. In 2007, small plants (0-19 employees) accounted for 66 percent of all plants, but only 4 percent
of the total value of shipments. On the other hand, large plants (100 or more employees) accounted for 77 percent of shipment
value in 2007, but only 12 percent of plants.
Consolidation is occurring in many food processing industries, where plant sizes have increased sharply and mergers have led
to fewer but larger companies. In many cases, changing processing plant technologies and the emergence of new scale
economies has facilitated consolidation. When market demand grows slowly, increased consolidation can lead to increased
concentration (fewer competitors). ERS researchers examined the role of changing technology and demand on structural
changes in nine food processing industries.
Concentration in several processing industries raises questions about market power in the sale of agricultural products and
about the effects of concentration on innovation and productive efficiency. Consolidation in beef and pork slaughter has been
of special interest to policy officials given the historically high and growing rates of concentration.
From 1997 to 2007, the four-firm national concentration ratio in the fluid milk industry increased from 21 percent to 46
percent. In 2007, there were 21 percent fewer fluid milk processing plants than in 1997, processing 26 percent more milk per
plant. Structural changes in fluid milk processing are occurring at the same time as rapid consolidation in milk production.
From 1997 to 2007, 43 percent fewer farms produced over twice as much milk per farm.



Methods of vertical coordination are also changing, with a shift away from the use of spot markets toward greater reliance on
contracting in some grains and in livestock.


Most supermarkets now offer prepared meals. There is high demand for convenience food and ready to serve products such as
snack foods, snack bars, and frozen food that are popular with double income households and consumers who are generally
short on time. The aging U.S. population and rising per capita incomes should cause this trend to continue.
For example, the high demand for frozen food products, particularly from supermarkets and restaurant chains is evidenced in
that the market is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent, reaching $96.4 billion in 2016.
As the U.S. population becomes increasingly ethnically diverse, consumer demand for food products also diversifies. The
Hispanic population continues to grow rapidly and processed food companies are developing new products for this population.
Some retailers and supermarkets now cater specifically to Hispanic populations. Also, many traditionally ethnic food products
are crossing over to the mainstream population.
Other factors affecting demand for processed food in the U.S. market include concern about dieting and obesity, allergens, and
increased interest in sourcing locally and use of quality ingredients.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, average annual food spending per person increased 25 percent during 2000 to
2012, to $4,229. Total spending on food makes up about 13 percent of a households total average annual expenditures. Of the
$4,229 in food spending, $2,171 was spent on food at home and $2,058 was spent on food away from home. Consumers spent
the largest portion of their food at home spending (about 60%) on the other food category which includes sugar, sweets, fats
and oils, miscellaneous foods, nonalcoholic beverages, and prepared food.



Figure 20: Per capita food expenditures

Per capita food expenditures

U.S. per capita food expenditures
Current prices

U.S. resident
population, July 1

At home

Away from home

1988 prices

At home

Away from home








Sources: Calculated by the Economic Research Service from various data sets from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.




Cost Control
Success also depends on the ability to control costs and leverage fixed/near-fixed expenses. Over its history, the industry has,
at times, suffered margin pressure due to severe input cost inflation in the form of higher prices for ingredients and fuel (used
to power processing plants and distribute goods to the retail trade). In periods of commodity-price deflation, however, the
"stickiness" of retail price hikes supports profitability. When input costs spike, value-added producers, with their strong
brands, are better positioned, and can pass along much of the higher expense to customers. Makers of private label brands
have good cost leeway, given the absence of big marketing outlays.
Higher energy costs are causing concern among manufacturers in the industry who are increasingly
looking for ways to conserve energy in manufacturing processes to reduce costs. Concerns about the environment and
sustainability are also having an impact on producers. Many are increasing their recycling efforts and redesigning packaging to
lessen the impact on the environment.
Size matters for many of these companies. Distribution costs are often nearly fixed. As such, a larger portion of each
incremental sales dollar tends to flow down to the bottom line. Processors with an expanding brand portfolio can quickly
realize significant economies of scale. A wide portfolio of popularly selling brands also puts these companies in a stronger
bargaining position, vis-a-vis major customers in the retail trade, which has increasingly invaded the grocery space. Small food
processors, however, as potential takeover targets, may be the direct beneficiaries of industry consolidation.
Food manufacturers continue to invest in greater automation in manufacturing processes. Budgeted spending for plant
equipment, upgrades, computers, and automation remains at steady levels and manufacturers are adding additional processes
to address concerns with ensuring food safety. Increased use of automation and innovation in the manufacturing process has
limited employment in the manufacturing sector to some extent.
According to Food Engineering, key issues for plant manufacturers include plant technology improvements and automation,
consolidation, energy costs and usage, consumer demand for healthier and more nutritious products, and continuous
improvement programs.
Rising Commodity Prices
A dramatic jump in food commodity prices worldwide has had an impact on the industry, which uses commodities such as
grains and vegetable oils as inputs to many of its products. Rising food commodity prices particularly impact small producers.
For example, small bakeries and bagel companies are often unable to absorb the big price increases of inputs such as wheat and
flour and must ultimately raise the
final prices of their products whereas larger producers are better able to absorb commodity price increases. A number of
factors have contributed to this run up in prices, including slowing production, rapid growth in demand, increased demand for
biofuels feedstocks, and adverse weather conditions which have affected crop yields.
Food Safety
In the last year, concerns over food safety have increased as the industry has been hit by several high profile and large scale
recalls, as well as faced questions regarding the quality of inputs from suppliers in foreign countries. Government and industry
have responded to try to address the issue. The Food and Drug Administration which regulates about 80 percent of the nations
food products, issued a Food Protection Plan in 2007 to safeguard the nations food supply against unintentional and
deliberate contamination. The plan focuses on risk based interventions and rapid response when problems are identified. The
food industry also responded by pressing for more funding of FDA and issuing best practices guidance to its industry members
on securing supply chains.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association created its own food safety website for the industry. It also created an action plan for
its members designed to protect consumers from unsafe imported products by calling on the industry to adopt four pillars of
food safety. The approach focuses on prevention and a stronger public-private partnership to address food safety issues.
Walmart has taken the step to become the first U.S. grocery chain to require its food suppliers to certify compliance with
internationally recognized private Global Food Safety Initiative Standards. Internationally, food safety has become a top issue
as well.



11. Savory Snacks

The savory snacks market consists of the retail sale of processed snacks, potato chips, nuts & seeds, popcorn and other savory
Nuts & seeds category comprises nuts and seeds sold at retail packaged, primarily for snack consumption, including shelled
and unshelled, plain and roasted, salted and unsalted varieties. Popcorn segment comprises microwaveable popcorn
(unpopped popcorn that needs to be heated in the microwave before consumption), ready-to-eat popcorn (bagged, pre-popped
popcorn, excluding ready-popped corn) and unpopped popcorn (popcorn that must be heated conventionally in a pan or
dedicated machine.)
Processed snacks segment comprises corn chips (processed snacks that are fried after they have been extruded), extruded
snacks (manufactured by pushing a raw mixture through pipes under pressure prior to cooking; includes processed and
reconstituted products) and tortilla chips (chips that have been seared after being extruded).
Other savory snacks segment comprises ethnic snacks (snacks indigenous to non-western cultures, usually Asian specialties
e.g. Bombay mix), meat snacks (ambient savory snacks made from meat, e.g. beef jerky) and pretzels (crisp and brittle salted
baked snack made with unleavened dough).


The US savory snacks market has been growing at a strong rate in recent years. Gradual deceleration is expected towards the
end of the forecast period, with annual rate dropping below 4%.
The US savory snacks market had total revenues of $26.4 billion in 2011, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)
of 6.3% between 2007 and 2011. In comparison, the European and Asia-Pacific markets grew with CAGRs of 4.3% and 4.9%
respectively, over the same period, to reach respective values of $17.4 billion and $20.7 billion in 2011.

Figure 21: U.S. Savory Snacks Market Value: 2007-2011


$ Billion


$ 20.7


$ 21.6



$ 23.2



$ 25.0



$ 26.4


CAGR: 2007-2011
Source: Packaged Facts 2012

% Growth


Market consumption volumes increased with a CAGR of 2.5% between 2007-2011, to reach a total of 2.8 billion kg in 2011. The
market's volume is expected to rise to 3.1 billion kg by the end of 2016, representing a CAGR of 2% for the 2011-2016 period.



The performance of the market is forecast to decelerate, with an anticipated CAGR of 4.2% for the five-year period 2011 - 2016,
which is expected to drive the market to a value of $32 billion by the end of 2017. Comparatively, the European and AsiaPacific markets will grow with CAGRs of 4.6% and 3.7% respectively, over the same period, to reach respective values of $21.8
billion and $24.9 billion in 2017.


The potato chips segment was the market's most lucrative in 2011, with total revenues of $10.3 billion, equivalent to 39.1% of
the market's overall value. The processed snacks segment contributed revenues of $8.1 billion in 2011, equating to 30.9% of the
market's aggregate value.
Figure 22: U.S. Savory Snacks Market Category Segmentation: % share, by value, 2007-2011







2007-2011 CAGR

Potato chips







Processed snacks







Nuts & seeds





















Source: Packaged Facts 2012

Figure 23: U.S. Savory Snacks Market Category Segmentation: $ Billion, 2007-2011










Potato chips


Nuts & seeds


Source: Packaged Facts 2012


The Snack Food Production industry is moderately concentrated, with the top four players estimated to account for 61.4% of
the market in 2012. This percentage represents an increase from 58.8% in 2007, mainly because larger players have engaged in
acquisitions to expand their product mix and market reach.
PepsiCo, Inc. is the leading player in the U.S. savory snacks market, generating a 46.1% share of the market's value. ConAgra
Foods, Inc. accounts for 5.3% of the market, with Kraft Foods at 5.2% and General Mills with a 4.8% market share.



Figure 24: U.S. Savory Snack Market Shares: % share, by value, 2012

% Share
PepsiCo, Inc.

ConAgra Foods,
Kraft Foods, Inc.
General Mills

5.2% 5.3%

Kellogg Company

Source: Packaged Facts 2012

While the larger companies continued to gain dominance, the small companies at the bottom struggled to survive against their
competitors during the recession. The industrys concentration of ownership is expected to increase in the future, engendered
by acquisitions, continued product innovation, strong brand loyalty and aggressive marketing initiatives. However, smaller
operators are more common in this industry. About 7.9% of companies employ more than 500 workers. In comparison, about
25.7% of companies employ fewer than five workers, and about 57.8% employ fewer than 20 workers. However, these smaller
companies control a minimal share of revenue.


Wholesalers are the key source of immediate demand for snack food manufacturers. When consumers demand more of these
foods from grocery stores or other outlets, wholesalers look to manufacturers to satisfy that demand. Conversely, when
demand from wholesalers is low due to negative factors like diminished disposable income and high unemployment, industry
demand generally suffers. Demand from soft drink, baked goods and other grocery wholesaling is expected to increase slowly
during 2013.
A large proportion of purchases occur at the retail level, particularly through supermarkets and grocery stores, which affects
demand at the wholesale level. As customers at grocery stores demand more snacks, supermarkets purchase more from
wholesalers and wholesalers purchase more from manufacturers. Some major supermarkets also have enough purchasing
power to buy directly from manufacturers. Demand from supermarkets and grocery stores is expected to decrease slowly
during 2013.
Consumers health and dietary concerns determine demand for industry products. Many of the industrys products are
unhealthy and high in sodium or fat, so when consumers change their diet and reduce their fatty-food consumption, demand
for some snack foods declines, hurting revenue performance. However, healthier product developments have benefited
demand and revenue. The healthy eating index is expected to decrease slowly during 2013.
Snack foods are considered a discretionary purchase, meaning that they are nonessential goods. When consumers experience a
rise in their disposable income, they are more willing to spend on snacks, benefiting demand and revenue. Per capita
disposable income is expected to increase slowly during 2013, representing a potential opportunity for the industry.
Many people who engage in sports and leisure activities buy snacks because these products are filling and convenient to eat on
the go. Also, many leisure activities are often coupled with snacking, such as eating chips or popcorn while watching TV.
Unemployment due to recessionary layoffs increased time spent on leisure and sports. However, as the economy recovers and



more Americans find work, people will have less time for leisure and sports, potentially hampering revenue growth. Time spent
on leisure and sports is anticipated to decrease slowly in 2013.

11.5. DEMAND
Demand for snack foods is largely driven by consumer preferences, product innovation to address such preferences, price,
substitutes and disposable income.
During the past five years, consumers changed their lifestyles and attitudes toward snack foods. Changes in population
demographics and ethnicity gave rise to new tastes and preferences, causing manufacturers to adapt their product lines to meet
these needs. However, one of the most prominent trends affecting the industry stemmed from an increasingly health-conscious
and time-poor consumer base; therefore, they demanded convenient and healthy, yet tasty products.
The healthy eating trend prompted an increase in demand for prepared, single-serving portions, such as mixed nuts and
pretzels that can be easily consumed on the go. In addition, 100-calorie packs represented healthier snacks to help consumers
control their portion size. Most notably, many potato and corn chip manufacturers introduced baked varieties of traditionally
fried chips. Ever since Frito-Lay introduced Baked Lays in the late 1990s, consumers increasingly demanded healthy versions
of these chips. In 2012, the company is expected to introduce more products that are made of all natural ingredients.
Although many consumers are brand loyal, a rise in the price of snack food decreases the quantity that consumers demand.
Consequently, they typically switch to cheaper substitute products, such as granola bars, muffins, bagels, cookies, bread and
others. This factor is especially significant for high-end, branded and premium products, where even a moderate price increase
can substantially hurt demand and, therefore, revenue.
Typically, a rise in disposable income is directly proportionate to increased spending on consumption. Still, in some cases, an
increase in income encourages consumers to switch to more expensive, branded snacks or eat out rather than boost the volume
of food purchased. Therefore, a long-term increase in income will likely encourage production to shift from lower-margin to
higher-margin products, such as premium roasted nuts (e.g. pistachios). However, the recession slowed this transition due to
lower incomes and tight consumer spending.

The snack food industry has plenty to be optimistic about in the next five years. Producers will continue to adapt their products
to match changing consumer tastes, specifically the healthy-eating trend, which will drive up demand for snacks. These
initiatives will contribute to the forecast 2.5% revenue growth in 2013. The industry will also look to build on this momentum
as the nation climbs out of the recession, and Americans will buy more discretionary snacks with improving levels of
disposable income. However, economic recovery will also lead many Americans back to work, leaving little time for leisure
activities that are often paired with snacking, and slowing revenue growth. As a result of these factors, revenue is projected to
increase at an annualized rate of just 1.6% to $32.0 billion in the five years to 2017.
To build on the momentum that began during the past five years, producers must continue developing new products so that
their product mix and brand images do not become stale in the saturated marketplace. New snack foods will be healthier to
cater to changing consumer preferences. Specifically, producers will continue lowering the fat and cholesterol content of
products to attract more health-conscious consumers. Producers will also promote healthy eating through marketing
initiatives. Many new products are introduced from year to year, but only a few will be successful over the long term; therefore,
businesses must closely monitor specific consumer needs and patterns to adjust product lines appropriately.


The barriers to entry in the snack food industry are moderate; however, the initial capital investment required is significant.
Due to the high dependency on machinery, new firms must buy new equipment and obtain a facility to produce within. These
investments are expensive so firms that cannot afford such investments will be unable to enter the industry.
Another threat facing potential new entrants is the extremely well entrenched position of the industrys major players. These
companies experience high brand and customer loyalty and have considerable resources to invest in advertising and
promotions to protect and grow their market share. Enormous advertising budgets allow these companies to aggressively


promote their products through a variety of media outlets that are often inaccessible to new entrants. All of the industrys
major players also have very strong product portfolios, containing most of the worlds best-known snack food brands. Although
this is not a barrier to entry, it may hamper the success of new entrants.
In addition, major players typically have favorable contracts with key suppliers like grocery stores and supermarkets, which
may be difficult for new entrants to secure. Larger firms also enjoy efficiencies that are created by economies of scale and
scope. Lower per-unit production costs and varied product lines, combined with high levels of investment in technology and
equipment, make competition very difficult. Although these are not barriers to entry, they may hamper the success of new
Nevertheless, many new entrants have established themselves within the industry, with the majority in the low-priced,
unbranded segment. Other smaller players managed to carve out regional market niches, reducing direct competition from the
major players.

The US domestic market accounts for the majority of snack food demand and consumption where imports are estimated to
make up about 2.4% of domestic demand. Although imports make up a small proportion, they rose at a rapid annualized rate
of 14.0% to $689.8 million during the five years to 2012. The fast annualized rate is mostly a result of the 15.4% increase in
2011 and 53.1% spike in 2012 as Americans gained more disposable income post-recession and became more willing to spend
more on snacks from abroad.
In 2012, Mexico is expected to account for 31.7% of imports, followed by Canada at 16.7%. These countries are major importers
of snacks produced in the United States because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which reduces trade
barriers and makes trading less costly as well as efficient. In addition, these countries are immediate neighbors to the United
States, reducing transportation costs and making it more attractive to buy from these countries. Argentina is the next largest
source of imports at 14.5% of imports in 2012 followed by China at 6.3%. The share of imports originating from countries in the
Asia-Pacific, specifically China, Thailand and Vietnam, steadily increased in the past few years due to their low cost production,
which in turn, reduced the price of its products.



12. Beverages
The beverage industry includes manufacturers and distributors of soft drinks, bottled water, energy drinks, sports drinks, milk
products, coffee and tea based products, nutritional drinks, and alcohol products. Some factors that influence the consumption
of these products can include the time of day or other environmental situations, but consumer tastes, demographics and
lifestyles are the engine that drives the demand for beverages. Large companies benefit from economies of scale in production
and distribution. Small companies can compete by producing new products, catering to local tastes, or nimbly reacting to
changes in the marketplace. The beverage industry is a huge part of the U.S. economy that affects many different sectors.
The beverage Industry is a mature sector and includes companies that market nonalcoholic and alcoholic items. Since growth
opportunities are limited, many members of the industry endeavor to diversify their offerings to better compete and gain share.
Too, they may pursue lucrative distribution arrangements and/or acquisitions to expand their operations and geographic
Companies in this industry produce soft drinks, bottled water, and other nonalcoholic beverages. Major companies include
Britvic (UK), Coca-Cola (US), Cott (Canada), Dr Pepper Snapple Group (US), Nestl (Switzerland), PepsiCo (US), and Red Bull
The US nonalcoholic beverage manufacturing industry includes about 1,500 companies with combined annual revenue of
about $55 billion. Low growth is forecast for the next two years. Key growth challenges include dependence on consumer
spending and health concerns surrounding soft drinks.
Non-alcoholic beverages include a large variety of drinks, but sodas account for about 60 percent of the market. The
manufacture and distribution of most national soda brands is a two-tiered process. The primary manufacturer produces syrup
called concentrate, and local bottlers manufacture and distribute the finished product. The flavored syrup, corn syrup (as a
sweetener), and filtered water are mixed in the right proportions, carbon dioxide gas is injected, and the finished soda product
is poured into bottles or cans, which are capped, labeled, and packaged.
The market for U.S. milk and dairy products, both domestically and internationally has been growing dramatically in recent
decades. As a result, U.S. farm milk production has grown to about 190 billion pounds per year.
Fragmentation occurs when many competitors jockey for dominance in a category. For example, the top 50 companies in the
beer wholesale industry account for about a third of industry revenue. The wine and spirits wholesale industry is concentrated,
with the top 50 companies account for more than 70 percent of industry revenue.
Major alcohol products are beer, wine, and distilled spirits (hard liquor). Distributors tend to specialize in either beer, or wine
and spirits. About half of overall industry revenue comes from the sale of beer, 30 percent from liquor, and 20 percent from


The beverage industry is enormous, with new products introduced almost daily. There are hundreds of different drinks on the
market, all produced and bottled in different and attractive packaging.
There are already some very high profile drinks on the market with Coca-Cola being the top seller now for decades. Other
competitive carbonated soft drinks have since had success. Some are direct competitors in the cola category, such as Pepsi Cola
and others have created new categories, as with the sports drink segment with brands like Gatorade, or with the energy drink
segment with brands such as Red Bull. The revolution and popularity of bottled spring water has also taken the market by
storm. With such hefty competition in the drink industry, every brand is jostling for consumer attention, making a strong
beverage business plan all the more vital.



Demand for nonalcoholic beverages is driven by consumer tastes and demographics. The profitability of individual companies
depends on effective marketing. Large companies have economies of scale in production and distribution. Small companies can
compete by producing new products, catering to local tastes, or selling at lower prices. The industry is highly concentrated: the
eight largest soft drink companies account for about 70 percent of the market and the eight largest bottled water companies
account for about 85 percent of the market.
Largely because of the high costs of shipping a heavy product, US imports and exports of soft drinks are relatively low. Imports
of soft drinks and bottled water together account for about 5 percent of the US market; exports account for about 2 percent of
US production.
Despite this highly competitive arena, there is ample room for new products, and consumers are always willing to experiment.
Beverage package design is another aspect very important in the drinks industry. To attract consumers it is vital to have
something attractive and functional. To get an indication of what will work best, proper market research is crucial and this is
one facet of a beverage business plan. A proper plan is vital to the successful launch for any new product onto the market, and
all too often short cuts can be doomed to fail.
In the US, soft drink and bottled water manufacturing is concentrated in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Indiana.
Most smaller beverage producers make products for a local or regional market, capitalizing on different local tastes or selling
their product at lower prices than national brands.

The beverage industry consists of different segments with the first differentiation being locally consumed beverages versus
packaged and shipped beverages. Locally produced and consumed beverages include fresh coffee, tap water, fountain drinks
and freshly squeezed juice. Bottled water and beer are examples of packaged beverages. Packaged beverages consist of two
types, retail and home produced.
The Nonalcoholic Segment
Historically, two large entities have dominated the nonalcoholic beverage landscape: Pepsi (PEP) and Coca-Cola (KO). They
distribute their well known carbonated and noncarbonated drinks internationally via sizeable bottling subsidiaries. The
bottlers depend on these two industry leaders to create new products, improve existing offerings and maintain sufficient
advertising. Related capital spending amounts to several billion dollars each year. The industry titans often boost their results
(and those of their subsidiaries) by purchasing smaller market players or by inking promising distribution agreements. In
prosperous economic times, consumers usually favor the most famous brand names.
Still, when customers are short of disposable income, they turn to competing, inexpensive private label and lesser-known
beverages. Sales are seasonal, not surprising, peaking during warm summer months. Consumer preferences will drive product
diversification. Most notably, greater awareness of the causes of common health issues, e.g., obesity and diabetes, has
increased demand for bottled water and other low-sugar or sugar-substitute drinks. Too, beverage companies have capitalized
on the popularity of energy drinks and ready-to-drink coffee. Product diversification may be achieved through internal or
external means. The same goes for geographic expansion. China and Russia, two, of course, very large markets in the
developing-nation arena, have gotten much attention. Beverage companies have spent heavily to open new bottling plants and
develop distribution networks in these countries.
Wine, Beer, and Spirits
The range of wine, beer and distilled spirits offered by brand and type is wide. Demand is somewhat inelastic across good and
bad economic times. There is an overall long-term trend of rising affluence around the globe. Thus, more and more consumers
are becoming increasingly discerning about what they purchase. Premium alcoholic beverages are gaining in popularity. This
trend is disrupted during recessions, when people trade down to cheaper, low-margined products.
As is the case with premium wine and spirits, microbrew or craft beer is very popular with consumers. These beers are priced
higher and are quite profitable, as long as the cost of their rich ingredients is covered. Small brewers, paying close attention to
quality, expand slowly, but, over time, can win a decent share of business. Large brewers have acquired such operators or
developed their own premium beers so as not to lose any sales. Like their nonalcoholic peers, makers of alcoholic beverages
invest large amounts of capital in marketing and advertising to build brand recognition.


Tap Water
Municipal tap water systems are among the biggest beverage industries in the world. Tap water is a part of indoor plumbing
and first became common in the developed world by the mid-20th century. The delivery of tap water requires a massive
infrastructure of piping, pumps and water purification works. Hoover Dam, a concrete arch-gravity dam in the western United
States, is part of the tap water systems for several states. Consequently, tap water becomes a component of many of the
packaged beverages as well.
Soda and Bottle Water Production
The US beverage manufacturing and bottling industry includes about 3,000 companies. Major beverage companies include
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and the Dr Pepper Snapple Group. The industry includes manufacturers and distributors of soft drinks and
bottled water.
Figure 25: Product Segmentation by Revenue

Market Share
Soft drinks
Bottled Water

Source: Global Strategy, Inc.

Soda sales declined 0.6% last year through Dec. 30 to $28.70 billion at U.S. stores tracked by SymphonyIRI Group. In volume
terms, sales dropped 1.8%. The data don't include sales of soda in restaurants, vending machines, and some other venues.
Industry insiders say taking those outlets into account, overall soda sales revenue likely rose slightly last year.
While Coke, Pepsi, and Dr Pepper Snapple have all aggressively expanded their portfolios to include faster-growing products
like sports drinks and fruit juices, a prolonged drop in U.S. soda revenues would represent a serious blow. Soda represents
nearly 25% of the U.S. beverage market. Its massive scale has also guaranteed profit margins for decades.
About 60% of Coke's revenue in the U.S. is derived from carbonated soft drinks, compared with about 25% at PepsiCo. More
than 70% of sales at Dr Pepper Snapple, the No. 3 player, are from soda and about 90% of its revenue is from the U.S. Unlike
Coke and PepsiCo, though, it hardly sells any cola, which has suffered steep declines.
Coke and PepsiCo together spent about $20 billion in 2010 to acquire their biggest U.S. bottlers, increasing U.S. exposure and
thinning profit margins.
Soft drink manufacturing is a $47 billion industry in the United States based on revenue. It was forecast to generate a profit of
$2 billion in 2012. The industrys annual growth was 1.8% from 2005 to 2010, and it is expected to maintain this growth rate
between 2010 and 2015.
Coffee and Tea
After water, tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world. In many places, the boiling of water for tea is a traditional
method of reducing water borne bacteria. Coffee is a brewed drink prepared from the roasted seeds, commonly called coffee



beans, of the coffee plant. The coffee cherries that yield the seeds grow on trees in over 70 countries. Besides coffee and tea,
many other substances, from cocoa to Kool-Aid (a popular powdered childrens drink), can also flavor water.
Beverage Packing and Labels
In the North American beverage market, the most popular packaging material is plastic with over 40 percent of the market.
Bottles are the most popular packaging type with over 55 percent of the market. Experts predict that plastic as a packaging
material and bottles as a packaging type will provide the vast majority of incremental sales increases of beverage containers
over the next 10 years.
Common Characteristics
Both the nonalcoholic and alcoholic sides of the Beverage Industry are dominated by a few sizeable players and competition
among them is often intense. Changing consumer tastes adds to operating uncertainty. Pricing and margins frequently come
under pressure. Also, volatile commodity costs will challenge managements to protect profitability. Good operating efficiency
and cost-control practices, mostly on an ongoing basis, are important. Notably, the companies take care to hedge raw material
(e.g., aluminum and carbon dioxide) purchases. Missteps in reading the trends of ingredient prices can have a measurable
negative impact on earnings. Beverage makers with the most established brands produce the widest operating and net income
Government Influence
Much has changed since American Prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s. With the exception of a few counties and towns, the
prohibition of alcohol has been repealed in all U.S. states. Industry sales are considerable, and the federal government and
states see sin taxes as a good source of revenue. Authorities are also considering tax increases on soft drinks to curb citizens
sugar (corn syrup) intake and boost revenue. Incremental taxes have not hurt overall beverage demand, but, to a degree, they
have pressured sales of premium offerings.


Products produced in this industry are broadly referred to as soft drinks but can be further divided into six main segments
based on industry revenue:
Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSDs)

45% of industry revenue

Includes well-known brands and lesser-known household and private label brands sold in supermarkets and discount

Top brands: Coke (Coca-Cola), Pepsi (PepsiCo), Mountain Dew (PepsiCo), and Dr Pepper (Dr Pepper Snapple Group)

Accounts for 33% of the total volume of liquid soft drink produced in the Americas during 2009
Fruit Beverages

? of industry revenue

Includes 100% fruit juices, juice drinks (which contain less than 100% juice), and fruit-flavored drinks with no juice

Top brands: Tropicana (PepsiCo) and Minute Maid (Coca-Cola)



Figure 26: Market Leaders in the Soft Drink Industry

Market Share
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company


Source: Global Strategy, Inc.

Bottled Waters

12.6% of industry revenue

Includes bottled spring and filtered water along with flavored waters and waters enhanced with vitamins and minerals

Top brands of enhanced waters: Glacau Vitaminwater (Coca-Cola) and Propel (PepsiCo)
Functional Beverages

11.3% of industry revenue

Includes energy drinks, relaxation drinks, and ready-to-drink (RTD ) teas and coffees

Top brands of energy drinks: Red Bull (Red Bull) and Monster Energy (Hansen Natural)

Top brands of RTD s: Arizona (Hornell Brewing), Lipton (PepsiCo), Snapple (Dr Pepper Snapple Group), and Nestea
Sports Drinks

8.7% of industry revenue

Includes both liquid and powdered sports formulas

Top brand: Gatorade (PepsiCo)


7.2% of industry revenue

Includes ice manufacturing, dairy-based drinks, and soy-based drinks



Figure 27: Market share of soft drink

Market Share

Source: Global Strategy, Inc.


Major products include soft drinks (about 85 percent of industry revenue) and bottled water (about 15 percent).
Soft drinks include sodas (also referred to as carbonated soft drinks, or CSDs), as well as tea and coffee drinks,
sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit and vegetable drinks, and artificially carbonated water.
The soft drink industry is actually made up of two major manufacturing systems that, taken together, bring soft
drinks to the market. These two systems fall into distinct categories: (1) flavoring syrup and concentrate
manufacturing and (2) soft drink manufacturing. The supply chain is largely dependent on the syrup producer, as
this is the driver for most downstream operations. The majority of the bottled soft drinks follow a similar product
life cycle, moving from syrup producer, to bottler, to distributor (if used), to merchant, to final consumer. The
locations of the syrup manufacturers and the bottlers are closely linked to both the locations of strategic raw
materials and major population centers in the United States and/or areas that see above-average temperatures,
where demand for the soft drinks tends to be highest. Once soft drinks are bottled and ready for distribution, a
variety of distribution channels are leveraged to get the final product to the end consumer.
The two-tiered structure is most efficient for national companies with large volume, because the manufacturing
process is simple and because water, the main ingredient of sodas, is expensive to ship and is available locally.
Smaller companies combine the syrup production and bottling operations in one plant. For soft drink bottlers, the
major raw materials, aside from the flavored syrup, are corn syrup and containers - glass bottles, aluminum cans,
or plastic bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Bottlers frequently operate sizable distribution systems, including warehouses and fleets of specialized delivery
trucks. Production and distribution volume is usually measured in unit cases of 192 ounces (24 eight-ounce
servings), although actual cases of 12-ounce cans contain 288 ounces. In addition to producing canned and
bottled soft drinks, large manufacturers sell sweetened syrups to restaurants and other retailers that produce the
finished product at the point of sale by mixing the syrup with carbonated water to produce fountain products.
The manufacturing process for most noncarbonated beverages is usually more complicated than the
mixcarbonate-and-bottle soda process and therefore isn't usually handled by local bottlers. In most cases,


nonsoda products are bottled by the manufacturer and distributed through the same types of channels -wholesalers, distributors, brokers -- used by food manufacturers, although bottlers may also participate. Bottled
waters are either bottled at specific springs or made locally from filtered tap water.
Manufacturers and bottlers typically operate under contracts, called bottler agreements, that specify the territory within which
the bottler has an exclusive right to make, sell, and distribute the manufacturer's brand in bottles or cans. Fountain products
are often sold separately through wholesalers, under distributor agreements. Bottle and fountain territories may overlap and
bottlers may also be fountain distributors. Agreements often are perpetual and can be terminated only for breach of contract.
Bottler agreements usually require that container and packaging materials be bought from suppliers that are approved by the
manufacturer, and that the bottlers not handle competing products. Agreements also specify the price that the bottler must pay
for concentrate. The manufacturer has no control over the prices the bottler charges customers, and usually isn't obligated to
spend money for marketing or promotions in the bottler's territory. Often, however, the manufacturer will provide marketing
and promotion support. In 2010, for example, Coca-Cola provided about $5 billion in marketing support to bottlers, resellers,
and other buyers of its products.
The industry depends on technology for developing new products in the labs and packaging product at the plants. Most
bottling plants are highly automated with mechanical automation and computerized robotics.


Beverage manufacturers, bottlers, and wholesalers sell products through a variety of channels, such as food and convenience
stores, restaurants, vending machines, mass merchandisers, and institutions, including schools and colleges.
Retailing consists of the sale of drinks from a fixed location such as a convenience store, supermarket or bar in small or
individual lots for direct consumption by the purchaser. A bar is an establishment that serves drinks, especially alcoholic
beverages such as beer, liquor and cocktails for consumption on the premises. A supermarket is a self-service store offering a
wide variety of beverages, food and household merchandise for consumers to take away before consuming or using.
Soda bottlers typically own local vending machines. The marketing approach to each of these channels is quite different and
often includes promotional spending. Large manufacturers may also sell directly to national accounts and usually advertise on
national or regional TV and in print.
Manufacturers typically produce a line of brands and often test and introduce new products into the market through their
existing distribution channels.
Beverage manufacturers and bottlers typically have high gross margins, about 50 percent, and high marketing expenses.
Because of high product turnover with most customers, accounts are usually settled rapidly and accounts receivable are fairly
low. Inventories are also low because most raw materials are easily obtained and cheap.
Investment in equipment may be high, especially if the company manufactures products that require refrigeration. Supplier
contracts may specify that the costs of plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and sweeteners can rise if the costs of the underlying
commodities (PET resin, aluminum, and high-fructose syrup, respectively) rise, exposing bottlers to the commodity markets.
The industry is capital-intensive: average annual revenue per worker is about $480,000.
The industry is subject to the usual state and federal regulations that apply to any manufacturer, and to regulations that apply
to truck fleets and underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs). The manufacture of food products is subject to FDA regulations
under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. To reduce litter and promote recycling, a number of states, including New York and
California, require consumers to pay a refundable deposit on soda containers.
Most bottlers, and to some extent manufacturers, operate in defined territories, so growth is limited by local demographics.
With demand for soda flat, bottlers have turned to beverages such as ready-to-drink tea as soft drink sales soften. Local
bottlers compete with national companies such as Coke and Pepsi for shelf space in convenience and grocery stores.




US nondurable goods manufacturers' shipments of beverages, an indicator of beverage products and bottling production, rose
8 percent year-to-date in November 2012 compared to the same period in 2011.
The spot price of crude oil, which indicates energy prices paid by beverage manufacturers, fell 9.4 percent in the week ending
January 4, 2013, compared to the same week in 2012.
US retail sales for food and beverage stores, a potential measure of demand for beverages, increased 3.3 percent in 2012
compared to 2011.
The output of US soft drinks manufacturing is forecast to grow at an annual compounded rate of 2 percent between 2012 and
Figure 28: Growth rate of soft drink







Source: Global Strategy, Inc.

Soda Demand Slows - US sales of carbonated soft drinks (CSDs), particularly colas, have steadily declined since 2005. CSD
sales in 2011 reached their lowest level since 1996. The decline is mainly driven by consumer concerns about soda sugar
content and increased awareness of rising obesity and diabetes rates in the US. Consumers are also drinking more bottled
water, energy and sports drinks, and ready-to-drink teas. Although diet soft drinks are becoming more popular, companies like
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo maintain their flagship sugared brands.
Soft Drink Health Concerns - The large amounts of sugar in many sodas are believed to contribute strongly to the obesity
epidemic in US children. The relatively high levels of caffeine in diet sodas heavily consumed by teenage girls also are a
concern. Energy drinks have also been criticized as stimulants that should not be marketed to minors. As a result, federal and
state governments often discuss imposing taxes on sweetened beverages. Some public health groups also say a caramel coloring
ingredient in dark colas (4-methylimidazole, or 4-MEI) causes cancer. Although the FDA and soft drink makers say there is no
health risk, California recently banned 4-MEI. In response, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola also changed dark cola formulas for
California consumers to avoid warning labels. Many soda makers are also creating new diet or decaffeinated product versions
to improve health perceptions.
Sugary soft drinks have become a lightning rod in the U.S. for consumer health concerns, such as diabetes and obesity.
Meanwhile, baby boomers are aging, and soda's traditional target marketyouthis often turning to water, energy drinks and
coffee instead.
Criticism of School Contracts - Contracts between beverage manufacturers and school districts to maintain
vending machines in school cafeterias are being attacked by critics who believe that schools shouldn't encourage poor eating
habits by making high-calorie drinks easily available. A voluntary industry ban on sweetened beverages in schools began in


2006 in response to pressure from health groups and threats of litigation. But sodas are still sold in some schools, and many
criticize the industry for replacing high-sugar sodas in vending machines with highsugar and high-calorie juice drinks and
sports drinks.
Raw Material Costs - Ingredient and packaging material prices fluctuate, exposing beverage companies to cost increases.
Corn for high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), aluminum for cans, and glass for bottles are examples of commodities that
commonly experience price swings and cause challenges for the industry. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the petroleumbased resin used for drink bottles, is not a traded commodity. Beverage manufacturers cannot enter into fixed price contracts
for PET, which they often do to mitigate cost swings for commodities like aluminum. Volatile oil prices over the past several
years have caused fluctuating PET prices. Companies often have a hard time passing commodity price increases on to
customers, which can pressure profit margins.
Possible Regulation of Water Sources - Concerns and lawsuits continue to grow over the depletion of natural spring
water sources by bottled water operations. The problem, state officials say, is no one knows how much water the bottlers are
extracting or if they're straining water resources. The bottled spring water industry, which pipes its water straight from natural
springs or municipal water sources, is increasingly being attacked by government, utilities, and environmentalists.
Consolidation - With overall growth of the beverage market slow, national companies have grown through overseas sales and
acquisitions. Coca-Cola owns or markets more than 500 brands globally, PepsiCo, more than 20. Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo
recently acquired their leading bottlers, which distribute rival brands from Dr Pepper Snapple Group. Canada-based Cott, one
of the largest private-label soda makers, has also grown in recent years through the acquisition of local bottlers.
Brand Management - To distinguish their products from the large number of available competitors, manufacturers have
relied heavily on using familiar brand names for new products. For example, Coca-Cola comes in several different versions that
are sugar- or caffeine-free or both, but all under the Coca-Cola label. Gatorade and Tropicana orange juice are available in
many different versions. PepsiCo has agreements with Starbucks and Lipton to use their brand names on new beverages.
Environmentally Friendly Packaging - One way that beverage manufacturers can enhance their brand image and
promote sustainability is to introduce packaging made from recycled or biodegradable materials. Many beverages are packaged
in PET bottles, but bottled water has received more scrutiny than soft drinks, most likely because tap water is often an
available, more environmentally friendly option. To address consumer concerns, many water brands added eco-labels to
packaging. Coca-Cola introduced the plant bottle in 2010 that uses 30 percent biodegradable plant-based materials. PepsiCo
announced it will make bottles from 100 percent recyclable materials starting in 2012.

Ready-to-Drink Tea - As soft drink sales continue to drop, ready-to-drink (RTD) tea sales are rising. The volume of soft
drink sales fell for the seventh consecutive year in 2011, and the category also lost market share. Sales of RTD tea, on the other
hand, saw an increase of about 5 percent in 2011 compared to the previous year, according to Packaged Facts. Sales have grown
because of consumer demand for variety and healthier options. Many perceive tea as a healthier option than soda, even though
many times sweet tea has no less sugar. Both individual servings and gallon bottles of tea continue to grow in popularity.
Private-Label Products - Amid the perception by consumers that colas don't taste different, private-label sodas continue to
be popular with budget-minded consumers and local supermarkets. Even though they're priced lower than national brands,
private-label sodas have higher margins for grocers because they're cheaper to produce and don't have heavy marketing costs.
Cott has a large share of the private-label market, mainly because it supplies Wal-Mart, the nation's biggest retailer.
Convenience/Health Drinks - Consumers are buying more beverages that are substitutes for solid food, including drinks
loaded with vitamins and minerals. Manufacturers like Monster Beverage and PepsiCo's (maker of Naked Juice) are producing
refrigerated versions of smoothies for groceries and convenience stores. Coconut water is among the fastest-growing health
drinks. PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Dr Pepper Snapple Group have begun distributing coconut water in response to the rapid
success of VitoCoco, the top-selling coconut water brand. Healthrelated beverages also include single-serve nutrition drinks for
children and vitamin drinks for older adults. US sales of energy drinks increased almost 15 percent to $1.9 billion for the 52
weeks ending Dec. 2, 2012, according to data from SymphonyIRI Group reported by Supermarket News.



13. Private Label

U.S. retailer food brands, i.e. private label brands, are on track to achieve market penetration of between 25% and 30% in the
next decade, up from their current market share of under 20%. This projected growth, which would put the U.S. retail brand
segment on par with Europe in terms of market penetration, translates as one in every three food product purchases in the U.S.
being a retailer branded product by the year 2025.
In a new report titled "What Would Apple Do? How Can U.S. Branded Food Companies Withstand the Retailer Brand
Onslaught?", Rabobank's Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory group looks at drivers behind the rising power of U.S.
retailer brands that is, brands developed and sold by supermarkets and other food retailers. The report also proposes
strategies for consumer packaged goods companies to defend their national brands and/or to compensate for the loss of
market share to retail brands.
"Many national brand owners need to be bolder in their thinking and strategizing," says Nicholas Fereday , Rabobank analyst
and author of the report. "Instead of opting for low cost, low risk, conservative solutions, they need to think and act more like
the Apples of the world, innovating new game-changing food products and entering new categories. Alternatively, national
brand owners should consider downsizing brand-building efforts and diversifying their manufacturing into B2B activities."
No Longer "Cheap and Cheerless", Retailer Brands Are Powerful Competitors
Retailer brands have grown 6% over the past five years, compared with the sales of national branded packaged food
manufacturers which have grown just 2%.
The increasing competitive strength of retailer brands reflects a power shift from consumer packaged goods companies (CPGs)
to food retailers, as well as the growing trust and loyalty consumers have to today's innovative and high quality retailer brands.
"Retailer brands have matured from their original positioning as 'cheap and cheerless' generic products," says Nicholas
Fereday , Rabobank analyst and author of the report, "into a more diverse range of national brand equivalents and, more
recently, highly innovative premium products. On grocery shelves around the U.S., from convenience stores to upscale
supermarkets, retail brands now compete successfully and often win against national brands, earning consumer trust in terms
of pricing, quality, image and value."
Rising Consumer Acceptance and Loyalty for Retailer Brands
There are several factors driving retailer brand momentum:

Innovation and investment in brand management by retailers. Successful retailers have developed premium products,
employ sophisticated packaging, or have expanded into new categories such as the fast-growing chilled ready meats
segment. Retailers have also started to move into branded categories once thought impenetrable, such as candy and snack
food. Smart retailers now act like brand managers, following a multi-tiered approach by offering value brands, national
brand equivalents, and value-added premium brands. In 2011, retailer brands were estimated to account for nearly one
third of new food and beverage items in the U.S.


Retailer brands win on value in recessionary times, and rarely cede back ground in good times. At the height of the 2008
recession, retailer brand sales grew 14%, compared to 3% for national brands. Even after the official end to that recession,
consumers remained cautious and value-oriented, and growth in retailer brand sales has stayed 2% to 3% ahead of
national brands since 2010.


Retail consolidation and concentration increases the degree of retail brand penetration and power. Market share of the
top ten national retailers is just over 50%, although there is much more regional concentration. Retailer brands, an
integral part of Walmart's sales strategy, account for about 20% of Walmart's grocery sales, which in turn account for over
half of the chain's total sales. For other leading supermarkets, retailer brands make up between 19% to 26% of total sales.




Changing dynamics in the retail model: the rise of retailer brands in convenience stores, drugstores and online retailers;
and the emergence of hard discounters and dollar stores that offer retailer brands among a limited range of SKUs. Stores
like Target, which now derives 20% of sales from food, recognize the value of food as a driver of foot traffic and, in turn,
discretionary non-food purchases.

Survival Strategies for National Brands and Consumer Food Manufacturers

All national brands are feeling the retailer brand squeeze, to varying degrees. Besides traditional avenues to shore up brand
strength (ad spend, for example), two other options appear promising for consumer packaged goods companies in the U.S.

Real innovation. National brands employ a continuum of options, from promotions and co-branding to
reformulations to technological breakthroughs, but bold innovation should be part of the repertoire. National food
brands need to follow the creative model of other industries, funding research that will lead to radical new products
which address unmet consumer needs, or create wholly new categories. Currently more than three quarters of new
food products are line extensions or product derivatives.


Go to plan B2B diversify into B2B manufacturing for national brands and/or contract manufacturing for retail and
foodservice channels. A number of CPG companies who make national brands also make retailer brands, leveraging
strengths in R&D, operational knowhow, food safety, and category management to realize benefits of scale, increase
output and sales, and maximize profits.

13.1. FOOD
Over the past two decades, private label food products have grown steadily in sales and often directly compete for market share
with national brands. This competition lowers prices and increases product choices for consumers. This report analyzes the
relationship between private label and national brand product prices and in-store promotions for two major U.S. grocery store
chains during the 2007-2009 recession and the year following the recession (2010). Retailers promote private label products
(offer price discounts) strategically in response to national brand pricing promotions to protect private label market share
during national brand promotions. However, the extent of the retailer response varies widely across supermarket departments
and is also affected by both the density of food stores and the market share of supercenters within a market area. These
findings hold true regardless of the state of the economy, although the magnitude of the interaction between national brands
and private labels differs in times of recession and recovery.
One of the most striking changes in U.S. food retailing over the past two decades has been the rise of private labels (PLs), also
known as store brands. Retailers have expanded PL product offerings across the supermarket, and PLs have increased in
popularity, as measured by both dollar sales and shares within product categories. Promotional competition between PLs and
national brands (NBs) has the potential to benefit consumers through lower prices and expanded product choices.
In studies of food retailing, private label foods (PLs) generate interest because of the ways in which they differ from national
brands (NBs). NB products, regardless of the departments in which they are sold, travel from the farm gate to the consumers
dinner plate by way of branded food manufacturers and distributors. For example, Heinz Ketchup is a homogenous product
across every chain throughout the country in terms of taste and appearance.
In contrast, supermarkets obtain PLs through a form of vertical coordination or from manufacturers specializing in private
label products (Berges-Sennou et al., 2004). PLs are unique to the chains at which they are sold, or at least are so marketed.
Nearly every supermarket chain in the country offers at least
one PL ketchup in addition to NB ketchups.
Recent trends illustrate the evolution of PLs and their importance in food retailing. For example, the Food Institute Report
(2011) notes that PL sales grew an average of 4.5% per year from 2003 through 2010. Sales for packaged NBs fell during the
same period. PLs have improved in quality relative to NBs (Consumer Reports, 2010). They have also increased in total
product offerings, as most supermarkets today offer at least one PL option in nearly all product categories (The Food Institute,



The Food Industry Review (The Food Institute, 2012) demonstrates that much of this growth comes at the expense of NB
sales. Food product categories with the most gains relative to NBs include baking ingredients and snacks. From 2005 through
2011, total channel sales (those involving NBs) increased by $24 billion, or about 8%, while PL sales increased by $10 billion,
or 18%. Hence, PLs gained over 2 % of the NB market share during the 5-year span.
Figure 29: Dollar Trend Sales for Supermarkets ($ Billion)










Total Channel

Private Label

Source: Packaged Facts 2012

Retailers are increasingly using PLs as a means to differentiate themselves from competitors. In addition to standard flagship
PLs that bear firm names, supermarkets are offering more premium and organic brands, such as Safeways SELECT and O
Organics, Krogers Private Selections and Naturally Preferred, and Giants Natures Promise (Martinez, 2007). These
premium PLs serve not only to distinguish supermarket chains product lines from one another but also to place NBs and PLs
more directly in price and quality competition.

Currently, some of the strongest private label beverage categories are bottled water, powdered beverage concentrates and 100
percent juice. Bottled water and 100 percent juice are commodity-based categories, so the price of the product becomes more
important. Powdered beverage concentrates is a category thats sold on value.
According to SymphonyIRI Group, Chicago, in the 52 weeks ending July 10, 2011 in supermarkets, drug stores, mass
merchandisers, club stores, gas and convenience stores, excluding Walmart, U.S. dollar sales for national branded bottled
water products totaled $4.9 billion, while private label bottled water dollar sales totaled nearly $1.3 billion. Using the same
qualifications, national branded bottled juices totaled $3.8 billion, while private label totaled $666.6 million.
Consumers arent necessarily purchasing private-label products only for the value aspect anymore. According to market
research companies, private labels reputation has changed.
Consumers formerly viewed private label brands as those geared toward people on tight budgets who are unable to afford the
best. Nielsen research shows that three-quarters of consumers believe store brands are a good alternative to name brands, and
two out of three agree that quality is also on par.



44 percent of grocery shoppers believe store brand products are of better quality today than they were five years ago, according
to Mintel research. Thirty-nine percent of respondents who identify themselves as the primary grocery shopper of their
household say they would recommend a store brand product. Thirty-four percent say they dont believe theyre giving anything
up, such as flavor or prestige, by using store brands. Furthermore, only 19 percent believe its worth paying more for national
brand products.
However, in the beverage industry, these statistics change depending on the category. For instance, in the soft drinks category,
national brands have worked to build brand equity, keeping many consumers from even considering private label soft drinks.
With regard to carbonated soft drinks, most analysts believe that Coke and Pepsi have done a very good job over the years of
establishing their brands and what people expect from it, and private labels not as strong in carbonates.
But that doesnt mean private label beverages cant adapt. Although many retailers are competing with national brands, some
are offering unique and innovative varieties. Save-A-Lot, Earth City, Mo., recently introduced a soft drink called Mountain
Holler Red Howl, which is a citrus-flavored beverage with a taste of cherry.
Additionally, Safeway, Pleasanton, Calif., launched a line of Refreshe flavored waters in Raspberry Acai, Pomegranate Acai
Blueberry, Cranberry Raspberry and Strawberry and Kiwi varieties. The waters are calorie-, sodium- and caffeine-free and
enhanced with vitamins B3, B5 and B12.
Bentonville, AR-based Sams Club offered a seasonal juice drink, Members Mark Blackberry Flavored Lemonade from
concentrate. This summer, the club store sold two 96-ounce bottles for $4.48, according to Mintels Global New Products
In 2010, Austin-based Whole Foods Market stores introduced the first private label refrigerated organic almond milk under its
365 Organic Everyday Value brand, the company says.
Some of the strong private label brands are the upper-tier store brands where retailers are offering a quality product for a good
price, Haffner says. He notes that private label products are getting more competitive in the ready-to-drink tea segment.
The RTD tea segment] has grown substantially, so its becoming a much larger segment that is able to attract the attention of
private label.
For the 52 weeks ending July 10, 2011 national brands of canned and bottled tea totaled nearly $1.3 billion while private label
brands of canned and bottled tea totaled $34.5 million, according to SymphonyIRI Group, in supermarkets, drug stores, mass
merchandisers, club stores, gas and convenience stores, excluding Walmart.
Lower pricing has been the single biggest driver [for private label beverages], says Zenith International. Other factors have
been improving quality, quick response innovation and intelligent segmentation. The latest steps have been in the expansion of
in-house brands.
In summer 2011, Fresh & Easy, El Segundo, Calif., introduced a line of private label coffee in multiple varieties.
[The introduction of the new line] makes private label look like national brands by offering a wide range of items, said
Jonathon Asher, senior vice president of Perception Research Services, in a June 2011 article on PL Buyers website,
The coffee line consists of Donut Shop coffee, a Fair Trade blend, whole bean blends and trial size blends in a variety of flavors,
including Cinnamon and Hazelnut, the article states.
Also in 2011, Deerfield, IL-based Walgreens stores launched the private label beer brand Big Flats 1901, supplied by the Winery
Exchange. Comparable in taste and quality to the top-selling national brand beers, Big Flats 1901 is available in cans in sixpacks for $2.99 and 24-packs for $11.49, the company says. The beer is made with six-row barley malt, corn grits, hops from
Yakima Valley and bottom fermenting yeast, it adds. This summer, the brand expanded with a Light variety, also retailing for
$2.99 a six-pack.


As far as trends in [private label] beer, we are experiencing explosive growth in the private label beer portfolio, most
significantly in craft beer and premium domestic cans, says Jennifer Verdon, public relations and marketing coordinator at
the Winery Exchange. Some of our established brands, like Tap Room 21 with Kroger, are now standalone brands in the eyes
of the consumer. This brand was launched in 2007 and has seen tremendous growth. For some of our new programs, we are
delivering to an underserved market and see customers eager to accept these private label brands. Consumers are initially
drawn to our price points and innovative packaging designs, she says. It is the superior quality that keeps them coming back
for more.
A pricing study conducted by PLMA discovered that consumers can save more than 35 percent, on average, off of their grocery
bills by opting for the retailers brands. The study looked at a range of basic food and non-food items that an average family
might put on its summer shopping lists and compared store brands versus national brands. Consumers can save as much as 50
percent on cola, according to the study. The typical national brand unit price for cola is $1.58 while the typical store brand unit
price is $0.79, it adds.
According to the PLMA 2011 Private Label Yearbook, shoppers who reached for the store brand version of their favorite
products rather than the national brand in all U.S. outlets enjoyed an estimated $28 billion in savings in 2010.
In total outlets, including U.S. supermarkets, drug stores and mass merchandisers, including Walmart, annual private label
sales have increased by $4.5 billion, or 5 percent, during a three-year period, Nielsens report states. Retail sales were $84
billion in 2008 and $88.5 billion in 2010. Similarly, the annual store brand units have increased by $1.5 billion, or 4 percent,
from $38.6 billion in 2008 to $40.1 billion in 2010, it adds.
When comparing 2010 to 2009, however, there was less activity. Sales of store brands in total outlets were up $1.5 billion, or
1.8 percent, in 2010 compared to 2009. Private label dollar share rose by 0.4 points to 17.4 percent and unit share stayed flat at
21.8 percent.
Although the economic downturn opened the door for private label, Euromonitors Haffner doesnt expect it to falter as the
economy recovers.
Private labels a high-quality product and the quality of it has improved over the years, Haffner explains. As people may have
gone to the product because of price, they found that there isnt that much of a quality difference from the branded players. So I
dont expect theyll decline much as the economy improves.


Economically speaking, there are now two U.S. consumer groups: those who have surfaced from the recession and those still
under water. The wealthiest one-fifth of consumers posted more frequent shopping trips and higher spending in 2011 versus
2009, while the remaining 80 percent of the population lost ground on both dimensions.
This bi-polar consumer picture may explain the upward growth trajectory of store brands, as lower income consumers exhibit a
slightly stronger commitment to private label than their higher-earning counterparts. But their store brand preference isnt
driven exclusively by price. Lower income households perceived private label product quality to be as good as or some
higher quality than national brands.
Predictably, attitudinal attachment to store brands and store brand dollar share both decline as income rises. Affluent
households pursue an earn more/spend more strategy, purchasing 52 percent more national branded goods than households
with annual incomes less than $20,000.
A comparison of the Top 10 private label product favorites among the lowest and highest income groups underscores some
significant differences in purchase patterns. For example, pet food holds the number five spot among low income households,
with annual sales of $18,327 per 1,000 households and a sales rate 30 percent higher than affluent families. Conversely, pet
food plummets to number eleven among high income earners, with annual sales of $14,344 per 1,000 households.
Income disparity offers retailers an opportunity to pursue a tiered store brand strategy, with high/medium/low price levels
attracting different consumer segments.



Diverse store brand assortment & support required to meet diverse demand
Figure 30: Top 10 store brand $ sales per 1,000 households by demographic group

Household Income < $20,000

Household Income $100,000+









Bread & Baked Goods


Paper Products


Paper Products


Bread & Baked Goods








Unprep Meat/Seafood


Packaged Meat




Unprep Meat/Seafood


Packaged Meat




Dressing/Salad/Prep Deli


Source: Nielsen Homescan; Total U.S., 52 weeks ending 05/21/2011; UPC-coded

Although Hispanics maintain the most positive attitudes toward store brands among the four major ethnic groups, they remain
much stronger branded buyers than African-Americans and Asians based on respective dollar buying rates. However,
Hispanics also post a store brand buying rate just nine percent below that of White Non-Hispanics, a much smaller gap than
that of African-Americans [23 percent lower] and Asians [25 percent lower].
Figure 31: Multicultural households are relatively bigger brand spenders

How will population growth impact store brand growth?

Index vs. Non-Hispanic

Source: Nielsen Homescan, Total U.S. 52 weeks ending 05/21/2011; UPC-coded



As for the top 10 best-selling store brands among Hispanic households, the product rank order parallels that of White NonHispanics, although the absolute category sales rates for Hispanics are lower. Among the third decile tier of top-selling store
brand categories for Hispanics and Non-White Hispanics, ranking differences emerge between the lists.
Due to the higher Hispanic birth rate, disposable diapers wrap up the number 28 position, but drop to number 56 on the
corresponding White Non-Hispanic roster. Given their overall positive perception of store brands, the Hispanic community
comprises a high potential audience for private label products.
Millennials, the shopper segment born between 1981 and 2000, embrace store brands unreservedly, recording the highest
store brand dollar share [18.8 percent] and most positive attitude toward store brands of any generation. Nevertheless, with
household formations more likely to include kids, the private label dollar buying rate among Gen X is eight percent greater
than the average household.
However, the influence of these young consumers pales in comparison with the sheer spending power and household size of
the Baby Boomer [born 1946-1964] and Generation X [born 1965-1980] age cohorts.
Comparing Greatest Generation [born 1922-1945] and Boomer store brand shopping preferences reveals striking similarities,
with identical categories listed and only the rank order and buying rates changing with each generation. Drilling down by
generation underscores the influence of age and household composition on product purchase patterns, guiding retailers toward
making the right trading area assortment decisions.
Diverse store brand assortment & support required to meet diverse demand
Figure 32: Top 10 store brand $ sales per 1,000 households by demographic group

Greatest Generation (prior to 1946)

Boomers (1946-1964)









Bread & Baked Goods


Bread & Baked Goods


Paper Products


Paper Products








Pet Food


Pet Food


Fresh Produce


Fresh Produce




Packaged Meat


Unprep Meat/Seafood


Unprep Meat/Seafood


Packaged Meat


Source: Nielsen Homescan; Total U.S., 52 weeks ending 05/21/2011; UPC-coded

Many retailers capture a higher share of store brand dollars by organizing their private label lines into tiers: a value tier
representing the opening price point; a mid-priced tier of national brand equivalents for price-and-compare shoppers; and
aspremium tier featuring unique, locally-sourced, natural orsorganic items that dont necessarily use the store name.



Different tiers appeal to different shopper segments. Mid-tier store brand lines comprise the largest segment by far on a dollar
sales basis, drawing in the mainstream loyals and two low spend shopper groups. The two downscale shopper segments
represent big value tier store brand buying potential, while premium tier store brand offerings pull in upscale premium
Figure 33: Store brand $ share varies by department

Source: Nielsen Homescan, Total U.S. 52 weeks ending 05/21/2011; UPC-coded



14. Foodservice
The Foodservice Industry is generally categorized based on type of eating establishment, such as full service restaurant, limited
service restaurant, fast casual restaurant (also referred to as quick service restaurant or QSR) and snack and beverage
restaurant. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing food services (except snack and
nonalcoholic beverage bars) where patrons generally order or select items and pay before eating. Food and drink may be
consumed on premises, taken out, or be delivered to the customers location. Some establishments in this industry may provide
these food services in combination with selling alcoholic beverages.


Sales at restaurants and drinking places reached $476.7 billion in 2011, up 6.1% from 2010. Sales are forecast to rise by 4.2% in
2012, 4.1% in 2013, and 4.4% in 2014 ($562.5 billion). In 2011, full-service restaurants sales rose 8.1% during 2011, generating
$234.7 billion, some 49% of all sales. Limited-service eating place sales rose 4.5% during 2011, generating $220.0 billion, or
some 46% of total sales. Sales at drinking places rose 3% to $21.9 billion.
Figure 34: 2011 Market Share of restaurants


2011 Market Share


Drinking Places

Source: IBISWorld 2012

Snack & beverage restaurant performance has been mixed: all but one major coffeecentric brand (Caribou Coffee) has grown
same-store sales during 2005-2010, while same-store sales at ice cream operator Baskin-Robbins and smoothie purveyor
Jamba Juice have declined. But momentum is positive: compared to Q3 2010, Q3 2011 same store sales at all players were
positive, and two-year cumulative comparisons are also all positive.



Figure 35: Sales at Restaurants and Drinking Places (2006-2014)

Total restaurant and drinking places

Limited-service eating places

Full-service restaurants
Drinking places














$234.7 $244.1 $253.9

$220.0 $229.9
$200.9 $211.4
$186.4 $194.8 $203.2 $204.3




















Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Same-store sales momentum at leading QSR players is mixed: compared to Q3 2010, Q3 2011 sales at four players are above
100, while those at four other players are negative. Among fast casual players, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Panera Bread and
Qdoba have robustly grown same-store sales. Asian concept Pei Wei has come back to earth, and Rubios, Einstein Noah and
(especially) Cosi have been mired in sales declines.
Moving through 2011, the family restaurant picture is less bleak, with more players indexing toward 100 (the point at which
sales trends are no longer negative). In comparison to annual trends, Dennys sales are improving while those at Cracker Barrel
are worsening.
While sales are now trending positively, many casual restaurant chains have yet to reach same-store sales levels they achieved
prior to the recession, which means that, store for store, they are simply not bringing in as much revenue as they did before.
2011 has brought a moderate rebound to the fine dining segment. But the hill back to 2007 remains very steep.
The number of lower-income and high-income households grew during 2007-2010, while the number of middle-income
households declined. Because restaurant spending correlates significantly to HH income, household movement downstream
bodes ill for the industry.
Consumers aged 65+ spent more on limited-service restaurants (13%) and full-service restaurants (1%) in 2010 than they did
in 2007; younger consumers also spent a great deal more on limited service restaurants (17%) and full-service restaurants
(34%) in 2010 than they did in 2007.Under 25s and 65+s are also driving restaurant spending by daypart. $100K+ households
generate more than one-third of spending on meals at restaurants, even though they comprise only 17.1% of all households.



Figure 36: Restaurant Usage by Major Segment, 3 Year Growth Index (2008-2011)



3-Year Growth Index

All restaurants
Percentage use
Usage population




Full-service restaurant
Percentage use
Usage population




Limited service restaurant

Percentage use
Usage population




Snack and beverage

Percentage use
Usage population




Total adult population




Source: 2011 Experian Simmon NCS

The downward migration in consumer household incomes during 2008-2011 has serious ramifications for restaurant industry.
From the standpoint of restaurant traffic, restaurant visits are being driven by significantly increased numbers of lower-income
individuals and lower numbers of higher-income individuals. Some 98.1 million (or 43.5%) of adult respondents to the
Summer 2011 Simmons Experian NCS say they have household incomes of less than $50,000up 16% from 2008; during the
same period, adults reporting household incomes $50,000+ dropped by 5%.
Population growth has come to the restaurant industrys rescue. Industry analysts estimate that the number of restaurant visits
actually grew by 3% during 2008-11, based entirely on population growth, not usage penetration. During 2008-11, full-service
restaurant use grew by 1% while the percentage of users declined by 2%; limited-service restaurant use grew by 3% while the
percentage of users remained flat; snack & beverage use remained flat, while the percentage of users declined by 3%.
Hispanic, black and Asian consumers are also driving growth, with their visits increasing for each restaurant segment,
corresponding roughly to their respective general population increases during this period of time. Growth in the number of
restaurant breakfast (5%) and snack (8%) users outpaced population growth during 2008-2011. The percentage of breakfast
and restaurant snack users also increased, reaching 32% and 19% respectively.


According to the National Restaurant Associations Whats Hot in 2011 survey, local/sustainable and healthfulness trends are
top of mind, with four different local trends cracking the top 15.

Chicken has nearly universal restaurant industry penetration, with 97% of restaurants featuring chicken as/in an
appetizer, entre or side, with little variation by restaurant segment. Fish, on the other hand, reaches 50%
penetration, with casual and fine dining restaurants each more than 20% more likely than average to offer it on the
The potato takes a bow as the most highly penetrated side item on the menu, with more than 6 in 10 restaurants
offering a potato as a side (although fine dining restaurants are almost 40% likely than average to do so). Chips, on
the other hand, while offered by almost 4 in 10 restaurants, are more likely found at a quick-service restaurant.
A number of vegetables, such as spinach, broccoli and carrots, make the list, with their presence skewed generally to
full-service restaurants (midscale, casual and fine dining).



Childrens menu items are generally more apt to be found at full-service restaurants (especially casual restaurants)
and least likely to be found at quick-service restaurants. The nugget, an old standby, reigns, with almost 6 in 10
restaurants featuring childrens fare offering nuggets.
Restaurant health claim penetration is highly dependent on the specific health claim made. While organic and natural
claims are more to be likely found on casual and fine dining menus, fat free and low fat claims are most likely to be
found on QSR menus.
All natural and organic are not only the most prevalent health claims on menus, but their menu presence has grown
during 2007-2011. Other health claims that have gained traction during 2007-2011 include whole grain, multi grain
and sugar free.
Some 21% of restaurants feature a broiled entre, appetizer or side on the menu. Quickservice restaurants, however,
index at 37 for broilingor 63% less likely than average to feature that preparation method. In fact, quick-service
restaurants are far less likely to feature most of the more popular preparation methods, in part because these
restaurants do not generally emphasize cooking technique.
Mexican-influenced menu items comprise almost 10% of menu items nationwide, with the highest percentage found
on casual restaurant menus. Caribbean menu items (Cuban, Jamaican, etc.) and South American menu items each
comprise only 0.5% of menu items nationwide.


Health and wellness trends shaping the restaurant industry include obesity and calorie count trends; health and food away
from home correlations; government and industry health initiatives; and menu labeling effectiveness.

Obesity now accounts for 9.1% of all medical spending. Overall, an obese patient has $4,871 in medical bills a year
compared with $3,442 for a patient at a healthy weight.
The number of calories consumed has increased from 2,169 in 1970 to 2,594 in 2009, a 19.6% jump. However, calorie
intake has actually dropped from the peak reached in 2002.
According to USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) data, between 1989-91 and 2007-08, the fraction of daily
calories from food away from home increased from about a quarter to more than a third, while the fraction of total
household food expenditures on food away from home increased from 21% to 26%.
USDA data shows that people who rate their diet as excellent eat food prepared away from home, on average, a little
over three times per week, while those who rated their diets as poor ate food away from home nearly six times per
According to a 2011 study, young adults who frequently eat food from burger-and-fries fast-food restaurants are at
increased risk for overweight/obesity and poor dietary intake.
The past few years have seen an avalanche of government and industry action geared toward addressing consumer
healthfulness, including MyPlate, HealthierUS School Challenge and Kids Livewell.
According to a 2011 study, mandatory menu labeling had no significant impact on monthly transactions and calories
sold per transaction.
Menu labeling is expected to have a clear educational effect that will impact point-of-purchase decisions over time.
Never before have restaurant patrons had widespread opportunity to assess the nutritional profile of what they are
ordering. This, with continued pushes to educate while minimizing confusion, will alter long-term ordering habits.
Children as young as 1-3 years already bypass the daily recommended 4 teaspoons per day, typically consuming
around 12 teaspoons.
According to the CDC, almost all U.S. adults and children exceed the dietary guidelines for salt, putting them at risk
for hypertension and heart disease.
0n 2011 menus, organic and natural claims were the most predominant, with 15.7% of restaurants featuring a natural
claim and 13.5% featuring an organic claim. The tendency to market these claims on the menu corresponds to price
Mini on the menu continues to grow, but the trend is losing steam. Some 8.6% of restaurants featured a mini
menu item in 2010, up only a hair from 8.5% in 2010, up from 5.9% in 2007.


With some of the lowest price points in the restaurant industry and a strong foothold in breakfast and snacking, snack and
beverage restaurant are poised to outperform the industry. Coffee-driven concepts, as well as those that seek to meet health
and wellness need states while delivering on convenience and quality, should perform especially well.


Snack & Beverage performance has been mixed: all but one of the coffee-centric brands (Caribou Coffee) have grown samestore sales for virtually every coverage period, while same store sales at ice cream operator Baskin-Robbins and smoothie
purveyor Jamba Juice have declined during virtually every period.
Starbucks is trending the strongest, with Q3 2010-2011 same-store sales indexing at 110 and Q3 2009-2011 same-store sales
indexing at 118, translating to 10% and 18% sales growth per store during these time periods.
During the recession, quick-service restaurants were the natural beneficiaries of restaurant industry trade-down (whereby
consumers migrate downward to restaurants with lower price points) . Less treat-driven than some of their snack and beverage
competitors, they were also less susceptible to consumers trading out, into the home.
But as the recession bottomed, same-store sales at many quick-service restaurant chains turned negative. With the spurt of
trade down-driven guest traffic behind it, the segment overly relied on extreme affordability strategies (in the form of a
plethora of dollar deals and very low-price point promotions) that did little to garner loyalty beyond the end of the promotion.
The largest players have performed well, most notably industry giant McDonalds, which continues to operate with profit
margins well above most of its competitors. With its already massive footprint, we believe McDonalds is soaking up the lions
share of QSR segment growth, leaving little room for other players to gain traction.
Within the QSR segment, fast casual operators continue to outperform their QSR competitors, largely because leading brands
such as Chipotle Mexican Grill and Panera Bread continue to avoid steep promotional discounting and, with positive health,
quality and ambience brand images, they continue to draw from a customer pool less affected by the recession.
With restaurant concepts generally perceived by consumers to be more healthful and of better quality than many of their fast
food/QSR brethren, fast casual players came into the recession with a leg up on the competition. By continuing to
differentiate their brands on quality, healthfulness, and ambience, these players have an opportunity to appeal not only to
traditional QSR customers, but also to former casual restaurant customers seeking a positive but less expensive restaurant
experience. In part because of this positioning, fast casual players weathered the recession relatively well, buoyed by industryleading unit growth and largely positive same-store sales.


According to proprietary consumer research conducted by Packaged Facts in June 2011, some 85% of consumers age 18-24
have gotten breakfast, lunch, dinner or a snack from a fast food/QSR in the past month, compared to 79% of all consumers.
Similarly, 36% of consumers age 18-24 have gotten prepared foods for breakfast, lunch, dinner or a snack from a convenience
store/gas station in the past monthmaking them 50% more likely than average to do so. Both foodservice concepts also
perform well among 25-34s. The tendency for younger consumers to use these foodservice options underscores some
important similarities between them, such as later hours; quick, portable meal options; and low price.
However, while fast food maintains usage rates above 90% among all age groups, convenience store usage plummets among
consumers age 55+, with 65s+ half as likely as the average to get food from convenience stores. This follows general
convenience store usage trends, but may also underscore a mismatch between convenience foodservice offerings (which are not
generally perceived as healthful) and the needs of older consumers.
Some 21% of white consumers use convenience store foodservice, whereas more than 30% of Hispanic, black, and Asian
consumers do so. Convenience store foodservice is also more likely to be used by urban respondents than by suburban or rural
respondents. Dinner is a minor convenience store foodservice item, in part because this has never been generally associated
with convenience stores and because convenience stores have not moved to offer more competitive dinner-oriented programs
but this is changing.
Snacking is a convenience store stronghold, a consequence of the segments mixture of low price, portability, quick service and
location-driven convenience.Snacking is more likely among 18-24s, those with $100K+ HH incomes, and females. As females
are less likely than men to obtain prepared foods from convenience stores, targeting this group with healthful, snack worthy
food items may incent trial and use.



Industry companies provide food services at institutional, governmental, commercial or industrial locations. Examples of
facilities where food services are provided include airports, food courts, college and university cafeterias and recreation and
sports venues.
The three main service segments in the Food Service Contractors industry include preparing food and beverages for
consumption on premises, providing food and beverages for carryout and serving alcoholic drinks on premises.
On premises
The largest industry service segment involves preparing food and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on premises. Over
the last five years, the relative size of this service segment has shrunk; in 2007, it accounted for 67.5% of revenue; however, in
2012 it is expected to account for only 63.3% of revenue. This decline is due to changing consumer tastes and an increasingly
time-poor population. Many consumers do not have the time to sit and eat at cafeterias; instead they are opting for quicker
snack and beverage outlets. The health concerns associated with some foods served at sit-down cafeterias may have also driven
consumers to go to different types of restaurants.
The second-largest service segment in this industry includes providing food and nonalcoholic beverages for carryout. This
segment has grown from 28.2% of industry revenue in 2007 to 31.7% in 2012. It has increased its share of revenue due to an
increasingly time-poor population and peoples food preferences shifting toward to-go foods.
The smallest segment in this industry is alcoholic beverages served on premises. This product segment has grown slightly over
the last five years. In 2007, it accounted for 1.7% of revenue; however, in 2012, it is estimated to account for 2.2% of revenue.

Figure 37: Product and Services Segmentation (2012): Total $32.6 billion

2% 1%



Food & Beverages Served OnPremises

Food & Beverages Served OffPremises
Alcoholic Drinks Served OnPremises
Rented Public Rooms and

Source: IBISWorld 2012

Most food service contractors provide catering services at the clients own premises or meeting rooms. In addition to the
service segments mentioned above, some large operators are increasingly providing full or bundled services to clients,
including cleaning, maintenance and security, under one contract.
Over the five years to 2012, revenue for the Food Service Contractors industry was projected to grow at a marginal average
annual rate of 0.4% to $32.6 billion. After a disappointing 2009, when revenue declined 4.3% due to the struggling economy,
revenue climbed back up 1.4% in 2010 and 3.1% in 2011. During 2011, health, correctional, educational and sports facilities
outsourced their catering functions to industry firms, driving revenue growth. Revenue is expected to increase an additional
4.4% in 2012.


In 2009, the declining domestic economy and rising unemployment rate forced people to become more selective regarding how
they spent their disposable incomes. As a result, consumer spending fell 1.9%. As people cut spending, they were less likely to
spend money on nonessential activities like eating out at restaurants and cafeterias, causing demand for industry services to
However, consumer spending rose 1.8% in 2010 and 2.5% in 2011, leading to greater demand for food service contractors.
Consumer spending is forecast to rise an additional 1.9% in 2012.
With the economy having improved since 2010, and some recessionary fears subsiding, consumers are treating themselves to
meals at cafeterias, sporting events and other industry-served facilities more frequently. This trend is expected to result in
increased demand for food service contractors going forward. The outsourcing of catering services by correctional, education
and healthcare (including elderly care) facilities will provide continued growth prospects for operators. Bundling food services
within broader facilities management contracts for clients will also drive growth.
Over the five years to 2017, industry employment is expected to grow an average 1.5% per year to 449,852 employees. During
the same period, the number of establishments will grow at an average annual rate of 1.7% to reach 23,256 locations. An
anticipated growth in revenue and the expansion of some service contracts is expected to drive this growth in employees and
establishments. Over the five years to 2017, industry revenue is forecast to grow an average 3.2% per year to $38.3 billion.
The industry is affected by changes in consumer spending. Changes in interest and tax rates and employment partly determine
consumption. Higher consumer spending causes people to eat out more, boosting demand for food service contractors. This
driver is expected to increase slowly in 2013 and is a potential opportunity for the industry.
Trends in employment and investment in the manufacturing sector affect demand for outsourced catering services, influencing
expenditure on canteen items (i.e. restaurant or refreshment bar items provided by an industrial or commercial entity). Since
2008, significant restructuring has occurred in the manufacturing sector, particularly in automobile manufacturing, which has
adversely affected demand for catering services. This driver is expected to increase in 2013.
The weak economy and rapid unemployment growth have battered the Food Service Contractors industry throughout the past
few years. However, the industry has managed to mitigate its losses due to the long-term trend of healthcare facilities, prisons
and educational institutions outsourcing their food service functions. This trend has provided continued opportunities for
growth in an otherwise down economy. Over the five years to 2012, revenue is expected to grow at an average annual rate of
0.4%. Industry revenue declined 4.3% in 2009 and partly bounced back in 2010 and 2011, increasing 1.4% and 3.1%,
respectively. In 2012, revenue was projected to grow 4.4% to $32.6 billion.
As the economy fell deeper into a recession and unemployment rose, consumers became more selective about how they spent
their disposable incomes. In 2009, consumer spending declined 1.9%, and luxuries like eating out were some of the first
expenditures to go. Some consumers cut meals outside the home from their budgets entirely and opted to save money by eating
in. While some industry customers, such as retirement communities and correctional facilities, are insulated from these
changes, sporting venues and educational institutions felt the pinch from consumers declining incomes.
This trend reversed in 2010 and 2011, with consumer spending increasing an estimated 1.8% and 2.5%, respectively; it is
expected to grow an additional 1.9% in 2012. Because the economy has consistently improved since 2010, some of the fears
surrounding the state of the economy have subsided. As a result, analysts estimate that more consumers will treat themselves
to meals and snacks outside the home, ultimately benefiting food service contractors.
Despite recession-related declines in demand for industry services, demand for outsourced catering services from correctional,
elderly care, health, educational, recreational and sports facilities has increased. By outsourcing nonessential functions like
catering, these institutions can focus on their core service activities and not worry about running a kitchen or cafeteria.
Outsourcing catering functions also allows these institutions to accurately budget their food and catering costs, since they
generally use fixed-price contracts, which are not subject to the variability in food, labor and equipment costs associated with
running a cafeteria. Additionally, major industry players have moved toward offering full services to clients, ranging from
catering to maintenance to security services.



In an increasingly competitive market, it is important for food service contractors to retain and expand existing contracts and
seek out new growth opportunities. They can take advantage of these opportunities through mergers and acquisitions or
international expansion. Successful firms must also provide clients with menu choices and dining options at different price
points. Over the past few years, it has also become important for food service contractors to offer healthier foods.
Over the five years to 2017, analysts forecast industry revenue will increase at an average annual rate of 3.2% to $38.3 billion.
The Food Service Contractors industry showed its first signs of postrecession growth in 2010, when revenue increased 1.4%; it
is expected to resume its long-term growth trend from 2011 onward. In 2013, revenue is expected to grow 3.0% to $33.6
billion. Food service contractors will benefit as the economy improves, unemployment rates decline and consumers resume
spending on luxuries like eating out. In fact, over the next five years, consumer spending is expected to increase at an average
annual rate of 2.8%. Food service contractors will also benefit from stronger growth in downstream markets, which will start
employing workers again, increasing demand for catering services.
Outsourcing catering services in the correctional, educational and healthcare (including nursing homes and elderly care
facilities) industries will provide growth prospects for operators. Catering will also continue to be bundled with other services
such as security and cleaning as part of single facilities management contracts. Contracting management companies will
coordinate these contracts, so strategic alliances with suitable partners will be vital to some firms success over the next five
Growth in the longer term will likely remain solid among sports, recreation, entertainment and leisure (including tourist
attractions) facilities, and with elderly care, nursing home and childcare facilities. Some growth in outsourced catering
contracts from the education and health sectors is expected; however, these customers are less profitable than others.
Hospitals will likely continue to shorten their patients length of stay through improved surgical techniques and more daytime
surgery admissions. These factors will increase the number of patients going through hospital doors, but they will also reduce
the amount of food that each patient requires during their stay. Growth from the defense industry will also be sluggish as
overseas troop deployments progressively decline.
Food service contractors service several major markets, including manufacturing, industrial and mining; education; sports and
recreation industries; airport and airline industries; and government and healthcare industries.
Manufacturing, industrial and mining
Catering for the manufacturing, industrial and mining industries (including remote locations like oil rigs) accounts for about
25.0% of industry revenue. This segment services industrial customers. This market segment has shrunk over the five years to
2012 due to the declines that these industries experienced.
College and university
College and university catering is estimated to be about 32.0% of industry revenue. This segment has experienced aggressive
growth over the five years to 2012, especially with the continuing rise in enrollments and more stringent food safety and
handling regulations.
Recreation and sports
It is estimated that recreation and sports catering represent 20.0% of the market. This segment is sensitive to consumer travel
patterns and expenditure on recreation. Therefore, it is very sensitive to any spike in unemployment, which the United States
has been experiencing since 2008. Still, the recreation and sports components of this market have grown during the five years
to 2012.
Airlines and airports
Airlines and airports contribution to industry market share (10.0% of revenue) shrunk during the five years to 2012. This
factor mostly occurred because of declines in travel rates over the course of 2009 and 2010.
Government and healthcare
The government and healthcare (including retirement homes) segment of this industry makes up about 13.0% of industry
revenue. This market segment has grown over the last five years and is expected to continue growing over the next five years.
This growth is due to an aging US population and their rising need for healthcare, especially end-of-life care.



Figure 38: Major Market Segmentation (2012): Total $32.6 billion

Market Share

Colleges and Universities



Source: IBISWorld 2012



Manufacturing, Industrial and

Recreation, Leisure and
Government and Healthcare
Airlines and Airports

15. Innovation
Major changes in demand for agricultural and food products are being fueled by growing populations, rising incomes, and
changing lifestyles. These alter where and how food products are grown, processed and distributed; furthermore, new social
and environmental concerns are bringing pressure for more change. Demand, not supply, drives product offerings with
technology tailoring products to meet consumer needs and sophisticated business models delivering them to the customer in a
secure manner.
In the food industry, just as any other industry, product and process development is considered a vital part indeed the
lifeblood of smart business strategy. Failure to develop new and improved products relegates firms to competing solely on
price which favors the players with access to the lowest cost inputs (land, labor etc). Adopting a low cost strategy can have
unexpected consequences for the economy as a whole when another country, which has a lower cost structure, enters the
Consumers demands keep changing over time. These changes range from basic considerations such as improving food safety,
shelf life, and reducing wastage, to demands for increasingly sophisticated foods having special characteristics in terms of
nutritional value, palatability, and convenience. The actual product development process is determined by the interaction
between consumer expectations and demand, the technical capacity of the food producer, and emerging knowledge from food
science research.
There are several systems for classifying food products on their newness. They define the innovation spectrum using terms
such as new to the world, product improvements and cost reductions. Innovations can also be described as leading to
incremental, major and radical changes. Product platforms can be used to group similar products.
The ultimate test of product development occurs in the market and a new product can only be considered successful if it is a
market and financial success.
There are essentially four basic stages in these models for every product development process. These are:

product strategy development

product design and development

product commercialization

product launch and post-launch

What constitutes a new or innovative product? Newness of a product may be judged differently according to those who
perceive it. In the context of consumer goods such as food products, there are three groups of actors: consumers, distributors,
and producers. Each may have a different view of whether or not a product is new.
There are many ways to classify the degree of newness of a product. One useful example uses seven categories:

creative products

innovative products

new packaging of existing products

reformulation of existing products

new forms of existing products

repositioned existing products

line extensions
The challenge for product development is to develop a product which is acceptable to the target consumer. For example, Asian
for food products sold in the U.S., the specific flavors, ingredients and levels of spiciness are normally significantly different to
that found traditionally in Asia. Similarly, ice cream flavors found in the U.S. (e.g. mint chocolate chip, cookies & cream) are
not popular in other countries which may feature more traditional chocolate, vanilla and strawberry flavors. Even countries of


seemingly similar culture can have major differences. For example, a launch of colored ketchup in USA was a tremendous
success for Heinz, whereas the same launch in Australia and New Zealand was a major failure.
The key principle in product development, which differentiates this research from all other natural science research, is the
mandatory need to ensure the development meets a consumer demand. Without a market, no matter how innovative a change,
there will be no sales and the product is worthless.
A major feature which distinguishes food product development is the ethical considerations of producing a large volume of safe
food for human consumption. This is coupled to the fact that food raw materials are labile, unstable and must be stored for
prolonged periods of time prior to consumption.
In spite of food industry efforts to create a more exciting and interesting food culture and new food experiences, there seem to
be ever-longer periods between great innovations in the food industry. One simple reason could be that the food industry is
low-tech; it is an industry in which it is difficult to distinguish between products. There are few barriers to market entry and it
is difficult (though not impossible) to use patents or other forms of intellectual property rights in the food sector. So, product
characteristics are copied by competitors, who produce me-too products. This low rate of radical change, coupled with the high
failure rate of food products following market launch implies that the methodology for new food product development urgently
needs to become more focused, quantitative, rapid and knowledge based.
The majority of food innovations in the last 20 years have been incremental changes; in other industry sectors this is called
continuous innovation. Such innovation takes place within existing infrastructures and builds on knowledge in existing
markets without challenging the underlying strategies and assumptions. It is worth noting that some published literature
describes true innovation in the food industry as being in its hey-day during the 1960s and 1970s. This was when really novel
food products were introduced and companies (such as McDonalds, Proctor & Gamble, General Foods, etc.) were regarded as
the leading innovators of all industries at the time. Since then, the industry has become more introverted and the rate of truly
novel foods has greatly declined. So has the profitability and corporate stability of these food organizations.
In the last 5 years, some of the major food corporations have begun a new corporate strategy which has been termed
discontinuous innovation (Miller & Morris, 1998). Discontinuous innovation involves a strategic jump to a totally new
paradigm. This may involve novel technologies or ingredients, or the application of knowledge generated in one discontinuous
area to another. A good example was the introduction of the MARS confectionary bar as an ice cream confectionary. MARS
Corporation at the time had no skills in ice cream and the key ice cream manufacturers (Unilever and Nestle) had no skills in
This sort of innovation may extend beyond specific food product identification in order to capture the value that the customer
places on the product. In some cases food products can embody services and intangible benefits that complement the food
product itself and add to its value. For example, in some markets, useful food storage regimes might involve drying foods,
which need to be re-hydrated prior to use. This may be excluded in these markets because of the lack of availability of a safe
and reliable water supply. The opportunity for a food company may be to provide the water supply for a community (market
niche) and thereby gain the market opportunity and brand support for their dry foods. The key to discontinuous innovation is
to identify the limits of knowledge or capability and extend the realm of possibilities beyond the obvious.
The food industry appears to be populated with companies that prefer to re-develop existing products (incremental change),
rather than create new products (radical change). Because food product development is considered a highly risky venture, the
incremental change strategy may be an attempt to increase success rates. Ironically, this apparently safe approach perpetuates
the problem of high food product failure, since truly innovative products are often more successful for a company. However,
there are some indications that certain factors may improve the number of the success rate in product development.
Three important factors that contribute to new product success which have been cited by various authors are:
1. marketing and managerial synergy;
2. strength of marketing communications and launch effort; and
3. market need, growth and size.
These factors emphasize the role of marketing in the product development process. Other authors mentioned different factors,
for instance market need satisfaction, unique and superior product, technological and production synergy and efficient


Ground breaking research during the late 1970s by Calatone and Cooper [Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003] established that
product success is dependent upon several factors during the product development process. The following factors were drawn
from De Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2004; and Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003:

the product being unique and superior;

good understanding of consumer wants, needs and preferences;
an open and innovative global NPD culture;
commitment of sufficient resources to the NPD program;
cross-functional teams;
effective communication between product development team personnel;
careful planning at the concept stage of product development;
top management support;
involvement of senior personnel;
thorough market research;
effective product marketing and launch.

On the other hand, factors that are associated with product failure were reported as:

lack of market knowledge, e.g. due to poor market research;

misdirected marketing efforts;
dynamic and competitive markets;
inadequate market size;
resistance by marketing staff;
technical problems;
high prices;
distribution problems;
internal conflicts.


Flavored Fruit Pieces
Cranberries gained popularity when the American navy used them as a good source of vitamin C against scurvy. However, the
suppliers had to depend on wild cranberries. Cranberries require unusual soil: a poorly drained, highly acid combination of
peat and clay. This type of soil is found where glaciers have scoured the earth. The wild cranberry was eventually tamed by
spreading sand over cultivated plants, after it was observed that the biggest and juiciest wild cranberries grew where the wind
blew layers of sand over the plants.
Thanks to a series of more and more efficient mechanical harvesters, cranberry production became increasingly automated.
Two main process innovations, however, came from studying the natural properties of the fruit. First, good cranberries bounce
and float due to internal air pockets. This bounce property is used for the automatic sorting of the fruit.
Cranberry sauce is mostly consumed at Thanksgiving and Christmas. To spread demand for their production capacity Ocean
Spray looked for other products to make from cranberries that could be sold all year. Juice was one; however, there was a
challenge to get people to buy the product. Ocean Spray focused on the newness of the drink in bars and on how cranberries
can help to cure bladder and other infections. This type of demand-building efforts encouraged people to taste the product;
brand-building held them to loyal to Ocean Spray. Dried cranberries were also sold to bakers and cereal producers.
In their search for diversified food products Ocean Spray determined that cranberry hulls, which were normally smashed when
juice was made, could be emptied and re-filled with juice from blueberries, mangoes, raspberries or any other juice using the
principle of osmosis. Distilled water was forced into the hulls and cranberry juice was removed. The result was a whole, waterfilled hull. Next, the process is reversed; the hull is filled with another fruit juice. This gave Ocean Spray their flavored fruit
pieces, which are cranberries with the taste of orange, cherry or any other fruit taste. The advantages of this product are that it
is durable, with a shelf-life of two years, while keeping a chewy texture when baked, unlike the fruits whose flavors they mimic.



Another recent product innovation is gelatin-treated fruit pieces that stay soft and chewy for two years. This is perfect for
breakfast cereals.
The dynamic that is relevant in this case is behind many mass-produced goods. Growing demand provides the incentive to
create cheaper and more reliable supply. Cheaper and more reliable supply, in turn, creates incentives to find new markets,
which requires new products. Success in new markets increases demand again. This helps to maintain growth and profitability.


Milk for Lactose-Intolerant
Valio is Finlands biggest dairy company. The company seeks to develop innovative products for consumers who are interested
in food that increases health and well-being. For instance, Valio has acquired the global commercial rights to the bacterium
Lactobacillus GG (LGGTM). Now, the company has licensed dairy products containing LGG to markets in more than 25
countries and this is seen as an innovative procedure in the industry.
Between 15 and 20 percent of the Finnish population is lactose intolerant. In Mediterranean countries the proportion is closer
to 50 percent, while in parts of Asia the entire populations are lactose intolerant. Individuals who are lactose intolerant find
that their stomachs do not accept any milk, so most of them have stopped drinking milk.
Today, Valio produces and sells more than 100 different products that are lactose-reduced dairy products. However, Fins have
never liked the sweet-tasting low-lactose milk.
The challenge to Valio was to produce milk that could be tolerated by the lactose intolerant, but which was also acceptable in
terms of taste. After a long period of research and development, Valio was able to perfect a unique process to produce lactosefree milk (< 0.01 percent) that tasted just as milk should. They use, among things, chromatographic separation.
At first, Valio was not allowed to call the product milk, as one of its natural constituents had been removed. Finally, it was
launched as light milk drink. Even though the price is twice as high as normal milk, consumers were not deterred. The desire
for milk among lactose intolerant was obviously far higher than expected. In 2004, sales of 40 million liters were expected. The
milk was to be supplemented by a fat-free version in 2004.
8 Leading Innovators
1. Stonyfield Farm
For making its supply chain more sustainable--and more profitable. Over the last six years, the yogurt company has introduced
eco-friendly innovations in transportation, light-weight packaging, and waste reduction (including a program to recycle up to
90% of manufacturing waste) that have cut costs by some $24 million. Now, the company is helping its suppliers do the same.
A new program is underway to build small, mobile processing plants at a Costa Rican banana coop so that its growers can slash
waste by as much as 50% and improve their profit margins. The project is a model for Stonyfields parent, the global giant
Danone Group, which has made sustainable development a corporate priority.
2. BrightFarms
For slashing the distance from farm to market by building farms on grocers rooftops. Farmers markets are great. But the truth
is, most people shop at the supermarket. BrightFarms works with supermarkets to plant lettuce, tomatoes, and herbs on site
(or very nearby), which cuts transport costs and waste for the grocer and adds days to the shelf life of perishable foods in
customers refrigerators. This spring, the company will debut a 100,000-square-foot rooftop farm, the largest in the world, in
Brooklyns Sunset Park, which will produce 1 million pounds of produce annually.
3. Kind Snacks
For showing that performance foods dont have to be processed and weird, and in doing so, doubling revenue last year to
more than $125 million. After expanding steadily for seven years, the company grew explosively in 2012: consumption of its
line of fruit-and-nut bars (which made their way into Starbucks stores nationwide in 2009) rose over 100%, and two new lines
of granola and low-sugar nut bars took off. In 2011, the company launched a charitable campaign called the Do The Kind
Thing, through which it delivered diapers to new families in shelters, partnered with the San Francisco and Marin food banks,
and last December, worked with the non-profit Lukes Wings to fly soldiers home from overseas for the holidays.


4. Lyfe Kitchen
For employing fast-food industry secrets to sell healthy food on a mass-market scale. Most people wouldnt imagine that
brussels sprouts, kale-banana smoothies, and unfried chicken would be ingredients in a recipe for success in the fast-casual
business. But Lyfes team of former McDonalds execs, along with well-known executive chef Art Smith, have used supplychain management know-how (and their street cred) to prove otherwise. Its first outlet, in Palo Alto, was expected to have
revenues of $2.4 million in its first year (about the same as an average McDonalds). It beat estimates by 20%. The company
aims to open 250 more outlets around the country in the next five years.
5. BluePrint Cleanse
For leading the way in packaging and branding of the cold-pressed juice trend. The company started in 2006 with a simple line
of juice cleanses, sole ingredients of a detox diet, a concept that took off when celebrity endorsers like Salma Hayek and
Gwyneth Paltrow began advertising the method to their fans. BluePrint Cleanse caught the eye of Whole Foods, which last year
began selling the companys fresh, cold-pressed juices, targeting people who want the health benefits of juicing but dont want
to invest in a juicer. Revenues in 2012 grew by 100% to $20 million. In December, the company was acquired by healthy food
giant Hain Celestial Group for an undisclosed (though persumably healthy) sum.
6. Bon Appetit Management Co.
For creating tools that give nutrition information about the catering companys made-from-scratch meals. Long before the
word locavore entered the dictionary, BAMCo was mandating its chefs to buy seasonally and locally. Today, the 135 million
meals it serves each year at colleges and corporations (including Google, Twitter, Starbucks, and Target) serve cage-free eggs,
antibiotic-free meats, sustainable-only seafood--and bring in about $700 million annually. Its latest innovation is a custom
nutrition tool that calculates a well-being score for its dishes so that diners can see at a glance what the healthiest choices are.
7. Copilot Labs
For letting restaurants measure the success of their social marketing strategies. In the bewildering age of Yelp reviews,
Groupon promotions, and Seamless food delivery, Copilot exists to help restaurateurs make sense of it all. Launched in 2012 by
Eli Chait, the son of a successful California restaurateur, the marketing analytics company looks at the spending, visits, and
profitability of guests that use promotions from Groupon, LivingSocial, Restaurant Week, and others. Its software helps
restaurateurs draw a direct line between a new marketing strategy and its results and hold marketing companies to account.
8. ScanAvert
For putting allergy information into a simple bar-code scan, helping millions of Americans avoid dangerous reactions. More
than 15 million Americans suffer from food allergies. With the ScanAvert app, consumers upload details of their medical
conditions, then scan grocery, beauty, and pharmaceutical bar codes to ensure that nothing they buy contains ingredients that
will provoke dangerous reactions--a far simpler process than trying to read ingredient lists in tiny type or relying on
manufacturer allergy warnings. ScanAvert cross-references the barcodes with a database of over 300,000 products and shows
users a red alert or a green all-clear signal. The app also notifies customers about product recalls.


Food Industry Innovations
Every day, manufacturers and researchers are working on ways to make food and eating more interesting and profitable. Here
are some of the recent and most intriguing inventions.
Glowing food
BioLume is trying to use natural bioluminescence to make your food glow, just like a firefly, squid, or jellyfish. These are the
sources of bioluminescence researchers are using. Bioluminescence is cold light produced by a chemical reaction within a
living organism. Anyone who eats fish also consumes trace amounts of bioluminescence. So far, glowing whipped cream,
bubble gum, lollipops, and beverages have panned out, but if BioLume has its way, these glowing foods and drinks will become
According to the companys Web site, The food, beverage and cosmetic applications will be regulated as a food additive by the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), and thus require no human



testing for safety or efficacy. BioLume will have to conduct toxicity testing in several relevant animal models at several doses
to support a pre-market approval (PMA) petition.
Programmable food
Programmable food will allow you to make your food work for you. Researchers say that they are well on their way to inventing
foods that can adjust to individual tastes, allergies, and nutritional needs. For instance, Kraft Foods is already designing a
drink that you could buy in a colorless, flavorless state and then determine its nutrients, color, and flavor once you bring it
home. Basically, these foods will contain many different flavors, colors, and nutrients, each encapsulated until the consumer
decides which ones to release to their liking.
Spoilage-resistant packaging
Some researchers are trying to invent packaging to slow food spoilage, and many of these applications include metal. However,
some people are concerned that metal could contaminate the food itself, possibly making it dangerous. Self-cleaning and
antibacterial cutting boards also are under consideration.
Just the good stuff
Researchers also are studying nanotechnology to try to create foods that will allow you to absorb only the healthiest
components of foods, while allowing you to excrete the less healthy parts.
Healthier fried food
As disgusting as it might sound, batter for fried foods might soon come from discarded fish parts in an effort to make these
foods healthier. The muscle from certain fish parts lock in taste and moisture, while preventing the absorption of fat from the
oil used for frying. Researchers state that the finished product has 25%-75% less fat. Plus, the added protein cuts down the total
carbohydrate content by 15%. To date, tests are complete on the batter used on fish filets, chicken, and potato chips. This
process has received approval from the FDA.
No more icy ice cream
A tasteless protein, gelatin hydrosylate, prevents ice crystals from forming when added to frozen desserts, such as ice cream.
Called the edible antifreeze, this protein could dramatically increase the shelf life of ice cream, and make it creamier and
more enjoyable for consumers. The product does not require FDA approval.
Tricky gum
A company already has created a prototype of a chewing gum that tricks the mouth and brain of consumers into believing that
they are actually eating chocolate.
Cholesterol blocking oil
A company from Israel has created Canola Activa Oil, a rapeseed cooking oil that actually prevents cholesterol from entering
the bloodstream.
Lower sugar without artificial sweeteners
Slim Shake Chocolate is a powdered drink that uses nanotechnology to cluster the cocoa cells, reducing the need for sugar to
sweeten the beverage.
References and recommended readings
Biolume. Natural glowing chemistry for broad consumer & medical applications. Available at:
Renton A. Welcome to the world of nano foods. Available at:,,1971266,00.html#article_continue
ScienceDaily. Could nanotechnology make an average donut into health food? Available at:
ScienceDaily. Edible antifreeze saves ice cream: food chemists use edible antifreeze to make smoother ice cream. Available at:


ScienceDaily. Low-fat fried food? Food chemist develops protein-based batter for healthier frying. Available at:

There are major new drivers impacting how consumers make choices about the foods they will spend money on. The food
industry is responding to these drivers by developing new and innovative products. This has led to the development and
marketing of more sophisticated food products from functional foods to nutraceuticals.
From the earliest food supply drivers such as survival and satisfaction of
hunger, the food industry has evolved through phases, where the development
of foods is driven by higher level consumer desires such as indulgence,
conscience and more recently impact on health.
Whereas yesterday's food market was driven by taste and safety, today's
consumer is driven by taste, safety, health and well-being.
This is an important shift which has pitched food companies into the Health
and Wellbeing market. This is a competitive space occupied by agriculture
companies, consumer product companies, biotech companies and
pharmaceutical companies. It is a growing and fast moving market where the
lines between food and medicine are becoming blurred.
Open Innovation
Open Innovation is the term that refers to the current thinking that companies
cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or
license processes or inventions from other companies. In addition, internal
inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the
Food companies are turning to open innovation to access the novel technologies, expertise and intellectual property they need
from organizations around the world. Firms embracing Open Innovation use external as well as internal ideas in their research
and development. They also use internal and external paths to market to capitalize on their opportunities. These companies are
developing teams of people dedicated to connecting with organizations outside their own company to discuss innovative
technologies and opportunities.
So what are the implications of this shift in focus, from traditional in-house R&D to open collaborative
methods, for food research, nutrition and safety?
Collaborative research and communication are vital in integrating the ideas of Open Innovation. The Internet provides a
powerful communication opportunity for researchers. Collaboratively funded key research grants from government agencies
such as the EU framework program or the USDA help to stimulate and integrate research.
Companies need to perform detailed research into the ever-changing food consumption and nutritional requirements of
consumers. This allows industry to target key nutritional requirements for different demographic groups that are not currently
being met by current food consumption habits. Ingredient and product innovation concepts can be gleaned from by analyzing
opportunities to increase nutritional levels in the diets of consumers.
Substantiating Health Claims
Food manufacturers claiming health benefits from functional foods must ensure that their claims are scientifically
Food Safety
Food safety issues have to be addressed when you are dealing with novel and fortified foods. Governments, industry and
researchers have a responsibility to ensure that consumers will not be over-exposed to any chemicals which may cause harm.


Supply Chain
In an Open Innovation supply chain, additional links are added to the supply chain. Each link in the chain has to ensure safety
for the end consumer. Communication and sharing of information and data on food safety issues are important.

Karas Culinary Trends blog
Jim Carroll consumer & food blog
SIAL Food Innovation
Food Business Innovation Network
XTC Online Food Innovation Database



16. Industry Trends

According to the first annual U.S. Food & Beverage Industry Study, released today by WeiserMazars LLP, an accounting
services firm, food companies look to new customers for the majority of increased product sales in 2013. This inaugural study,
a joint effort between WeiserMazars and The Food Institute delved into the trends, performance, plans, and challenges of
food and beverage companies.
Survey participants included manufacturers and wholesalers/distributors representing a range of annual sales volumes from
$10 million or less to more than $100 million. The survey addresses how these companies are adapting to changing consumer
trends, proposed government regulations, new companies entering the field, and new product and service offerings.
Participants are confident sales will increase 13% compared to 2011 and project net profits to rise by almost 6%. These solid
gains, though, are offset by rising commodity and production costs, resulting in a modest net profit. This inaugural study
delved into the trends, performance, plans, and challenges of food and beverage companies. The study offers food and beverage
companies data against which to assess 2012 performance, insights into potential drivers for the industry in 2013, and best
practices to stay ahead of the competition.
Survey participants expect that the most important industry factors influencing sales growth in 2013 will be new customers
(59%), new products (51%), and increased selling prices (40%).
With food prices forecast to move 3% to 4% higher this year, it is not surprising that the major concern among food and
beverage companies surveyed was the cost of goods, stated Brian Todd, President & CEO of The Food Institute. Inflation
almost entirely offset sales increases last year at grocery stores, with the Food Institute noting that sales in the sector increased
less than 1% last year after inflation was taken into account, based on the associations exclusive pricing indices.
Trending Upwards

Capital Expenditures increased by an average of 9.3 percent

Expansion or new facilities based on square footage increased by an average of 9.1 percent

Product lines increased by an average of 4.9 percent

Employment increased by an average of 2.1 percent

R&D spending increased by an average of 1.9 percent

Promotions/Rebates averaged no change

The top issues for food & beverage companies are rising commodity and other costs (69 percent of study participants), health
insurance (61 percent), income taxes (47 percent), ability to develop new products/services (41 percent), and supply-chain
issues (40 percent). A majority of participants also cited other concerns, identifying factors such as the state of the economy
and their ability to obtain financing.



Figure 39: Food & Beverage Industry Concerns

Private label purchasing

Emergence of ethnic brands
Food marketing/advertisement
Food marketing/advertisement
Food safety, traceability and QA
Technology issues
Supply chain issues
New product/service capability
Income Taxes
Health insurance
Rising commodity and other costs








*participants could select more than one answer

Source: WeiserMazars 2012
The top three concerns are likely to continue to be concerns throughout 2013, as food & beverage companies seek to:

Offset commodity-cost increases through internal improvements, improved management of suppliers, and strategic
Navigate healthcare changes contained in the Affordable Care Act, such as the employer mandate and increased
premiums; and
Prepare for the new tax environment that emerged from the fiscal-cliff deal, one that is generally more favorable than
executives feared going into the political showdown. Only 23 percent of participants indicated that they were fully
prepared to react to federal tax and/or regulatory changes that may occur in the next 12 months, which is not
surprising, given fluid political conditions at the time of their responses

Addressing three of the top five concerns traceability/tracking, food safety, and knowledge/information sharing will be
necessary if the U.S. FDA enacts two new food safety rules proposed in January 2013 to help prevent foodborne illness under
the recently passed FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
One rule would require makers of food sold in the United States, whether produced at a foreign- or domestic-based facility, to
develop a formal plan for preventing food products from causing foodborne illness while also requiring plans for correcting
problems that do arise. The other rule would apply enforceable science- and risk-based safety standards for production and
harvesting of produce on farms.
The FDA knows that food safety, from farm to fork, requires partnership with industry, consumers, local, state and tribal
governments, and our international trading partners, said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, in the rules
announcement. Our proposed rules reflect the input we have received from these stakeholders and we look forward to
working with the public as they review the proposed rules.According to the first annual U.S. Food & Beverage Industry Study
by WeiserMazars LLP, a leading accounting, tax and advisory services firm, food companies look to new customers for the
majority of increased product sales in 2013.
According to the study, the top four trends to impact the industry in 2013 are healthy/nutritious, organic, ethnic/international,
and private label foods.



Healthy/nutritious foods were noted as the industry trend most likely to impact company sales in 2013 (47 percent of study
participants), with other trends each affecting approximately one quarter of organizations. This, again, indicates the need for
F&B companies to focus on trends impacting their particular sector or region, and, when possible, to develop offerings that can
take advantage of multiple trends concurrently. For example, some businesses, stores, and restaurants provide products that
address all five of the noted trends simultaneously.
Figure 40: Industry Trends that will impact 2013 sales

Percent of Participants

Locally produced
Private label
Organic foods
Healthy/nutritious foods






*participants could select more than one answer

Source: WeiserMazars 2012
Major trends are shaping the food & beverage industry today:

In the past, policymakers were consumers food eductors. Now, chefs have taken on this role. This is evidenced in the
proliferation of publications, television shows and websites featuring high profile celebrity chefs.
As value-conscious consumers adopt a recessionary mindset and attempt to stretch their dollar in the challenging
macro environment, retailers are benefiting as private label sales continue to strengthen
o Private label product quality has improved significantly over the years, making private label an increasingly
effective alternative to branded products
o In an effort to offset private label gains, branded manufacturers have increased their promotional and instore activity to lure back price conscious consumers
Consumer preference for health and wellness focused products is increasing in response to the rise of obesity and
weight related diseases
o This is driving brand innovation and line extensions as manufacturers look to capitalize on consumers desire
for products marketed with green, sustainability, and health/wellness connotations
o Green shoppers are a great consumer target, representing a high value segment who buy more products on
each trip, visit the store more regularly, and demonstrate more brand and retailer loyalty in their purchasing
As a result of several high profile e-coli and salmonella scares, consumers are increasingly focused on how and where
their products are produced. Manufactures and retailers are taking many of the following actions to enhance their
food safety procedures:
o Requesting suppliers to become audited through recognized, accredited certification programs
o Improving the recall process by establishing electronic communication between manufacturers and retailers
Retailers are returning to personal interaction with consumers. Supermarket chains are removing self-checkout lanes
as their popularity drops. Major retailers are now considering customer experiences with regard to human contact
and personal interaction over machines as future problem solvers.



Animal welfare has become a key consideration based on increasing consumer demand over labeling standards for
meat and eggs. There is an ever-growing need for a single set of industry standards.
The GMO controversy remains, less over the concern about the effects of GMO than about consumers right to know
how their food was grown and handled (transparency) mirroring the trend toward fresh, real, and less processed.
Packaging innovations are causing a shift where branded products are no longer the force that drives consumer
interest, as consumer loyalty to legacy brands has turned into brand shifting over sale prices. Additionally, the quality
of private label products continues to improve (and impress), garnering repeat purchasing patterns and consumer
loyalty. Also, consumers are increasingly knowledge and concerned over use of recyclable plastics and use of
dangerous chemicals such as BPA. Sustainabilty is also important, as consumers connect to brands with sustainable
packaging as this suggests an eco-concern on the part of the manufacturer and creates a sense of connection to the
Mobile retail innovation is on the rise. A prime example is the largest U.S. drug store chain Walgreen, and their
smartphone applications. More than 50% of Walgreens drug refills originate from smartphone apps. Regarding QR
Codes, these are not widely understood or used and may be more of interest to marketers than consumers.



17. Consumer Trends

The landscape of American eating occasions is very different than one might expect. Culture is changing how consumers shop
for foods and beverages. The lines between channels (traditional food retailers, C-stores, and restaurants) are becoming quite
muddled. Consumer eating behavior continues to change and evolve in relationship to shifts in lifestyle dictated by any
combination of factors: demands of work, commuting to and from work, raising families, social interaction, holidays, kids after
school or weekend activities, etc. Given these factors traditional views of mealtime can pretty much be thrown out the window.
The imprint of these dynamic cultural changes is the blurring of the boundaries between snack and meal.
In this context, highly important cultural phenomena include snacking, the rise of eating alone eating occasions, and
convenience (those foods and beverages consumed within one hour of purchase). Consumers often make stylized food-quality
choices driven by food culture.



Meal fragmentation: Today's households are run as "loose democracies" in which children have an equal say in what,
where and when the family should eat.
2. Eating alone: Forty-four percent of adult eating happens alone. Most CPG marketing ignores this reality.
3. The snack culture: Nearly half (48%) of all adult eating occurs between meals, a combined result of the increase in
eating alone and the decline in family dining. However, a return to commitment to family dining will continue to gain
momentum, says Hartman.
4. Immediate consumption: More than 11% of all adult eating today includes foods or beverages consumed within one
hour of purchase. Immediate consumption reflects a long-term shift toward impulsive, unplanned eating.
5. The new American family: Marketers need to focus on today's nontraditional, intergenerational, unmarried, singleparent, multi-ethnic families.
6. Wellness is driven by quality-of-life issues: People strive for health/wellness in order to enjoy a better life. Thats why,
for example, people are increasingly using dance for exercise, rather than treadmills.
7. Food culture is more complex than ever: Food makers need to understand all of food culture meaning all food
niches, trends and preferences, not just their own categories and specialties.
8. Education only goes so far: Research is inconclusive as to whether calorie counts on menus change purchase
behaviors. But what is clear is that consumers want help that supports their interests in food and cooking.
9. Eating occasions proliferate: Hartman has identified more than 150 distinct eating occasions beyond the traditional
daily meals or day parts. CPG brands and retailers should better leverage these opportunities.
10. You cant buy loyalty: Engendering loyalty among Millennials takes transparency and integrity, as well as fun.
11. Niche brands represent opportunities: As CPG categories become overcrowded, smaller brands that appeal to niche
needs or subcultures have become good investments.
12. Retail needs a makeover: The retail experience has lost significance with today's shoppers, who want culturally
relevant retail and brand experiences.



Figure 41: Consumers continue to define health and wellness as a High Quality of Life

Source: The Hartman Group, Looking Forward


Foods that were in for 2012 and should maintain their appeal in 2013, according to a study by The Hartman Group, include:
real butter and healthy fats; grass-fed meat; sea salt; stevia; dark-meat chicken; local/seasonal super fruits; cage-free whole
eggs; farmstead cheese; fresh produce; portion control; craft beer; kettle potato chips and dark, leafy greens.

Eating from the local landscape, including wild crafting and stressing purity, freshness, simplicity and ethics in food
sources and cooking reviving regional specialties and local offerings.
Consumers prize scarcity over ubiquity, novelty over the guaranteed sameness of legacy brands and drama over
utility. Consumers are willing to embrace brands that take a little effort, especially if that effort rewards them with
something exciting and rare (examples: McDonalds McRib; Trader Joes treasure hunt dynamic).
Smaller can be better. Not only for weight management purposes, but in terms of cost and sustainability. Consumers
are coming to appreciate that there is a wisdom in smallness as they savor and appreciate less is more.
Health & Wellness. The emergence of Nutritional Genetics (Nutrigenomics or personalized nutrition), with its focus
on a persons genetic makeup and and their response to specific foods and ingredients. Food science will enable
creating individualized diets that reflect individuals genetic makeup, replacing one-size-fits-all better-for-you diets.
This will result in less demand for better for you packaged foods and greater interest in less processed, higher quality



Rejecting nutritionism, meaning celebrating or demonizing particular ingredients rather than focusing on foods as a
whole. This has allowed processed foods to go relatively unchallenged, even as whole, fresh foods are far too
infrequently consumed.
Diets: Happy, Slim and Well-Rested. Specialty diets appealing to distinct consumer segments such as The Happiness
Diet (focused on foods to boot mood and weight loss) and The Paleolithic Diet (focused on elimination of entire
categories of ingredients for weight loss and alleviation of chronic health conditions).
Anti-fat sentiment is on the decline. New evidence revealed that the right kinds of fats can make you healthier,
smarter, more musuclar and leaner.
Challenges with foods and ingredients previously considered as healthy for all soy, wheat, apple juice, high fructose
corn syrup, hydrogenated oil, etc.
Mindless eating as a social health issue. In many locations, particularly the office, the candy dish has replaced
smoking as the #1 workplace-related health threat.
Consumers have become fickle when it comes to beverages, regularly seeking interesting varieties. Novel flavors,
limited seasonal editions and a bit less sweet is where consumer expectations are moving.
Carbonated soft drinks: CSDs are increasingly seen as a treat rather than everyday liquid refreshment so CSD
manufacturers will need to update flavors and ingredients to maintain consumer interest.
Coffee: Starbucks VIA coffee revolutionized the instant coffee market, yet options are limited in terms of ready-todrink, higher quality chilled coffee in grab-n-go bottles and cans. In the meantime, these cold brews offer consumers a
customizable option for sweetening and adding milk preferences.
Superfruits: Consumers are becoming skeptical about exotic fruits from afar, touting super-extreme antioxidant
levels. Rather than powdered out-of-season exotic fruits bearing functional overtones, expect to see a wider variety of
local berries and tree fruits in beverages, baked goods and snack foods. All are high in antioxidants and smack of
seasonality and the regional sense of place consumers are increasingly looking for in the CPG arena.
Dairy: Cutting-edge consumers concerned with getting high-quality fat in their diet seek grass-fed dairy products
made from these particular breeds. There is no other category that symbolizes freshness and purity quite the way
dairy does. The positive attributes of organic and hormone-free represented the highest of quality cues not too long
ago, then hyper-local and grass-fed pointed to greater distinction and transparency. Currently, forward-leaning
consumers are categorizing dairy even further to specific breeds for their culinary and health-promoting quality cues.
This trend suggests that dairy will become even more differentiated in the coming years.
Consumers are developing an appreciation for the bitter and mineral flavors found in land (i.e. Kale) and sea (i.e.
seaweed) greens. In terms of greens from land, CPG and food service will want to offer a variety to appease consumers
looking to add dark leafy greens to their diet, but find challenging, be it time or skill level. Food service and CPG will
want to leverage the mineral power and global flavors found in seaweed in salads and snacks, including chips and nut
snacks/trail mixes.
Condiments: Seen as a low-risk item for upgrading basic foods such as sandwiches, eggs, grains, and vegetables into a
heightened meal or snack. Manufacturers have recently introduced upscale condiments such as canola oil
mayonnaise, harissa chile sauce, and balsamic ketchup.
Carbohydrates: Consumers now realize that carbohydrates in moderation are good for them and have returned to this
category, particularly for foods that reflect authentic preparation methods, a culinary history, and are rooted in
tradition. Examples include hand crafted pretzels, crisps, breadsticks, bagel varieties, and mini brioche buns.
American consumers are increasingly perceiving snacking as an integral part of a healthy lifestyle, rather than the
empty calories associated with the snacking or treats of their youth. The desire for less processed foods and global
flavors is shifting what consumers are looking for on snacking or mini meal occasions. Snacks containing naturally
occurring protein and fiber traditionally found on meal occasions are appealing to consumers looking to replace,
bridge, and upgrade their current snack repertoire.

Ingredients that are in include: coconut oil (contains beneficial lauric acid); palm sugar (no fructose); faro (nutty, complex
grain); cheaper, tasty butcher cuts (sustainable use of whole animal from a trusted source); and kefir (higher level of probiotics
than yogurt).



Figure 41: Ingredient Trends

Source: The Hartman Group, Looking Forward

On the way out: margarine; processed soy protein (GMO, hormonal effects); low-sodium; fat-free; artificial sweeteners; whitemeat chicken; from-afar super fruits; egg whites; processed cheese; excessive supplements; ultra-light beer; baked potato chips
and wheat-grass shots.



18. Distribution and Marketing

The food distribution system in the U.S. is complex. Many players - including middlemen - produce, manufacture, transport,
distribute, market, and sell every type of food product imaginable. By the time a product is placed on a grocery store shelf, it
has traveled countless miles and has been handled by many people. Each person has evaluated and scrutinized the product to
assess its risk and opportunity. Each has considered quality, price, packaging, labeling, and marketing plans. By the time the
product is purchased, the manufacturer, broker, distributor, and retailer have all determined it to be viable and profitable, and
the end consumer has deemed it to be of significant value.
Not every new product reaches the final consumer. Many great products never leave the manufacturers warehouse. Creating
the product is only half the battle; the next step is to distribute and market it. While some manufacturers can market their
products directly to consumers (e.g., through farmers markets, online sales, or Direct Store Delivery or DSD ), most food
manufacturers need to use middlemen.


The food system encompasses many activities, from harvest to processing, retailing, and consuming. This system is called by
many names: marketing channel, distribution channel/chain, or supply chain. In this publication, we use the term distribution
channel. The main middlemen in
the distribution channel are as follows.
Food distributors purchase products from a manufacturer or from another distributor and sell and distribute the products
to retailers, foodservice companies, and other distributors.
Food brokers act as food manufacturers representatives and facilitate sales between manufacturers and retailers. They do
not take ownership or physical possession of products.
Food wholesale distributors are very similar to distributors, but they do not perform as many services, such as stocking
and managing retail shelves.
Foodservice distributors and brokers are similar to retail brokers and distributors, except that they focus on servicing
foodservice customers.
Self-distributing retailers are large retailers, such as Albertsons, Fred Meyer, Safeway, and Wal-Mart, who have their own
distribution centers. Manufacturers deliver directly to these centers. The retailer then distributes the product to individual
retail stores. This system accounts for roughly 34 percent of distribution centers in the U.S.
A new food product can take one of several paths to reach the consumer. Distribution options depend on the product, the
market, the type of retail establishment, and the manufacturers sales skills. Some manufacturers reach the consumer directly
by selling products at farmers markets.
Others use elaborate distribution methods involving several brokers and distributors. Many manufacturers do not have the
skills or the time to promote and sell their new product. For them, the use of food distributors and brokers is the only way to
obtain distribution.
Most foods go through a distribution channel to reach the end consumer, whether that consumer is a shopper in a retail
grocery store or a diner at a fine restaurant. The conventional distribution path for a packaged food product is from
manufacturer to broker to distributor to retailer. This path
can vary greatly depending on the product, the target markets, and the manufacturer. In general, more perishable foods, such
as fresh seafood, have fewer handling exchanges from the producer to the consumer, than, say, a packaged product such as
jams and jellies.


Many requirements, such as UPC codes, nutritional labeling, and product packaging, must be satisfied before distributing a
product. One of the first activities is to determine a products target market. This includes identifying the geographic area,
retail markets, and consumers that will make up your core market.


New technologies and management systems are adopted every year in the food retailing and distribution industries. The goal is
to create a more efficient, cost-effective, and responsive distribution channel. Management systems play a huge role in
maintaining product integrity and distribution efficiency. Manufacturers need to be aware of these new technologies and
management strategies. If your product or business isnt ready for the technology (e.g., correct packaging, labeling, software
compatibility), it could be left behind.
The following are a few technologies that have been adopted or are being developed for use in the food distribution industry.
Electronic data interchange (EDI) is a substitute for paper invoicing, instead using electronic resources such as e-mail
and the Internet.
Continuous replenishment uses shared computer networks between retailers and suppliers to view inventory at any time.
Sometimes called just-in-time inventory or supply management.
Electronic consumer response (ECR) is a demand-driven replenishment system designed to link all parties in the
distribution channel to create a massive flow-through distribution network. Replenishment is based on consumer demand and
point-of-sale information.
Radio frequency identification (RFID), an automated radio signal identification, is used by food distributors and
retailers for inventory purposes. RFID allows identification of merchandise while materials are being handled and in transit.
Using RFID technology, along with ECR, helps retailers and distributors reduce costs and increase efficiency.
Product movement
Most food is distributed via trucks, owned either by the manufacturer, distributor, or a third-party transport company. Large
retailers, such as Albertsons and Fred Meyer, have centrally located distribution centers. It usually is up to the manufacturer to
have products delivered to the distribution center. From there, the retailer transports products to individual stores.
Efficiency is key in moving products through the food distribution channel, not only for cost reasons, but also for perishability
and damage control reasons. Produce and other perishable food products must be moved to the end consumer as quickly as
possible, and preferably with minimal handling. The more times a product is handled, the greater the chance that it will be
damaged. Maintaining the products quality throughout the distribution channel is a goal and challenge for producers
Due to recent food scares, such as mad cow disease, avian flu virus, E. coli outbreaks, and salmonella infections, consumers, as
well as government agencies, are being more careful in regard to food handling. Traceability systems are used not only for food
safety, but also to address issues such as bioterrorism and consumers rights to know. Policy makers are studying the
possibility of making traceability systems mandatory. Stay informed about current food safety concerns, especially those that
might impact your production or sales.
Packaging is a major consideration. Because many retailers use uniform shelving and layouts in all their stores, they can accept
only products with conforming package shapes. Visit retailers and look at the competitions packaging. Whether it be a box,
bottle, or jar, the size and shape needs to fit the retailers shelf. A bottle that is too tall may not fit on the shelf, while one that is
too short or narrow will create undesirable empty space


New U.S. food and beverage product introductions in retail outlets, as tracked by Datamonitor, have followed an upward trend
since the early 1990s, exceeding those of nonfood grocery items in most years. In response to competition from Wal-Mart and
other nontraditional food stores, supermarkets have increased their product choices.


Figure 42: New Product Introductions of Consumer Packaged Goods, 1992-2010

Between 2008 and 2009, the number of new food and beverage products in retail outlets fell from 22,561 to 19,029, following a
decline from the previous year-to-year period (from 23,838 in 2007 to 22,561 in 2008). The 2008-2009 decline marked the
first consecutive year-to-year reduction in new food product introductions since 2002, and only the third such decline since
1993. The trend since 2007 in new food and beverage product introductions falls below the trend in nonfood grocery items.
As credit conditions have tightened, retailers have found that eliminating certain products could increase sales and profits, due
in part to reducing inventories. In addition, the recession has prompted consumers to seek familiar products and avoid impulse
To appeal to bargain-seeking customers who want to simplify their shopping trips as well as purchase familiar products,
retailers reduced the number of products introduced. In response, some manufacturers reduced their product lines. In 2010,
however, the number of new food and beverage products rebounded to 21,528, though still remaining below nonfood product
In 2010, food categories with the largest shares of overall new product introductions included candy, gum, and snacks;
beverages; condiments; and processed meat. However, from 2006 to 2010, the share of new candy, gum, and snack product
introductions declined, while the share of new fruit and vegetables, dairy products, and cereals increased.
Figure 43: New food and beverage product introductions, 2006-2010

New food and beverage product introductions, 2006-2010

New products
Type of product
Candy, gum, and snacks


Percent of total










Processed meat
Fruit and vegetables
Meals and entrees
Bakery foods
Pasta and rice
Baking ingredients
Baby food
Meal replacements and special diet foods






Source: Datamonitor
Advertisements touting a product's attributes are conveyed on packages and in supporting literature. Based on new product
tags or claims (such as "organic") tracked by Datamonitor, over 100 U.S. food and beverage new product claims or tags were
identified in 2010. Health and convenience-related attributes accounted for 8 of the top 10 claim categories, and these 8 claims
accounted for one-third of all new product claims. Four categories, including "natural," "organic," "single serving," and "fresh,"
have ranked among the top 10 claims in every year since 2001.
Figure 44: Number of new product introductions in the top 10 product claim categories for 2003 to 2010

Number of new product introductions in the top 10 product claim categories for 2003 to 20101
Tag or claim2
Private label
Single serving
No gluten
No preservatives
Low/no fat
Total new product
Percent of total
Private label
Single serving
No gluten
No preservatives
Low/no fat



not include associated stock keeping units (SKUs, or variations in size and form). According to
Datamonitor, the SKU count may produce erroneous results because a single new product
introduction can have multiple SKUs, and each of these SKUs may or may not have certain package
2A new product may have multiple tags or claims.
Source: Datamonitor
In 2010, "no gluten" and "low or no fat" claims replaced "quick" and "no- or lowtransfat" products in the top 10 claim
categories. "No gluten" claims ranked among the top 10 claims for the first time. In addition to controlling celiac disease, other
benefits that consumers attribute to gluten-free products are that they are generally healthier, of higher quality, and helpful in
managing weight. In 2010, 876 "no gluten" products were introduced, compared with 466 in 2008, 250 in 2006, and 159 in
2003. "Low or no fat" product claims moved into the top 10 claim categories for the first time since 2006.
Private-label products, or store brands, cracked the top 10 claims for the first time in 2007, an increase of over 75 percent from
2006. In 2010, store brands increased twofold over the previous year (2009) and ranked third among all new product claims,
accounting for 6.2 percent of new product launches. As retailers have become more adept at creating profitable store brands,
these brands have expanded at a faster pace than more expensive national brands. More consumers have turned to privatelabel foods in the face of the economic downturn and higher gas prices. Demand has also risen due to other factors, such as
increasing food-price inflation and the marketing efforts of retailers. Profit margins of store-brand items are, on average, 10
percentage points higher than those of national brands. Store brands can also add to retailers' individuality by offering
something new and different, as products are limited to their respective stores.
Current Marketing Scenario
While it is imperative for all manufacturers of new food products to devote great effort toward developing sound strategies for
price, promotion, and product, the ultimate key to the success of the new item is distribution. Without product availability at
the retail level, the best laid marketing strategies will go for naught.
Unfortunately, a number of market forces are working in concert to make achieving distribution for new items an onerous task
at best. Furthermore, the situation is worse for the smaller manufacturer, who finds itself competing against industry giants
(many of which were formed through mergers and acquisitions), and battling slotting fees the largest players pay to retailers
for shelf space.
New food products are being introduced at the rate of over 15,000 items per year. This number includes a broad spectrum of
"new" products, ranging from genuine innovations (e.g., an item that launches a new category), to me-toos (copycat products),
line extensions, and "new-and-improved" products. Retailers are thus in a constant state of new product review.
A limiting factor to the retail acceptance of new products is that the modern supermarket can stock only 25,000 to 30,000
different items. Thus, if no item were too sacred to be discontinued, a store could conceivably rollover its product mix every
two years. Given the existence of established, successful brands, this extreme case is highly unlikely to occur. Furthermore,
since no vacant shelf space sits in stores waiting for new products to appear, a new item must seize space from competing
products. Finite shelf spaces, plus firmly entrenched brand leaders, make the supermarket shelf an enviable piece of "real
estate" for the new product marketer.
Although the retailer is forced to accept only a small portion of the new items available to it, new products serve several
important functions. New products serve to enhance the retailer's "product," per se, which includes the overall product array,
atmosphere, pricing strategy, location, etc. New items also allow the retailer to foster its own image of being an innovator and
retain consumer interest by carrying recentlyissued products. Finally, new products force the retailer to frequently evaluate the
performance of its product mix and weed-out the mediocre sellers, thereby helping stimulate short-term sales and inventory
Manufacturers have numerous reasons for introducing so many new products. For example, new products represent an
investment in the future of the firm, such that an investment today will yield profits in the months to come. New items are also
seen as a way to retain consumer interest in the company's product line, with the result being many line extensions and
product improvements appearing on the shelves. Manufacturers also use new items to improve their competitive position in a
product category, and to attract attention to the firm. Finally, new product introductions are seen as a way to replace other


products that have moved into the late maturity or decline stages of the product life cycle, thereby helping keep the company in
its own maturity stage.
While both retailers and manufacturers rely on new products for various competitive reasons, the new product represents
additional expenses for both parties. For example, retailers face added costs in inventory control and handling, warehousing,
data processing, shelf space alignment, and item pricing. Manufacturers must absorb the costs of new product development,
sales efforts, and advertising, as well as the overall risk of the item being a failure.
An analysis of ten small public food producers showed marketing spending ranged from a low of 3.2% to a high of 7.7%, with
an average of 4.4%. One new market entrant, a manufacturer of all-natural, vitamin enhanced drinks had marketing spending
of 67.7% of revenue. Sales and advertising spending for the small food producers averaged 6.1%.
Given the level of concentration amongst the largest food manufacturers, one might conclude that channel power resides with
the manufacturers. This, however, is not the case. Despite being highly fragmented, the retailers play the dominant role in the
channel. While appearing to be fragmented at the national level, at the local level they are far from fragmented. A common
occurrence is for three or four chains to dominate a local market, with several independents also in operation. Thus, at the local
level, it is manufacturers that appear to be fragmented, while the retailers appear to be highly concentrated. With channel
power in the hands of the retailers at the local level, the retailer is now empowered to demand concessions from
manufacturers. This has occurred with the appearance of slotting fees.
A slotting fee is a payment from the manufacturer to the retailer for "slotting" the product on the shelves. The fees can vary
across markets and product categories, but usually range between $1,000 and $4,000 per item per supermarket chain.
Retailers argue that the fees cover the costs of entering new product information in computers, finding space in the warehouse,
redesigning store shelves, and notifying individual stores about the latest new product entry. Furthermore, retailers contend
that they were forced to demand these payments because of the steady stream of new products.
National distribution for a new product can thus be very high for the manufacturer. One industry consultant claims that, in
order to achieve national distribution, slotting fees between $1 million and $3 million must be paid. Of the amount
manufacturers spend on consumer and trade promotions, over one half is spent on slotting fees. Despite the high cost of
getting a new item to market, the large manufacturers pay willingly, absorbing the slotting fee as just another business
Problems Confronting Small Manufacturers
Clearly, the victim of new product proliferation and exorbitant slotting fees is the small manufacturer. The large manufacturer
actually benefits from slotting fees, because it helps eliminate competition from smaller firms. In the end, it is the consumer
who pays the price, in the form of reduced new item entries from firms unable to afford the cost of getting their product in
In many cases, the small firm is simply unable to match the slotting fees paid by their larger competitors. Slotting fees for
national distribution, in some instances, may even exceed total company sales revenues. Furthermore, even if the small firm is
able to afford slotting fees, they run the risk of grocers developing private label imitations of the new item. Thus, in addition to
paying slotting fees, the small firm must also have the cash resources to invest in substantial advertising and promotion in
order to block any competitive moves by the retailers.
Another problem for the small manufacturer is that it likely has little or no reputation and/or track record. This presents a
problematic situation, because the manufacturer, in seeking to build reputation, is halted because it has no reputation. While
the large manufacturers have solid reputation bases, and can afford to augment their reputation with additional advertising,
the small firm is often unable to affect this variable.
A third problem is the small firms inability to cover large market areas, despite the fact that the retail grocery market is highly
fragmented. This problem is actually a set of constraints: limited production capacity, few or no distribution channels, strained
financial capacity to support production and inventory, and a small sales force. The firm's size and lack of resources limit its
ability to enter the national market and compete directly with the large manufacturers.



Another problem is the small firms inability to support much in research and development. This hinders the company's ability
to develop unique and innovative products that may attract the attention of retailers. This leaves the small firm with the
prospects of trying to introduce new items that are often not substantially different from similar items made by large firms.
From all appearances, the small firm often faces insurmountable odds when trying to get distribution for its new items. From
the retail side, the small firm is seen as inexperienced and unlikely to be reliable. On the manufacturing side, they are seen as
only a potential market threat that should not be taken very seriously.
Strategies for SMEs
Example of an SMEs Marketing Costs (Activities):
Marketing Costs. These costs include various sponsorships, coupon administration and consumer advertising programs that
we enter into throughout the year, and are expensed as incurred. We participate in a coupon programs such as Sunday Free
Standing Inserts (FSIs), digital marketing and coupon programs and Social Media including Facebook, Twitter and Google
advertising. We use a national Public Relationship firm to promote all of our brands throughout the year targeting
newspapers, magazines, web sites, bloggers, television and radio stations.
We are a national co-sponsor of American Rivers, a leading conservation organization protecting and restoring Americas
rivers. We are allowed to use the American Rivers mark on packaging and printed materials as well as directly promote
products to members and river cleanup volunteers. Our marketing programs also include selective event sponsorship
designed to increase brand awareness and to provide opportunities to mass sample branded products.
Also included in selling, general and administrative expense are costs and fees relating to the execution of in-store product
demonstrations with club stores or grocery retailers. The cost of product used in the demonstrations, which is insignificant,
and the fee we pay to the independent third party providers who conduct the in-store demonstrations, are recorded as
expense when the event occurs. Product demonstrations are conducted by independent third party providers designated by
the various retailer or club chains. During the in-store demonstrations the consumers in the stores receive small samples of
our products, and consumers are not required to purchase our product in order to receive the sample.
Market characteristics inherent in food marketing dictate that the small manufacturer employs alternative strategies. Rather
than presuming the ability to compete head-on, the small firm needs to use different techniques that will allow it to gradually
build a reputation and amass financial and corporate resources. Following are several possible strategies for the small food
1. Product Uniqueness
Even in the absence of research and development activities, the small firm can make its new product at least appear to be
unique, by way of packaging, flavors, etc. For example, Clearly Canadian flooded the market with flavored waters that imitated
other items, but the distinctive blue bottles set it apart from the rest. Jolt Cola, a product in a category dominated by two
giants, positioned its product on the unlikely attributes of caffeine and sugar, and worked its way onto supermarket shelves. If
these two products had entered the market without any distinction from competing items, they likely would not have been
accepted by the trade.
A second reason for stressing product uniqueness is that it can help avoid the private label imitator problem discussed above.
This would make the new item less attractive to retailers that may want to augment their own line of house brand products.
2. Alternative Channels of Distribution
Rather than focusing on traditional distribution channels (i.e., supermarkets), the small firm should consider seeking
distribution in other outlets that sell food, but which have markedly different business goals and strategies. For example, an
emerging force in food retailing is the warehouse club, in which patrons pay annual membership fees for the privilege to choose
from an array of products and sizes that are seldom seen in such combinations elsewhere. These stores, which usually only
stock 3,000 to 4,000 different items, are focused more on high volume and a product array that will attract customers, rather
than carrying the "traditional" brands. Slotting fees have not become a problem in this distribution channel, thereby opening
the door to opportunity for small manufacturers. Such was the case for a small winery in Amarillo, TX, that persuaded Sam's
Club, on a regional basis, to carry its wines at a time when supermarkets were reluctant to add another wine to their liquor



Another alternative channel is convenience stores, whose operating strategy is to provide a limited selection of product
categories and brands, with the major focus on convenience. Given the C-stores' emphasis on having just the essential
products, rather than specific brands, a small manufacturer could use this channel as a way to build initial distribution for its
3. Direct Distribution
A third option is to consider operating a retail store for the exclusive purpose of distributing their product. Many wineries
utilize their own retail shops and tasting rooms as the only retail distribution of their product. Dairy products (e.g., ice cream)
are currently being delivered to the home, while the brand is unavailable in any store. C. Ramirez and Sons, a Hereford, TXbased manufacturer of chips and salsas, has its own restaurant adjacent to their factory. Arrowhead Mills, a health-food
manufacturer also located in Hereford, has its own retail outlet store on site. While direct marketing and factory outlet stores
may not be the most efficient means of distributing one's products, they can be effective while the firm is still small.
4. Niche Marketing
Rather than aim for the modal tendencies of a market, where there are likely numerous large competitors, a firm could
carefully select a niche that is currently underserved. This certainly limits the firm's ability to ever grow to national
prominence, but it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of high profitability and returns on investment.
5. Local and Regional Efforts
The small firm must recognize its inherent weaknesses, and, rather than trying to operate at a national level, should instead
focus on local and regional markets as a way of getting established and building equity in the firm. Given that the retail market
is already fragmented into numerous local and regional chains, this strategy fits nicely with the nature of the market. Blue Bell
Ice Cream is a brand that has expanded slowly through the state of Texas, and built a loyal customer base. In an already
saturated product category, they patiently built a consumer and trade base that now affords them greater opportunities in
other markets.
6. Like-Sized Retailers
Small grocers are in about the same position vis-a-vis larger stores as are the small manufacturers. These small stores often
have only 25-to-50 percent of the retail space and product mix that their larger competitors possess. Furthermore, they are
seldom the recipients of the slotting fees paid by manufacturers, which instead go to the larger chains. Thus, the small store
must seek out competitive advantage in a way that will not strain their resources. The small manufacturer and the small stores
could have a symbiotic relationship, with the former achieving distribution for its product, and the latter enhancing its product
7. Point-of-Purchase Displays
Rather than spending large sums of money on slotting fees, the small firm could provide retailers with inexpensive, yet
effective, P-O-P displays that would aid selling efforts by the store. These could take the form of free-standing aisle units, shelf
extenders, etc.
8. Consignment Selling
Offering to sell product to retailers on consignment significantly lowers the retailer's risk of carrying the item, except for the
opportunity cost of not stocking something else. With ownership risks removed, the retailer would not have to be concerned
with unwanted inventory. While consignment selling adds an element of uncertainty to the manufacturer's sales, this type of
concession may be necessary in order to get the product on the shelf.
Small food manufacturers face an uphill battle in distributing their new products. Given the nature of the competition and the
market at large, different strategies are required. The goal of the small manufacturer is to build sufficient market experience at
the local and regional level so that they can eventually move into the national market. The above strategies are well-suited to
the small firm's resources and capabilities, and should allow it to function efficiently at a level commensurate with the
company's size.




Step 1. Test the waters
Many new food manufacturers introduce their product at small, local retail markets. This is a great way to test the waters.
Many small retailers like to help new local businesses. These retailers are also a valuable resource for advice on pricing,
packaging, and promotions. Starting locally gives you an opportunity to tweak your product, packaging, and promotions.
Step 2. Hire a broker
While some new food manufacturers have the skills to sell successfully, most do not. A broker can help you with this job.
Securing a broker takes time, money, and effort. Aside from initial sales to small retailers, brokers are the first sale a
manufacturer must make. You must convince the broker that your product is viable and profitable. For a broker, the costs and
energy required to launch a new product are great. On average, brokers will take a 3 to 5 percent commission.
Step 3. Find a distributor
Distributors purchase, inventory, transport, and sell products to retail accounts that the manufacturer has set up. They also
assist in gaining new retail accounts. Distributors act as logistics experts for food distribution. Markups can range from 10 to
35 percent of the wholesale price, depending on the product, category, distributor, and retail customer. Finding the right
distributor is key. Many distributors sell to specific types of retailers. If you are targeting a specific type of retailer, it is wise to
choose a primary distributor for that retailer. If youre using a broker, the broker often will help gain the attention of
appropriate distributors. Having a detailed and well-thought-out plan for your product will help you secure a distributor.
Many requirements must be met before a distributor will consider your product. Make sure you understand them and do your
homework ahead of time.
Step 4. Secure retail accounts
Even with a broker and/or a distributor secured, your selling role isnt over. You must now work alongside your broker to make
the crucial sales to retailers. Choosing the right retail accounts is crucial. All retailers are different and have different
requirements. It is important to know the retailers. Do research and know whos competing in your product category. New food
businesses usually find it best to start small for financial and logistical reasons. Oregon is a great place to start a food business.
Many retailers, mainly small independent stores and chains, support local food manufacturers.
Pricing your product correctly is crucial to its success. The price should reflect the products perceived value to the consumer.
Consumers wont purchase a more expensive product unless its perceived value is greater. Consider the competitions price on
the retail shelf. Visit stores and view the competition; note prices and how package size relates to price. Many new
manufacturers are unsure of how to calculate margins and markups, or they might not understand the difference between the
two. Manufacturers must understand how the retail food dollar is broken up from producer to retailer, as each takes a
When calculating profits, consider all your costs, not just the costs to produce the product. Additional costs include
promotions, transportation, and slotting fees. A slotting fee is a fee that retailers charge manufacturers to cover the costs of
putting a product in their warehouse and on their shelf. These fees also cover the risk assumed by the retailer when taking on
new products.
Slotting fees vary depending on the product, region, and amount of required shelf space. Slotting fees usually consist of
payments to the retailer, but they also can include discounts and free merchandise. These fees range from $100 to several
thousands of dollars. They can be a flat rate across a chain or vary by store. Since larger manufacturers have larger promotion
budgets, they are more able to afford slotting fees; smaller manufacturers often have a hard time paying these fees. Slotting
fees can be negotiable if there is a demand for the product and it has local recognition.




By Daniel A. Wuersch, Wuersch & Gering LLP

In General
In addition to understanding the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the import regulations, when
entering the U.S. markets Swiss food manufacturers need to consider other legal issues that can determine the success of
marketing food products in the U.S. and limit the risks associated with a failure of these efforts. These issues include the risks
associated with tort liability for health risks posed by food products, commercial risks, the high costs of litigation and the tax
implications of doing business in the U.S. To reduce these risks to a manageable level, respect for the complex legal
environment and careful planning is required.
Like Switzerland, the U.S. constitution established a federal system in which the 50 states (and the District of Columbia)
maintain considerable autonomy. Certain areas of the law fall both within the scope of authority and jurisdiction of the federal
and the state governments, including income tax laws, unfair trade laws and anti-trust laws, trademark law. Other areas are
exclusively governed by federal law (e.g. patent or copyright law) or state law (e.g., contracts and general tort law). Thus, 52
legal systems can govern the marketing of food products in the U.S., each with a multitude of potentially applicable statutes,
regulations, and court decisions.
Because food products are targeted to reach a large group of consumers, companies may be subjected to lawsuits in several
states. If a food product poses a health risk to consumers, a company can be sued in a so-called class action in which a plaintiff
can sue on behalf of all members of the class of consumers harmed by the defective product. These class actions are a powerful
tool in the hands of a lawyer who represents the class on a contingency basis. Through the multiplication effect of the class,
even relatively modest damages inflicted on a single consumer can become a multi-million dollar problem for the manufacturer
of the defective product. Recently, federal legislation restricted the ability of lawyers to shop for a sympathetic forum in state
courts in class actions on behalf of consumers located in different states.

Marketing Arrangements
Swiss companies can either actively market their products in the U.S. on their own, or through intermediaries, including
agents, distributors or resellers. These intermediaries can either be independent third parties or related parties, such as joint
ventures or subsidiaries. Agents are independent contractors who solicit sales of products or services of a domestic or foreign
company for a commission, typically calculated as a percentage of gross or net sales. Distributors and resellers purchase goods
or services from a manufacturer or service provider, and then resell them at a mark-up to other distributors, wholesalers or
retail customers.
Sometimes there are several legally significant relationships between a manufacturer and its intermediaries. E.g., a
distribution agreement can include elements of an agency relationship for certain products, and an agreement to provide
services for the manufacturer (e.g., training customers, or organizing promotions at trade shows or in retail outlets).
Marketing through a U.S. Subsidiary or Branch
In certain circumstances, it can be beneficial to establish a physical presence in the U.S. to more effectively market products.
Often, this decision is made once a certain market penetration threshold has been achieved. If a foreign company is marketing
its products through employees in the U.S., a subsidiary is generally necessary to avoid income tax consequences for the
foreign parent in the U.S.
For Swiss companies, a subsidiary in the form of a corporation, rather than a branch (or a subsidiary in the form of a
transparent entity for tax purposes), typically is the desirable form for a physical presence in the U.S. Otherwise, the Swiss
parent company may directly become subject to taxation in the U.S. Prior to forming a U.S. subsidiary and structuring its
relationship with the Swiss parent, the impact of rules of international taxation contained in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(including the transfer pricing regime pursuant to Section 482), and the Swiss-U.S. Income Tax Treaty of October 2, 1996
should first be understood.


Contract and Tort Law in the U.S.
The law on contracts and torts is state law. Except for Louisiana, all states and the District of Columbia follow the English
common law tradition, in which case law (court decisions), rather than statutes, traditionally determined the law. Despite its


roots in the English common law, the case law is often supplemented (but not replaced) by statutes (e.g., New York General
Obligations Law of April 23, 1963 (GOL); California Commercial Code, effective as of January 1, 1965; Chapter 106 of the
General Laws of Massachusetts). An important statute, which has been adopted by all states (with certain exceptions and
modifications) is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a uniform statute drafted by the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in partnership with the American Law Institute (see In its Article
2 (which was not adopted by Louisiana), the UCC establishes the rules applicable to contracts for the sale of goods. The U.S. is
also a party to several treaties that can apply to a contract between a Swiss and a U.S company (e.g. the Vienna Convention on
the International Sale of Goods (CISG) of 1980). Tort law is still mostly governed by case law.
The conflict of law rules of the states determine which state law applies to a contract or a tort matter between residents of
different states (or foreign countries). These rules generally permit the parties to a contract to select the law that shall govern
their relationship. In the absence of a choice of law by the parties, courts will decide which law has the most significant
relationship with the contract in question. In the case of a tort claim, the most significant relationship is typically with the
state in which the tort has been committed.
In a contract, the parties may also choose the courts or arbitration forum that have jurisdiction over any disputes arising in
connection with their contract. Otherwise, the jurisdiction of the various state courts is determined by the so called long-arm
statutes of the states, and by the jurisdictional provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the federal courts. According to
these rules, the federal courts have jurisdiction in contract disputes between a U.S. and a foreign company if the amount in
dispute exceeds $75,000. In contract disputes, alternative dispute resolution (such as arbitration or mediation) is often used
to resolve contract disputes. Arbitration rules that are well established include those of the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) and, for international contracts, the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
Contractual Risk Allocation
Because there is no uniform statutory law that regulates all aspects of contract law, and contracts are interpreted strictly based
on the language in a written agreement (parole evidence rule), American contracts tend to be longer and more comprehensive
than their European counterparts. Despite the understandable desire to keep contracts short and simple, Swiss companies
should be aware of the risks that can result from an incomprehensive contract with a U.S. business partner.
Most commercial risks can be freely allocated to either party to a contract. However, there are limitations. For example,
common law does not permit a party to deny responsibility for willful misconduct or gross negligence. In addition, while
liability for statutory or tort liability can be limited vis--vis a contract party, these limitations are not effective vis--vis third
Implied Covenants and Warranties
A contract party may not only be liable for commitments and representations expressly made in a contract, but also for implied
covenants and warranties. In particular, UCC Art. 2 provides that in every contract for the sale of goods there is an implied
warranty that title to the goods is transferred to the buyer. In a contract for the sale of goods by a merchant, implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are deemed to be given, except where these warranties are
conspicuously disclaimed with language prescribed in UCC Art. 2.

Tort Claims
A tort claim can be brought against a food manufacturer if it can be shown that a food manufacturer negligently caused
damages to resellers or consumers in the U.S. (e.g., because it permitted a food product to be contaminated in an unsanitary
environment). In addition, a tort claim can also be brought against the manufacturer of a food product without proving
negligence (strict liability) if the manufacturer brought the food product into circulation despite known health risks and
without adequate warnings (e.g., carcinogenetic food additives). Compliance with the requirements promulgated by the FDA
or the USDA does not always protect a manufacturer from this type of liability because to date, not all courts have recognized
such a defense. If many consumers are (potentially) harmed, a manufacturer may, under certain circumstances, be sued in a so
called class action by one consumer on behalf of the entire class of affected consumers.

Exploring and Evaluating Market Opportunities

Confidentiality Agreements



Entering into a confidentiality agreement with a potential business partner in the U.S. is a necessity before any serious
discussions are held on a future cooperation. Otherwise, the potential partner is not restricted from publishing any
confidential information (e.g., recipes, marketing plans, financial projections) or from using the confidential information for its
own purposes. To ensure the enforceability of a confidentiality agreement, the information covered must be described as
precisely as possible and may not include non-confidential information. Because damages resulting from the violation of a
confidentiality agreement are difficult to prove, confidentiality agreements should specify that injunctive relief is available to
remedy any violation of the agreement.
Under U.S. rules of civil or criminal procedure and certain laws and regulations, confidential information may, however, be
required to be disclosed to third parties or governmental authorities. In order to avoid a violation of a confidentiality
agreement, confidentiality agreements typically permit the disclosure of confidential information in these circumstances.
Consulting Agreements
During the evaluation and market development phase, it may become necessary to hire consultants in the U.S. Consultants
typically perform services for a time-based flat fee, performance based compensation or a combination of the foregoing.
Generally, the terms of consulting agreements should permit an easy termination of the relationship and clear milestones that
define the expected results. Consultants should be bound by a confidentiality agreement (which can either be part of the
consulting agreement or a stand-alone agreement), and the consulting agreement should specify that any work product created
by the consultant belongs to the client (see 4.4(b) below). Depending on the circumstances, an exclusivity and possibly a noncompete clause may be appropriate elements of a consulting agreement.

Marketing Agreements
Purchase and Sale Agreements
Agreements for the sale or delivery of food products to U.S. resellers or customers are generally governed by UCC Art. 2.
Therefore, limitations of implied warranties must follow the UCC Art. 2 rules mentioned in 2.3 above. UCC Art. 2 also
contains a special rule, Rule 2-207, for battle of the forms, i.e., situations where the general terms of a seller and those of a
buyer contradict each other. Under the common law mirror image rule, a valid contract can only be formed if offer and
acceptance are identical (i.e. the mirror image of each other). Under the UCC rule, an acceptance which contains terms that
are different from those contained in the offer can lead to a valid contract if the new terms do not materially alter the offer and
the offer did not expressly limit the acceptance to the terms of the offer. To avoid being bound by unexpected terms, general
terms and conditions should contain such a limitation. Large U.S. companies typically require strict adherence to their terms
of purchase or sales.
Delivery and price terms are essential elements of any purchase and sale. When using trade terms, such as INCOTERMS, food
exporters should be aware of the fact that certain of these terms may have a slightly different meaning in domestic U.S. law.
Agency Agreements
As briefly described under 1.2 above, an agent is retained to solicit offers from U.S. buyers (or licensees) in consideration of a
commission. The amount and type of commission varies greatly, depending on the product, the expected volume, exclusivity
and other factors. When structuring agency agreements, it is important to create incentives for the agent to maximize the sales
for the principal. This can be achieved by a tiered commission-structure, based on sales volume and including penalties for an
agents failure to reach a minimum sales level (e.g., loss of exclusivity in a particular territory, reduced commissions, etc.).
Because the agency relationship may not be clear to a customer (or the general public), the agreement should clearly define the
role of the agent and specify that the agent is not authorized to commit the principal or make unauthorized representations on
its behalf. Otherwise, the principal could become liable for unauthorized promises or warranties made by the agent to third
parties. The agent, on the other hand, risks that it will likely be first in the line of fire, if problems with a product result in
liability claims in the U.S.. Agents therefore have a legitimate interest in limiting their liability to acts for which they can
reasonably be held responsible and in securing the support of the principal in defending such claims (including
indemnification for its costs and damages).
Distribution Agreements
The issues arising in connection with distribution agreements are in many respects similar to those discussed with respect to
the agent under 4.2 above. As in an agency agreement, a distribution agreement should contain restrictions on the



representations and warranties that a distributor is authorized to make vis--vis its customers. On the other hand, a
distributor will have liability concerns similar to those discussed under 4.2 above.
However, distribution agreements can create additional issues under applicable intellectual property law and federal anti-trust
law. Because a distributor will use the intellectual property rights of a Swiss manufacturer (including its trade marks and
patent rights), the issues discussed under 4.4 below should be considered when structuring the relationship with a U.S.
distributor. Antitrust issues raised include possible prohibited price fixing, and exclusion of third parties from competition.
Licensing of Intellectual Property
There are different types of licensing agreements, depending on the type of intellectual property being licensed (patents,
copyrights, trade- or service marks, or trade secrets). Because patent and copyright license are rarely of interest to food
manufacturers, the following discussion is limited to licenses of trademarks and trade secrets.
Licensing of Trademarks
Trademarks can be created under federal or state law. Under the federal Lanham Act, trademarks used to distinguish products
can be registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Through registration, the owner of the mark is permitted to use the
symbol in connection with the registered mark. Use of the symbol without a valid registration is prohibited in the U.S.
(the TM symbol - may be used with unregistered marks). A trademark registration is prima facie evidence of the exclusive
ownership of a mark. However, both under the Lanham Act and under state law, rights in trademarks or service marks can also
be created through the simple use of a mark in commerce.
A trademark license should define (1) the territory within which the licensee has the right to use the trademark, (2) the scope of
the licensee's rights (exclusive/non-exclusive use), and (3) the time period during which the licensee may exercise these rights.
Although the life of a trademark is not limited, the owner of a trade or service mark can lose its right (or the value of its mark) if
the registration is not renewed, the mark is no longer used in commerce or the owner of the mark permits the use of the mark
by unauthorized persons or in a manner that diminishes the value of the mark. Therefore, a license agreement must permit the
licensor to monitor the quality of the goods that the licensee sells under the licensors mark, and the licensor must in fact
exercise its control rights. The licensor can also lose the protection of its mark if the license does not provide that all goodwill
created in the mark by the licensee inures to the benefit of the licensor.
A trademark license can either be a separate agreement or be included in another agreement (e.g. agency or distribution
Licensing of Know How and Trade Secrets
The issues that must be addressed in licenses of know-how or trade secrets are similar to those discussed under 3.1 above. It is
important to remember that the protected know-how is secret at all times during the term of the license. Moreover, the nature
of the protected information needs to be carefully defined in the license agreement. Because the confidential information is
revealed to the licensee for the purpose of a commercial activity, the transfer of the know-how or trade secrets, the scope of
authorized users, the duty to maintain the information confidential, and the return of the confidential information at the end of
the license term should be clearly regulated in the agreement. A know-how license does not need to have a time limitation.
However, the publication of confidential information or the loss of its value may make a know-how license unenforceable.
Legal Aspects of Marketing to Retailers
A particularity of marketing food products to retailers, in particular supermarkets, is the so called slotting fees. Slotting fees
are product placement fees that manufacturers are to pay to retailers, and sometimes to wholesalers, for shelf-space (slots).
These fees can be tied to performance or flat fees. While there is controversy regarding the influence that these fees may have
on competition, they are not illegal. Slotting fees can take the form of an upfront cash fee, a service fee for stocking or
promoting the goods, a discount or a rent for floor space (in particular where a supermarket vendor is permitted to put its own
display into a store). Supermarket chains also typically have guidelines or handbooks that vendors are expected to follow.
These guidelines are incorporated into the purchase contract by the supermarket's purchase order and can cover shipping and
delivery requirements, safety requirements, coding, shelf-life and penalties for non-compliance.



Cooperation with U.S. Companies

Manufacturing Agreements
Rather than exporting a food product that is manufactured in Switzerland, a food manufacturer may manufacture the product
locally in the U.S. (if this does not diminish the value of the "Swiss made" product) either in a subsidiary or through a thirdparty manufacturer under a manufacturing agreement. Because the Swiss manufacturer makes valuable intellectual property
and know-how available to the U.S. toll manufacturer, manufacturing agreements raise many of the issues discussed under 3.1
and 4.4 above. In addition, maintaining the quality of the manufactured products, adherence to manufacturing guidelines,
timely delivery (and payment), compliance with regulatory requirements and a fair allocation of the liability are primary
concerns that need to be addressed in these agreements. Allocating the risk associated with product liability can become tricky
in manufacturing agreements. Depending on the nature of the cause of iability, both the principal and the manufacturer can
be liable for damages resulting from defective products.
Supply Agreements
In a supply agreement, the customer is primarily concerned with securing the timely supply of raw material or product
components at the desired quality and the allocation of liability to the supplier for damages resulting from defective or
inadequate material supplied. The supplier, on the other hand, is interested in being excused from performing its obligations
in the event it becomes unable or commercially unreasonable to adhere to the terms of the contract and in limiting its liability
for the use of the supplied material or components to the maximum extent possible.
Packaging Agreements
An agreement regarding the outsourcing of the packaging of its food products for the U.S. market (whether to a U.S. or nonU.S. packaging company) should specify the labeling requirements and contain unambiguous instructions for handling and
packaging the product. If any contamination occurs during the packaging process, it is important that the manufacturer can
show that the contamination would not have occurred, had the packaging company followed the manufacturer's guidelines.
Joint Ventures
Joint ventures can be formed for purposes of developing, manufacturing, or marketing food products. Contrary to the
agreements discussed so far, the common denominator of all types of joint ventures is the achievement of a common purpose
by two or more parties through a joint decision making process. Joint ventures can be mere contractual arrangements among
parties or take the form of legal entities operated for the common purpose of the joint venture. The decision making process,
supervision and monitoring of the joint ventures activities, ownership and protection of intellectual property and the rights
and obligations of the parties in the event of a break-up or sale of the joint venture (or interests therein) are key issues that
should be addressed in a joint venture arrangement. Because unincorporated joint ventures are generally treated as
partnerships for tax purposes, Swiss companies should consider that, absent a proper structure, their participation could
subject them to U.S. taxation


Confidentiality Agreements
Entering into a confidentiality agreement with a potential business partner in the U.S. is a necessity before any serious
discussions are held on a future cooperation. Otherwise, the potential partner is not restricted from publishing any
confidential information (e.g., recipes, marketing plans, financial projections) or from using the confidential information for its
own purposes.
To ensure the enforceability of a confidentiality agreement, the information covered must be described as precisely as possible
and may not include non-confidential information. Because damages resulting from the violation of a confidentiality
agreement are difficult to prove, confidentiality agreements should specify that injunctive relief is available to remedy any
violation of the agreement.
Under U.S. rules of civil or criminal procedure and certain laws and regulations, confidential information may, however, be
required to be disclosed to third parties or governmental authorities. In order to avoid a violation of a confidentiality
agreement, confidentiality agreements typically permit the disclosure of confidential information in these circumstances.
Consulting Agreements



During the evaluation and market development phase, it may become necessary to hire consultants in the U.S.. Consultants
typically perform services for a time-based flat fee, performance based compensation or a combination of the foregoing.
Generally, the terms of consulting agreements should permit an easy termination of the relationship and clear milestones that
define the expected results. Consultants should be bound by a confidentiality agreement (which can either be part of the
consulting agreement or a stand-alone agreement), and the consulting agreement should specify that any work product created
by the consultant belongs to the client (see 4.4(b) below). Depending on the circumstances, an exclusivity and possibly a noncompete clause may be appropriate elements of a consulting agreement.


Purchase and Sale Agreements
Agreements for the sale or delivery of food products to U.S. resellers or customers are generally governed by UCC Art. 2.
Therefore, limitations of implied warranties must follow the UCC Art. 2 rules mentioned in 2.3 above. UCC Art. 2 also
contains a special rule, Rule 2-207, for battle of the forms, i.e., situations where the general terms of a seller and those of a
buyer contradict each other. Under the common law mirror image rule, a valid contract can only be formed if offer and
acceptance are identical (i.e. the mirror image of each other). Under the UCC rule, an acceptance which contains terms that
are different from those contained in the offer can lead to a valid contract if the new terms do not materially alter the offer and
the offer did not expressly limit the acceptance to the terms of the offer. To avoid being bound by unexpected terms, general
terms and conditions should contain such a limitation. Large U.S. companies typically require strict adherence to their terms
of purchase or sales.
Delivery and price terms are essential elements of any purchase and sale. When using trade terms, such as INCOTERMS, food
exporters should be aware of the fact that certain of these terms may have a slightly different meaning in domestic U.S. law.
Agency Agreements
As briefly described under 1.2 above, an agent is retained to solicit offers from U.S. buyers (or licensees) in consideration of a
commission. The amount and type of commission varies greatly, depending on the product, the expected volume, exclusivity
and other factors. When structuring agency agreements, it is important to create incentives for the agent to maximize the sales
for the principal. This can be achieved by a tiered commission-structure, based on sales volume and including penalties for an
agents failure to reach a minimum sales level (e.g., loss of exclusivity in a particular territory, reduced commissions, etc.).
Because the agency relationship may not be clear to a customer (or the general public), the agreement should clearly define the
role of the agent and specify that the agent is not authorized to commit the principal or make unauthorized representations on
its behalf. Otherwise, the principal could become liable for unauthorized promises or warranties made by the agent to third
parties. The agent, on the other hand, risks that it will likely be first in the line of fire, if problems with a product result in
liability claims in the U.S.. Agents therefore have a legitimate interest in limiting their liability to acts for which they can
reasonably be held responsible and in securing the support of the principal in defending such claims (including
indemnification for its costs and damages).
Distribution Agreements
The issues arising in connection with distribution agreements are in many respects similar to those discussed with respect to
the agent under 4.2 above. As in an agency agreement, a distribution agreement should contain restrictions on the
representations and warranties that a distributor is authorized to make vis--vis its customers. On the other hand, a
distributor will have liability concerns similar to those discussed under 4.2 above.
However, distribution agreements can create additional issues under applicable intellectual property law and federal anti-trust
law. Because a distributor will use the intellectual property rights of a Swiss manufacturer (including its trade marks and
patent rights), the issues discussed under 4.4 below should be considered when structuring the relationship with a U.S.
distributor. Antitrust issues raised include possible prohibited price fixing, and exclusion of third parties from competition.
Licensing of Intellectual Property
There are different types of licensing agreements, depending on the type of intellectual property being licensed (patents,
copyrights, trade- or service marks, or trade secrets). Because patent and copyright license are rarely of interest to food
manufacturers, the following discussion is limited to licenses of trade marks and trade secrets.


Licensing of Trademarks
Trademarks can be created under federal or state law. Under the federal Lanham Act, trademarks used to distinguish products
can be registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Through registration, the owner of the mark is permitted to use the
symbol in connection with the registered mark. Use of the symbol without a valid registration is prohibited in the U.S.
(the TM symbol - may be used with unregistered marks). A trademark registration is prima facie evidence of the exclusive
ownership of a mark. However, both under the Lanham Act and under state law, rights in trademarks or service marks can also
be created through the simple use of a mark in commerce.
A trademark license should define (1) the territory within which the licensee has the right to use the trademark, (2) the scope of
the licensee's rights (exclusive/non-exclusive use), and (3) the time period during which the licensee may exercise these rights.
Although the life of a trademark is not limited, the owner of a trade or service mark can lose its right (or the value of its mark) if
the registration is not renewed, the mark is no longer used in commerce or the owner of the mark permits the use of the mark
by unauthorized persons or in a manner that diminishes the value of the mark. Therefore, a license agreement must permit the
licensor to monitor the quality of the goods that the licensee sells under the licensors mark, and the licensor must in fact
exercise its control rights. The licensor can also lose the protection of its mark if the license does not provide that all goodwill
created in the mark by the licensee inures to the benefit of the licensor.
A trademark license can either be a separate agreement or be included in another agreement (e.g., agency or distribution
Licensing of Know How and Trade Secrets
The issues that must be addressed in licenses of know-how or trade secrets are similar to those discussed under 3.1 above. It is
important to remember that the protected know-how is secret at all times during the term of the license. Moreover, the nature
of the protected information needs to be carefully defined in the license agreement. Because the confidential information is
revealed to the licensee for the purpose of a commercial activity, the transfer of the know-how or trade secrets, the scope of
authorized users, the duty to maintain the information confidential, and the return of the confidential information at the end of
the license term should be clearly regulated in the agreement. A know-how license does not need to have a time limitation.
However, the publication of confidential information or the loss of its value may make a know-how license unenforceable.
Legal Aspects of Marketing to Retailers
A particularity of marketing food products to retailers, in particular supermarkets, is the so called slotting fees. Slotting fees
are product placement fees that manufacturers are to pay to retailers, and sometimes to wholesalers, for shelf-space (slots).
These fees can be tied to performance or flat fees. While there is controversy regarding the influence that these fees may have
on competition, they are not illegal. Slotting fees can take the form of an upfront cash fee, a service fee for stocking or
promoting the goods, a discount or a rent for floor space (in particular where a supermarket vendor is permitted to put its own
display into a store).
Supermarket chains also typically have guidelines or handbooks that vendors are expected to follow. These guidelines are
incorporated into the purchase contract by the supermarket's purchase order and can cover shipping and delivery
requirements, safety requirements, coding, shelf-life and penalties for non-compliance.


Manufacturing Agreements
Rather than exporting a food product that is manufactured in Switzerland, a food manufacturer may manufacture the product
locally in the U.S. (if this does not diminish the value of the "Swiss made" product) either in a subsidiary or through a thirdparty manufacturer under a manufacturing agreement. Because the Swiss manufacturer makes valuable intellectual property
and know-how available to the U.S. toll manufacturer, manufacturing agreements raise many of the issues discussed under 3.1
and 4.4 above. In addition, maintaining the quality of the manufactured products, adherence to manufacturing guidelines,
timely delivery (and payment), compliance with regulatory requirements and a fair allocation of the liability are primary
concerns that need to be addressed in these agreements. Allocating the risk associated with product liability can become tricky
in manufacturing agreements. Depending on the nature of the cause of liability, both the principal and the manufacturer can
be liable for damages resulting from defective products.



Supply Agreements
In a supply agreement, the customer is primarily concerned with securing the timely supply of raw material or product
components at the desired quality and the allocation of liability to the supplier for damages resulting from defective or
inadequate material supplied. The supplier, on the other hand, is interested in being excused from performing its obligations
in the event it becomes unable or commercially unreasonable to adhere to the terms of the contract and in limiting its liability
for the use of the supplied material or components to the maximum extent possible.
Packaging Agreements
An agreement regarding the outsourcing of the packaging of its food products for the U.S. market (whether to a U.S. or nonU.S. packaging company) should specify the labeling requirements and contain unambiguous instructions for handling and
packaging the product. If any contamination occurs during the packaging process, it is important that the manufacturer can
show that the contamination would not have occurred, had the packaging company followed the manufacturer's guidelines.
Joint Ventures
Joint ventures can be formed for purposes of developing, manufacturing, or marketing food products. Contrary to the
agreements discussed so far, the common denominator of all types of joint ventures is the achievement of a common purpose
by two or more parties through a joint decision making process. Joint ventures can be mere contractual arrangements among
parties or take the form of legal entities operated for the common purpose of the joint venture. The decision making process,
supervision and monitoring of the joint ventures activities, ownership and protection of intellectual property and the rights
and obligations of the parties in the event of a break-up or sale of the joint venture (or interests therein) are key issues that
should be addressed in a joint venture arrangement. Because unincorporated joint ventures are generally treated as
partnerships for tax purposes, Swiss companies should consider that, absent a proper structure, their participation could
subject them to U.S. taxation (see 1.3 above).



19. Challenges and Opportunities for Swiss Food





Market Size

The total retail market is massive, with

250,000 outlets (grocery stores, wholesale
clubc, C stores, etc.) had revenue of $1,250
billion in 2012.
Although economic and industry growth are
projected to be slow, specialty segments of the
food & beverage industry will have robust
Companies with innovative products, brands
and packaging which match consumer trends
in heath & wellness, natural, freshness, etc.
should do well.
The specialization of the food distribution
system enables Swiss manufacturers to target
specific regions, demographic groups and
consumers with distinct characteristics.
Through its cultural, demographic and
geographic diversity, the U.S. market offers
opportunities for nearly any type of food and
beverage product from mass market to

The diversity of the U.S. (geographic, cultural tastes,

ethnicity and demographics) and size of the market.







Sales by the 20 largest food retailers totaled

$418.0 billion, accounting for 64% of U.S.
grocery store sales. The long term trend shows
an increasing concentration of sales among the
largest retailers.
U.S. retailer food brands, i.e. private label
brands, are on track to achieve market
penetration of between 25% and 30% in the
next decade.



The economy faces slow growth and consumers are

shopping for bargains. Generic store brands are
growing in market share while higher-priced name
brands have suffered from slower sales.
Competition is fierce. The entire food industry, from
growing to processing to retailing, is an extremely
competitive field where profit margins are typically
The food distribution system in the U.S. is complex.
Many players - including middlemen - produce,
manufacture, transport, distribute, market, and sell
every type of food product imaginable.
The marketing of even a single food product can be a
complicated process involving many producers and
companies. A daunting task for Swiss companies can
be to decide upon the correct strategy for the 4 Ps
(product, price, promotion and place) of the marketing
Swiss companies must determine their target
market(s) and the most effective retail channels for
them, such as traditional, C store, drugstore, specialty,
gourmet, organic, local, and others.
Retailers are wielding increasing power over
manufacturers, competing successfully and often
winning against branded products, earning consumer
trust in terms of pricing, quality, image and value.





The U.S. organic market is substantial and

growing rapidly, with projected CAGR
approaching 10% through 2016, at which time
the market size is projected to be $46.5 billion.


Key consumer lifestyle trends present

opportunities for Swiss companies:
1. Chefs as food educators
2. Purity, freshness, simplicity
3. Customized diets based on
personal nutrition
4. Good vs. bad ingredients
5. Snacks with balanced
6. Social eating issues
Leading industry trends include:
1. Traceability/tracking
2. Food safety
3. New customers
4. New products
5. Cost of goods and selling prices

In Feb 2012, an U.S. EU Organic Equivalence

Agreement was signed in in which the EU will
recognize US organic products as equivalent to those
in the EU and vice versa.
Since Switzerland is not in the EU, this could pose a
challenge for Swiss companies seeking to sell organic
products in the U.S. However, the USDA has begun
discussions with Switzerland about a similar
equivalency agreement.
The challenge is in knowing which are long-term
trends and which are short-term trends or fads, and
the ability to quickly respond in order to capitalize on
them. A local partner is essential to do so, given the
distance (geographic and cultural) Swiss companies
are from the U.S. market



A substantial number of food & beverage

products on the U.S. market are imported.
Swiss products the most well known of which
are cheeses and chocolates - enjoy an excellent
reputation for quality and innovation.


The growing movement in globalization of

American food culture, due to:
1. Changing dynamics of society
2. Exposure to global cuisines



A key differentiator for Swiss companies would be the

ability to demonstrate superior track records in
traceability and food safety.
Swiss products could fulfill the need for new products
and help retailers acquire new customers, but may face
difficulties with the higher cost of imported products.
Imported products must comply with stringent
regulations from FDA and EPA on everything from
labelling to nutritional analysis and manufacturing
plant registration. Importing can be a complicated
process, fraught with unexpected delays and tariffs
and compliance with new regulations.
The challenge is to embrace this trend by
commercializing Swiss products in the U.S. perhaps
adapting them to American tastes while retaining a
uniquely Swiss image. [Evidence the meteoric rise of
Chobani Greek style yogurt, which in 5 years rose from
a regional manufacturer to command 47% of the $6
billion U.S. Greek yogurt market.]

20. How to enter the market

By Paul S. Anderson, The Anderson Law Firm, LLC
General Background
The importation of products into the U.S. is regulated by, and through, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (Customs or CBP). The purpose of this chapter is to briefly describe the structure of CBP
and its operations, and to identify the most common issues of interest to food importers. The following comprises a brief
synopsis only and is designed to provide a basic knowledge of importing requirements. Many issues may arise which require
fine technical distinctions or fall within gray areas of the law. It is highly recommended that an importer take the time to
obtain expert advice prior to the importation of any product so as to minimize potential problems and to make its importation
program as cost effective as possible.
Informed Compliance and Reasonable Care
The Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act (Mod Act) was signed into law in 1993 and introduced the
concept of informed compliance whereby Customs and the importing community would share the responsibility of
administering the U.S. Customs laws. This informed compliance concept places an affirmative burden on importers to
exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their responsibilities relating to the importation of merchandise. An importer must
exercise reasonable care in all facets of the importing process, including the manner in which it describes, classifies and values
imported merchandise. Reasonable care means that an importer will act reasonably, and with knowledge of the facts and its
legal obligations. The concepts of informed compliance and reasonable care permeate all aspects of Customs administration
and enforcement
Customs and Border Protection Structure
Customs basic structure involves CBP Headquarters in Washington DC; the National Import Specialist Division (NIS) in New
York; and the numerous local ports throughout the country where the merchandise actually is presented to Customs for
clearance. Headquarters sets policy, has oversight of security procedures, and issues rulings and decisions through the Office
of Regulations and Rulings (OR&R). Port Directors are in charge of the local ports and this is where the day-to-day importing
activity occurs. The NISs in New York provide supervisory guidance with respect to classification decisions at the outlying
local ports so as to ensure consistency throughout the country.
CBP has several levels of personnel with which an importer should be familiar. The most frequent point of contact will be the
local import specialists who are Customs officials responsible for monitoring merchandise imported into the U.S.. Import
specialists request information so that they can properly examine the classification and value of imported merchandise. In
addition, import specialists administer quotas, make determinations on country of origin markings, check documents for
accuracy and completeness, and perform many other similar day-to-day tasks.
Oral advice from an import specialist is not binding on Customs and generally can be changed at any time. Importers may
obtain a binding ruling from Customs by submitting a request in writing, along with a sample of the merchandise, to Customs
Headquarters or to the National Import Specialist in New York City. Greater detail concerning the ruling process is set forth
later in this chapter.
Inspectors are Customs personnel who actually examine the merchandise prior to release into the Customs territory of the
U.S.. Importers typically do not have much contact with inspectors unless a problem arises with the clearance of the
merchandise. Even then, the problem more than likely would be brought to the importers attention through the import
specialist. An inspector ensures that merchandise that is presented for entry matches that described in the commercial
invoices, checks for country of origin markings, and otherwise examines the merchandise to ensure that it is in compliance. It
should be noted that only a small percentage of all merchandise imported into the U.S. is physically examined by an inspector.



Special agents are not involved in routine Customs matters. Rather, special agents almost always work on suspected Customs
law violations. Therefore, a telephone call or visit from a special agent is a serious matter and an importer should immediately
contact Customs counsel if such an event occurs.
Current Regulatory Environment
Compliance with the Customs laws is of utmost importance in todays environment where security considerations are
paramount. Much of the focus in terms of CBP resources since September 11, 2001 has focused in the area of security
generally, and CBP has promulgated many new programs designed to make compliance more efficient yet also meet
heightened security considerations. The Customs regulations change quite rapidly and it is important to keep abreast of all
new developments. Although there are many new security initiatives, the program currently in the forefront is the Customs
and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program wherein importers receive certain benefits including reduced
cargo inspections when they are certified as a C-TPAT participant. The C-TPAT program and its impact upon food
importations is discussed later in this chapter.
CBP enforces the regulations of many other governmental agencies and acts as the primary enforcement arm for the
application of such regulations to imported products. With respect to food products, CBP enforces the regulations of the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Basic Customs Considerations
Customs duties are generally determined on an ad valorem basis, meaning that the amount of duties owed will depend upon
the duty rate applied and the value placed upon the imported merchandise. The duty rate to be applied to imported
merchandise is determined by its tariff classification and country of origin. Customs duties may also be specific, i.e., 10 each,
or may be a compound rate of ad valorem and specific duties.
Tariff Classification and Duty Rates
There are over 12,000 separate subheadings in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the U.S. (HTSUS) under which imported
merchandise may be classified. In order to determine the proper classification of imported merchandise within the HTSUS, an
importer must be familiar with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI) of the HTSUS. In many instances, an article may
seem to fit exactly within a tariff provision and yet not be properly classified under that tariff provision. The GRIs are to be
consulted in all cases and are applied in sequential order. Factors affecting tariff classification include whether the product is
specifically defined in the Section or Chapter Notes; whether the item is provided for specifically in a particular tariff item;
whether a particular tariff item is more specific than another; the common meaning of a tariff item; the principal use of an
item; and the component make-up of the item.
There are also many special programs allowing for reduced duties or importation free of duty. Many of the programs involve
imports from developing countries such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), and
other programs. Of course Switzerland does not qualify as a developing country, but Swiss companies may produce products
in developing countries and ship them directly to the U.S. which may qualify for duty-free treatment under such a program.
There are also many bilateral agreements providing for duty-free treatment such as the U.S. Israel Free Trade Agreement,
U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement, and others. There is also the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which
involves duty-free treatment for qualifying articles between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. Again, Switzerland is not a party to any
of these free trade agreements, but it is possible to manufacture products within these countries and qualify for duty-free
treatment upon importation into the U.S. if the technical requirements are met.
Customs Valuation of Imported Merchandise
Customs valuation can be a very complicated area, and one which can have a major effect on Customs duties. A common
mistake made by importers is believing that imported merchandise always will be valued (appraised) at the transaction price,
or the price actually paid for the merchandise by the importer. In fact, most appraisements are made based upon transaction
values. However, Customs may use other methods of valuing imported merchandise such as deductive value or computed
value. These methods may require the importer to provide costs, expenses and detailed accounting information in order to
satisfy Customs as to the correct appraised value of the imported merchandise. Special rules also apply where merchandise is
brought into the U.S. on a consignment basis and is not sold to a purchaser in the U.S. until a later time. Alternative methods
of appraisement generally apply in related party transactions or consignment situations.



An importer is free to structure a transaction to take advantage of the Customs laws. Some importers employ buying agents
whose commissions are non-dutiable items. Other favorable structures involve the utilization of the first sale rule which
involves sales through a middleman, who in turn sells to a U.S. importer, yet entry is made at the first sale (price to the
middleman) level. Certain legal requirements must be met in order to utilize these structures and they are not automatically
available. Finally, it should be noted that although most appraisements are made based upon the invoice price on the
commercial invoice to the importer, amounts for freight and insurance are non-dutiable items and should be broken out
separately if included in the invoice price to ensure that they are not included in dutiable value.
Country of Origin Marking
All merchandise of foreign origin imported into the U.S. must be marked with the country of origin. The Customs marking
requirements in Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 are as follows:
Every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly,
indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate
purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin or the article.
There are many exceptions to the above rule, so an answer to any country of origin marking question must take into account
the particular product involved and the manner in which the good is imported and used. In general, goods imported into the
U.S. must be marked in a conspicuous manner with the English name of the country of origin. In order for the marking to be
considered conspicuous, it must be legible, easily found and read without difficulty. Goods must be marked in such a manner
as to indicate the country of origin to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S.. The ultimate purchaser is generally the last person in
the U.S. who will receive the article in the form in which it is imported. Failure to properly mark an imported article to indicate
its country or origin can result in a special 10% ad valorem marking duty, demands for redelivery to Customs, and
accompanying liquidated damages, or other penalties.
Invoices presented to Customs must be properly prepared and meet regulatory requirements. The commercial invoice should
show the port of entry to which the merchandise is destined; the name of the party to which the merchandise is sold and the
place from where shipped; a detailed description of the merchandise, in English, including the name by which each item is
known, the grade or quality, marks, numbers and symbols under which they are sold by the seller; the quantity of merchandise;
the purchase price of each item; the currency in which the transaction is made; and all charges itemized by name and amount
including freight, insurance, commissions, coverings, costs of packing, and related expenses.
Entering Merchandise into the U.S
Importers typically utilize licensed Customhouse brokers to assist in the entry of merchandise into the U.S.. A Customhouse
broker is licensed by CBP and files the appropriate documentation with Customs to obtain release of the merchandise and to
effect payment of duties. A Customhouse broker is distinguished from a freight forwarder in that a freight forwarder performs
the service of arranging for the transportation of merchandise from point A to point B, but is not licensed to transact Customs
business with CBP or file entry documentation. Many companies frequently are both Customhouse brokers and freight
forwarders. It is possible for an importer to file entry documentation itself, however, it is generally recommended that a
Customhouse broker be utilized.
The entry process begins with the Customhouse broker submitting a Customs Form (CF) 3461 to Customs which indicates the
basic information concerning the merchandise including the shipper, importer, type of merchandise, tariff classification, value
and related information. The information is submitted electronically through the ABI (Automated Broker Interface) system.
CBP will then issue a release of the merchandise or indicate that there is a problem and that additional information is needed.
For shipments of products subject to FDA requirements, appropriate information is electronically transmitted by the broker.
FDA will then notify the broker whether the merchandise may proceed or not, as the case may be. A CF 7501 will then be filed
by the broker which is known as an Entry Summary and which provides all information concerning the calculation of duties,
asserted tariff classification items and related information, and also the payment of duties. An entry summary must be filed
within 10 business days from the date of entry. In the event that the imported merchandise is not granted a May Proceed
notice by FDA, the merchandise may be subject to detention procedures as set forth below.



It is also possible to utilize a Customs Bonded Warehouse or Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) regarding entry of merchandise.
Merchandise may be entered into a Customs Bonded Warehouse upon the filing of an appropriate warehouse entry. Duties on
the merchandise will not be deposited until the product is withdrawn from warehouse for consumption into the U.S..
Merchandise may be inspected, repacked, stored, and similar treatment, but may not be processed or manufactured in a
bonded warehouse and then brought into the U.S.. In the case of processing or manufacturing, such a product must be
exported. Merchandise can also be brought into a Foreign Trade Zone, and again, duties are not paid until merchandise is
withdrawn for entry into the U.S.. A Foreign Trade Zone requires special permission but allows for greater flexibility and
freedom of manufacture, production or manipulation.
Numerous types of quotas on imported merchandise are administered through CBP. Quotas cover a wide range of products
and have traditionally been evident in the importation of food products and textiles. Quotas are generally of two types, 1)
absolute quotas and 2) tariff rate quotas. Absolute quotas are quantitative amounts that are set for a specific period of time
(usually one year) wherein imported products may be brought into the U.S. only up to those specific limits. Allocations are
generally made by specific country, and there are also allocations for all other countries not receiving the specific allocation.
Once the limitations have been reached for the particular time period in question, no more imports of those products will be
allowed in the U.S.. Tariff rate quotas allow a specific quantity of merchandise to be imported at a lower duty rate. However,
once the quantitative limitation has been reached, rather than prohibiting any further importations during that year the
products in excess of the quota amount will be assessed a higher duty rate for imports made through the balance of the
calendar year. Allocations of quota are subject to negotiation and change on a regular basis. Certain requirements are present
as regards the entry procedures so that Customs can adequately account for all product subject to quota. Depending upon the
type of product involved, there may be different documentary requirements.
There are currently quotas on a wide range of products including beef; dairy products including milk and cheese; raw sugars;
other sugar containing products; various types of chocolate; certain types of mixes and doughs; ice cream; animal feed; and
mixed condiments and seasonings. Switzerland generally falls into an all other allocation on most quotas as opposed to
receiving a specific amount. An exception to this involves the importation of certain Swiss and other types of cheese. It is
critical that any potential quota applicability be determined well ahead of time as many quotas fill quickly and it may be
extremely difficult to obtain a quota allocation and appropriate documentation.
Rulings by Customs and Administrative Contest
As previously mentioned, an importer may obtain protection and assurance that its tariff classification, method of valuation, or
country of origin marking methodology is correct in the form of a binding ruling from Customs. Binding rulings are
prospective in nature and provide a written decision from Customs as to any of those issues noted above. A ruling may be
obtained from the National Import Specialist in New York and these rulings frequently may be secured within 30 days.
Rulings from the NIS in New York are limited to simple classification issues. For other issues including valuation, more
complex classification issues, and country of origin determinations, a ruling may be obtained from CBP Headquarters in
Washington, D.C. These rulings take longer to process and can be secured within 120 days, but often take longer. In each case,
a ruling will give predictability to an importer as to dutiable consequences of its transactions. A ruling may be revoked or
modified but such an occurrence is relatively infrequent and generally would not apply on a retroactive basis.
It is also possible to obtain decisions from Customs on matters contested administratively. Most of the methods employed
depend upon whether or not an entry has been liquidated. An importer should note that money paid to Customs at the time
of shipment clearance is only a deposit of estimated duties. The final accounting for Customs duties occurs at liquidation of an
entry which may occur months or even years after goods are released by Customs. An importer has a right to contest a
determination by Customs regarding an entry and to receive a refund of any excess Customs duties paid. In order to do so the
importer must file a protest with Customs within 180 days from the date of liquidation of the entry.1 A protest contesting a
decision by Customs is filed at the local port where entry was made and generally the decision is also made there. In some
cases, further review of the protest by Customs Headquarters may be requested. The decision by Headquarters in such a case,
referred to as an AFR (Application for Further Review), in effect will also act as a binding ruling as to the issue. It is also
possible to request a ruling from Headquarters where entry has been made but the entry has not yet been liquidated. In such
an instance the appropriate mechanism is referred to as a Request for Internal Advice.

Ninety days has been the traditional statute of limitation for filing an administrative protest but the law has recently been changed so that entries made after
December 18, 2004 are now subject to a 180 day limitation period.


Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Requirements Enforced by Customs / The Bioterrorism Act of 2002
CBP acts as the first level of scrutiny with regard to imported products and their compliance with FDA regulations.
Adulteration, labeling and other traditional FDA issues are discussed in the chapter involving FDA requirements. The passage
of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrrorism Act or BTA) has
particular relevance with regard to imports. The basic elements of the Bioterrorism Act are as noted below.
The Bioterrorism Act requires that any facility, domestic or international, that manufactures, processes, packs or holds food for
animal or human consumption in the U.S. must register with the FDA. The rationale behind this requirement is to ensure that
the FDA can quickly locate and neutralize faulty food processors in the case of delivered or accidental contamination of food.
Basic information such as company name, address, trade names, food product categories, and name and contact information
are required to be submitted in the registration. Importantly, for foreign facilities that have no physical presence in the U.S., a
U.S. based agent must be designated.
Prior Notice
This section of the BTA requires that prior notice of the arrival of merchandise at the first U.S. port of entry must be provided
to Customs and FDA. The data that must be included in the prior notice provided is the country from which the article
originates; country from which the article is shipped; the anticipated U.S. port of arrival; the Customs entry type and date; all
carriers involved in transporting the article; the firm name and address in each instance; the e-mail address, telephone and fax
numbers; and the registration number and standard carrier abbreviation code. Prior notice of imported foods must be
received electronically by FDA through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) or via the Prior Notice System Interface (PNSI)
no more than five days before arrival in the U.S. Further, it must be received no fewer than two hours before arrival by land via
road; four hours before arrival by air or land via rail; and eight hours before arrival by water. All shipments, regardless of
value, must meet the prior notice requirements unless exempted. Products that are exempted from prior notice requirements
are personal food or gifts accompanying an individual; merchandise that is exclusively subject to U.S. Department of
Agricultural jurisdiction such as meat, poultry and egg products; homemade goods shipped as gifts; food items shipped by a
diplomatic pouch; foods normally subject to the Bioterrorism Act that are included in shipments of household goods; and nonconsumption samples for testing only.
Records Maintenance
The BTA also requires the maintenance of records to allow for the identification of immediate previous sources and immediate
subsequent recipients of food to help the FDA track food quickly and more efficiently should a potentially hazardous shipment
be released. Persons that must establish and maintain records include domestic persons in the U.S. that manufacture, process,
pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold or import food; foreign persons that transport food; and persons who place food
directly in contact with its finished container. It should be noted that foreign persons who do not transport food in the U.S. are
excluded from these regulations.
Records that must be maintained by non-transporters of food relate to the identity of the immediate non-transporters
previous sources, whether foreign or domestic, including the name of the firm address, telephone number, type of food, date
received, quantity and type of packaging and immediate transporter source. Also, this same information must be provided for
an immediate non-transporters subsequent recipients of all foods released. The term transporter includes persons who have
possession, custody, or control of an article of food in the U.S. for the sole purpose of transporting the food. It also includes
foreign persons that transport food in the U.S. regardless of whether a foreign person has possession, custody or control for the
sole purpose of transporting it. Records to be kept in this regard include those with names of the transporters immediate
previous source and the transporters immediate subsequent recipient; the origin and destination points; the date shipment
received and date released; number of packages; description of freight; route of movement during the time the food was
transported; and transfer points.
The records must be retained depending on the type of food and whether the recordkeeper is a transporter or non-transporter,
for anywhere from six months to two years. Customs records must be kept for five years. Records must be readily available
and accessible.



The BTA gives authority to the FDA to detain any shipment if it has credible evidence or information indicating that the article
of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. An article of food may be
detained regardless of the size and value of the item. Should a food shipment be detained, a detention order will be issued by
FDA. The detention order must be approved by the FDA district director at the local port and all relevant parties will be
notified. Detained food may be transferred to a secure area as determined by the FDA. A detention order is valid for a
maximum period of 30 days. If the FDA terminates a detention order or if the detention period expires, an authorized FDA
representative will issue a detention termination notice releasing the article of food to any person who received the detention
order. If the FDA does not issue a detention termination notice and the detention period expires, the detention order is
deemed terminated.
The detention order must have a detention order number, hour and date of the order, identification of the detained article of
food, detention period involved, statement that the article of food identified is detained for the period shown, a general
statement of reasoning behind why the food is being detained, the name of the authorized FDA representative who approved
the order, and the address and location of where the article of food is to be detained. The detention order may require the
detained food to be marked and labeled that in fact it has been detained. Also, a detention order may be appealed as to the
reason for the detainment.
A distinction must be drawn between Administrative Detention under Section 304(h) and Section 801(a) of the Federal Food
Drug and Cosmetic Act. As noted, Section 304(h) gives the FDA authority to detain food where it has credible evidence or
information that the article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequence or death to humans or animals. On
the other hand, a detention under Section 801(a) focuses on whether the article of food 1) appears to have been safely
produced, packed and held; 2) contains no contaminants, illegal additives or residues; and 3) is properly labeled. As a result,
the standards of detention differ, with Section 304 detentions requiring credible evidence of serious adverse health
consequences or death. A detention under Section 801 will result in a document referred to as Notice of Detention and
Hearing. FDA has stated that it will primarily use Section 304(h) for domestic shipments and not as a tool to stop imports.
Under the U.S. Customs laws it is unlawful to enter, introduce or attempt to enter or introduce any merchandise into the U.S.
by means of a material false statement or omission, whether by fraud, gross negligence, or negligence. The amount of penalty
imposed depends upon the level of culpability, but can be quite severe. If Customs determines that an importer fraudulently
evaded duties, it may assess a penalty up to the amount of the U.S. domestic value of the merchandise. If Customs determines
that an importer violated Customs laws because of gross negligence, it may impose a penalty of up to four times the loss of
Customs duties and up to two times the loss of Customs duties for ordinary negligence. When a violation of the Customs laws
has occurred, an importer may avoid the imposition of the harsh penalties described above by filing a prior disclosure or a
petition to mitigate penalties. A prior disclosure is a detailed explanation of the circumstances and factors resulting in a false
statement or material omission which is filed by an importer before an investigation commenced, or without knowledge of an
Importers also need to be aware of the additional sizable penalties which may be imposed for failing to keep and present
proper records. Under this law, the duty to maintain Customs records is extended to any owner, importer, consignee, importer
of record, entry filer, or any other party who is involved in such import related activity. Customs has compiled a list of records
which must be maintained for five years (the (A)(1)(A) list), but importers should also take care to keep related business
documents for the same period of time.
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and Related Security Compliance Issues
Security considerations have been at the forefront of the CBP agenda since the September 11, 2001. Many programs relate to
developing greater security at ports in the U.S. and major ports throughout the world, and other programs pertain to container
security and supply chain security considerations. The Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is the major
initiative by CBP in strengthening security considerations as regards importers, Customs brokers, freight forwarders and ocean
transportation intermediaries, and modes of transportation along the supply chain. The program has received increasing
acceptance and all importers should at least consider the possibility of participating in the program.



C-TPAT is a voluntary partnership between Customs and members of the importing community. The program provides
incentives to join C-TPAT and encourages applications from those importers who do business with other C-TPAT certified
businesses. Because the program is voluntary, in return for an importers participation and demonstration that it meets or
exceeds certain minimum security requirements, Customs offers incentives to the importer such as reduced cargo inspections,
an assigned account manager, access to the C-TPAT membership list, and eligibility for account-based process with CBP. The
application process requires 1) preparation of the C-TPAT Supply Chain Security Profile; 2) electronic submission of the profile
and 3) assessment and verification of the importers actual processes.
An importer must conduct an assessment of its international supply chain. The supply chain for C-TPAT purposes is defined
as from point of origin (manufacturer/supplier/vendor) through the point of distribution in the U.S.. CBP has mandated
specific security criteria. Not all the criteria will apply in all cases and Customs personnel have indicated that each submission
is evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration specific risk factors such as the country of origin or
transshipment. Customs states that the C-TPAT program recognizes the complexity of international supply chains and
endorses the application and implementation of security measures based upon risk analysis.
The following measures are mandatory: Written procedures for selecting business partners; container security; physical access
controls; procedures regarding documentation processing; security training and threat awareness; physical security; and
information technology security. The C-TPAT program continues to progress and be subject to additional revisions. Potential
participants should consult with knowledgeable experts as to future changes in the program and the advisability of
The United States requires significant dedication, commitment, persistence, aggressiveness and resources. The relative
maturity and intense competition within the food and beverage market has led to customers having come to expect significant
aftersales service and incentives.
The keys to success in the market include a great product, a significant investment of time and money, capacity to supply at
competitive prices and a willingness to assimilate into the United States business culture.
Swiss companies are recommended to approach the market by regions as the United States is diversified in size, format and
consumer. As local brokers, agents and distributors are located across the country it is advisable for Swiss companies to
investigate their potential broker / agent / distributors client list, portfolio, size of sales team, margin expectations, location in
relevant market, expertise, warehouse or dropproduct, prior to assigning their representatives in the market.
It may be viable to adopt a private label strategy if your brand is not known in the United States, as costs are extremely high to
build a brand in the market.
Entering the U.S. market is a strategic business decision that requires preparation, planning and excellent execution to achieve
the desired success. These 6 key steps are the same for every foreign investment into the US, but more particular to European
companies who may have a tendency to underestimate their importance.
1. Full awareness of the differences between Europe and the US
2. Launched the project after meticulous preparation
3. Considered the project as Business Strategic and provided Executive backing
4. Backed the venture with sufficient funds for success
5. Defined a great Value Proposition for the market
6. Brought the right partners on board early
Many European companies enter the US domestic market on a limited budget. That is a mistake. Prospective clients in their
decision process to replace established domestic competition compare all your touch points with the reigning players in the
market. Touch points are products, people, proposed pricing, marketing collateral, etc that should send the same consistent
quality message.
Selling imported goods within the U.S. can be a lucrative business opportunity. High demand imported food and beverage
products represent a significant market opportunity. If you are interested in importing and selling overseas goods into the U.S.
market, you will need to do your research regarding both the country of export and the country of import. Here are some
business and regulatory tips to guide you through the process of selling imported goods in the U.S.



Exporting food and beverage products into the United States is a full-time venture, and one that can be extremely challenging
for the unprepared manufacturer. As discussed, the U.S. market is very large, but the sheer size of the market gives some
indication of the competitiveness that manufacturers face when trying to position their product.
In todays global economy, Swiss manufacturers must be prepared to commit to an export program which may or may not
involve a U.S. partner (importer, distributor, licensee, joint venture or M&A partner), and invest accordingly. The first and
most obvious step in this process is performing a company assessment, as outlined below. Having this infrastructure in place is
critical for success.


International sales experience?

English language capabilities?
Streamlined customer service?
Phone, fax & e-mail?
Strong domestic sales? Sufficient capacity to target international sales?
Working capital to focus on international sales?
Competitive products & defined target market?
Working capital to grow brand?


Conducting a competitive landscape analysis is one of the most important steps a manufacturer can take when deciding
whether or not to pursue the U.S. market. Manufacturers should identify who their competition would be in the U.S. market,
and highlight as much information about their products as possible, including:

Varieties available and packaging/size

Retail price points
How often they are on promotion
Retail point-of-sale support
What stores are they sold in
What regions of the country do they focus on
What trade shows do they attend
What brokers and distributors do they work with

There are obvious differences between marketing food and beverage products domestically and in the United States. First and
foremost, is the need to understand the customer. A products marketability will depend largely on the target demographic. As
discussed above, the U.S. market is not one, solitary entity, but rather a collection of sub-sectors, each with different
requirements and product norms.
Most notably, one of the most common differences involves payment terms. In the United States, potential buyers will expect
the manufacturer to fund the entire cost of production. Letters of credit, irrevocable or otherwise, are almost impossible to
come by. Additionally, in most cases, potential buyers will expect the first order to be on consignment (good paid for only after
they are sold into retail), in order to grow the market.
Remember, that a manufacturers distribution model, including all brokers, distributors and retailers, are part of the sales
channel. Each of them has a monumental task of placing the manufacturers products in as many retail outlets as possible.
Since most of these players work on either commission or on a percentage of sales, they are not making any money until a sale
is consummated. The manufacturer must be willing to support the effort, and that support usually comes in the form of free
goods, attractive initial payment terms or financial backing.

Developing a brand for a specialty food product is perhaps the most important aspect of product development, as it becomes
the public face of both the manufacturer and the product itself. When developing a brand for specialty food products, it is
important to note a few key questions, including:
What is the most important thing you want to say about your product?


Who are you communicating with?

What is the corporate culture you are trying to convey?
Are consumers familiar with the product type?
What tone or attitude do you want to convey?
Will consumers know how to use this product?
What history or information do you want to share?
What would the consumer like to see?

These are all critical questions, because the manufacturer wants to create a brand that is not only true to their own corporate
identity, but also one that is marketable and appealing to the consumers they are trying to reach. Again, doing a competitive
analysis is critical, if only to see what everyone elses brands look like and how this one can be different.
Developing a brand, from a label to a website to a social media page is intense, and should be handled with care from the
beginning. It is important to remember that this brand is all most consumers will ever know about a manufacturer, and
perhaps even the country of origin.
For the United States market, it is important to make note of some consumer perceptions about brands. A high-priced product
should look nicer than a low-priced product. U.S. consumers have a very jaded and limited view of the world, and will associate
certain branding patterns with certain regions. Manufacturers should never include anything on their label that does not either
help sell the product or is required by law. Finally, always remember to do the market research first. Different demographics
will require and expect different brand strategies. Higher end, mainstream customers will expect to see a product that looks
very different from one targeting a lower-end consumer or the Diaspora. Understanding the target customer will save lots of
time and money when developing a brand.


Nothing is more critical to the success of a specialty food product than the three Ps: pricing, packaging and promotions. The
first two involve meeting the competitive requirements of getting the products on to the shelf (i.e. convincing a buyer that these
products are marketable and competitive). The last P, promotions, involves how you plan to get your products off the shelf
(i.e. convincing consumers that they should buy your products instead of someone elses). Manufacturers must drive this
process, as no broker, importer or distributor will ever put that much thought into a product they dont own outright.
Manufacturers must also work closely with their importer, as discussed below, as the expenses for many of these initiatives
described can and should be shared.
There are, generally speaking, four main options when developing a pricing model, and the choices used will depend heavily on
the type of product, desired market position and the results of a competitive landscape. The main options are:

Cost-Plus Pricing: this includes setting a price at the current product cost, including both cost of goods sold (COGS)
and fixed costs, and volume of sales, plus a certain profit margin (typically not less than 25 percent).
Target Return Pricing: involves setting a price to achieve a target Return-on-Investment (ROI).
Value-Based Pricing: this involves pricing a product based on the value it creates for a customer. This is typically the
most profitable form of pricing, though it rarely applies to food products.
Psychological Pricing: this will include positioning, popular price points and fair, market value pricing.

Developing a pricing model will depend heavily on the competitive landscape prepared. Keeping into account the
manufacturers costs, profit margin (along with the profit margins of the importer, distributor and retailer), market position of
a product will depend heavily on the competitive landscape.
The shelves of U.S. retail outlets are packed with every type of product imaginable. Rows upon rows of BBQ sauce, juices,
cookies, teas, and jams, to name but a few, line every aisle of every store. Looking at the stores as a whole, one realizes that the
store is designed in a very precise, logical manner that does not deviate much from store to store. Fresh fruits and vegetables
are always on the outside perimeter, as are meats, dairy and fresh baked goods. The center aisles are organized in a similar
fashion, with frozen foods on one side, followed by house wares, pet foods, and then shelf-stable food products.



All major supermarket chains in the United States, and elsewhere, use a software technology called plan-o-gram. Plan-ograms are created to maximize available shelf space and to group categories of products together to maximize consumer
exposure. Manufacturers should be aware of this, and should also take note of where they imagine their products being placed,
again, depending on their target demographic and competitiveness.
When preparing to introduce a new product to the U.S. food and beverage industry, it is important to answer two simple
questions: where does this product belong and who is going to buy it? When a buyer is looking at the product, these are the two
exact questions they will be asking, and it is advised to all manufactures to have an elaborate answer. Getting on to the shelf is
one thing - getting off the shelf is something else.


A market study is the most straight-forward way of stressing the importance of conducting a proper market study and
competitive landscape. Once a manufacturer understands the market, they will be in a much better position to determine
whether or not their business model will work in the U.S. market. Some key points include:

Analyze what other products are already in the markethow much they retail for, what the packaging looks like, what
sizes they come in and how often they promote.
Prepare a concise SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats) analysis for each competitive product,
gathering information from buyers and consumers alike.
Determine specifically what market segment to approach (i.e. high-end supermarkets in the Northeast), based on
consumer demand for the manufacturers product category. As mentioned, the U.S. market is multi-faceted, and
manufacturers need to know exactly where they fit in.

Information sources
Industry trade events
Distributor trade events
Trade Publications
Social Media

Finding a proper importer is one of the most challenging and critical elements to the entire process of exporting specialty food
products into the United States. It is, or rather, it should be, a partnership between the manufacturer and the import company.
As large as the U.S. market is, it is highly recommended that a manufacturer use only one importer, unless the product
offerings target very different demographics. The reason for this is that most importers maintain relationships with the same
distributors and retail accounts, so having more than one organization representing the same brands is strongly discouraged.
Selecting a reputable, connected importer is critical, as registering a new vendor with a distributor or retail chain is often
difficult or impossible. Remember, this importer will be the manufacturers only voice in the United States, so the mutual
relationship is critical. Manufacturers should think of the importer as an extension of their own company, and should work
with the importer to achieve the mutual goals set by both.
Importers will expect involvement, whether in the form of promotions, slotting or trade show support, etc, and the
manufacturer should receive monthly updates regarding sales, movement, targeted presentations and support needed. A poor
relationship with an import company will do nothing except hurt the manufacturers brand. It is highly recommended to do a
good amount of research and development when pursuing an importer relationship.
Manufacturers looking to export their specialty food products into the United States have a variety of options to choose from,

Sea freight
Air freight
Parcel post



The U.S. food and beverage market represents a tremendous opportunity for manufacturers. Its sheer size, volume and
acceptance of internationally-produced products make it one of the most appealing target markets in the industry. However,
this volume comes at a price. The United States is also the most competitive specialty food market in the world. The rules are
set, and are not flexible to interpretation. However, the advantage is that the processes of getting into the U.S. specialty food
market, from both a legal and an industry standpoint, are straight forward.
By adhering to the guidelines outlined in this report, Swiss manufacturers can more easily assess their readiness to enter into
the U.S market. The need for manufacturers to understand the market, the demographic and the competitive landscape cannot
be over emphasized. Armed with knowledge and understanding the U.S. specialty food market, manufacturers can enjoy the
lucrative U.S. food and beverage market and further enhance the consumers appreciation of the cuisines, culture and products
from their domestic market.

The following chart describes the channels and margins for companies when importing to the U.S.
Figure 45: Channels and margins for companies when importing to the U.S.

Source: Global Strategy, Inc.



21. Summary
In the U.S. food and beverage market today, the top 10 branded companies only control about 30% of the retail revenue. The
rest of the revenue is produced by hundreds of other companies, focused on branded products, private label products, or both.
Almost 40% of retail packaged food revenue stems from thousands of smaller branded businesses (< $140M annual revenue),
among which are the emerging disruptors of tomorrow. These are often newer brands, but not always.
The opportunities for growth include responding to the new economic , social and technological dynamics impacting the
industry. Executives indicate that a key revenue driver over the next few years for the industry will be product innovations,
both in services and in branding and promotion. A shift towards customer and supplier collaboration will allow for a better
understanding of hte needs of consumers as wele as to help share potential risks, costs and rewards throughout the supply
chain, and more importantly, accelerate the speed to market.
Food and beverage companies also have an opportunity to leverage the change in U.S. demographics and focus on specialty
trends, such as organic food and beverage products, ethnic foods, and products considered to help promote health and
wellness. Companies taking advantage of these niche segments are hoping to help increase share-of-wallet and top line
revenues in an otherwise slo-growth market.
Leveraging the use of technology, such as cloud computing, business intelligence tools, and social media could be a strategic
way of gathering information to refine customer segmentation and marketing efforts. In addition to providing visibility to
customer insight, access to such data is providing executives with insight to help optimize operating models and rationalize
portfolios, as well as revealing information related to new markets and pricing strategies.
Key priorities for companies in the industry will be to create a customer-facing organization through value differentiation,
growth, innovation, and improved channel management. Also, companies will need to streamline and standardize key
processes such as creating an optimized supply chain while implementing effective risk management practises. The
companies that will succeed in the long run will be those that have a true understanding of who their customers are and what
they want, as well as those who develop a strong brand that provides clear positioning in the market and differentiation in the
eyes of the consumer.
The dynamic nature of the U.S. food and beverage industry - changing consumer trends, proposed government regulations,
new companies, and new product and service offerings - challenges organizations to remain competitive. Savvy industry
executives can help their companies thrive amid these conditions by better understanding the markets in which they operate,
benchmarking other organizations for best practices and strategies, and relying on outside resources for skills beyond their
core capabilities.



22. Authors of this Study

David A. Warar is CEO of Global Strategy, Inc., an international business development consulting firm he established in
2001. Global Strategy provides consulting services for market entry, partnering, open innovation and market research for the
private sector, government and research institutions. In his early career, he assumed leadership roles in R&D, marketing and
business development with a multinational pharmaceutical company. Following that, he was Vice President of a Chicagobased consulting firm, where he built their life science, energy and other sector practices. He has consulted with companies
throughout North America, Latin America, Europe, Middle East and Asia Pacific in markets including Life Science, Medical
and BioPharma; Food & Beverage; IT and Telecom; Electronics; Cleantech; Advanced Materials; Nanotech; Optics &
Photonics; Advanced Manufacturing; Packaging, and others. Dave holds an Honors MBA in International Marketing and
International Finance from Loyola University and a B.A. in Biological Sciences from University of Delaware.
Global Strategy is a boutique consultancy providing customized business development services to companies (startups to
multinationals), trade organizations, research institutes and government agencies. Its focus and expertise are the formulation
and implementation of international business development and go-to-market strategies, executed through supplier-vendor,
distribution, license, subsidiary establishment, joint venture, and M&A activities, and by producing actionable business
intelligence and market research. Consulting solutions offered include the following:

Open innovation (external product and technology) search

Market development
Partner search
Business research (market research and competitive intelligence)

Paul S. Anderson of The Anderson Law Firm, LLC in Chicago has over 35 years experience in dealing with Customs and
international trade issues. He is admitted to the Bar in Illinois, U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. He is a member of the American and Customs and International Trade Bar Associations, Chicago, and served as
Chairman of the Customs and US. Trade Law Committee of the Chicago Bar Association. Mr. Anderson is also Honorary Chair
of the Chicago Chapter of the Norwegian-American Chamber of Commerce where he served as Vice President from 1985
to1987. In 2000 he was appointed Honorary Consul General for Norway to Chicago and the State of Illinois. Mr. Anderson
obtained his BA from Wake Forest University, a JD from Illinois Institute of Technology/Chicago-Kent College of Law and
attended University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, European Programs (graduate program in international legal
studies based in Salzburg, Austria).
Dr. Daniel A. Wuersch is the managing partner of Wuersch & Gering LLP, an international boutique law firm with 28
lawyers in New York. His practice focuses on corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, corporate finance and strategic
partnerships and marketing agreements. Mr. Wuersch is admitted to the bar in New York and Zurich, Switzerland. He
acquired his Dr. iur. degree at the University of Zurich, Switzerland in 1989 and his LL.M. degree from the Georgetown
University Law Center, Washington, D.C. in 1991. Mr. Wuersch is admitted to practice in the State of New York, before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in Switzerland. Prior to founding Wuersch & Gering
LLP in 1997, Mr. Wuersch practiced international corporate and securities law with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
and Morgan Lewis & Bockius in New York, as well as Homburger/Baker & McKenzie in Zurich, Switzerland.
Mr. Wuersch has written and co-authored books and articles on United States and Swiss corporate and contract law and the
law of the European Union. Mr. Wuersch is a frequent speaker on legal issues involving business activities of foreign
companies in the United States. He is Chairman and a past President of the Swiss Society of New York, a member of the
Chapter Board Doing Business in USA of the Swiss American Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Board of Trustees
of the Swiss Institute. Mr. Wuersch also serves on the European Alumni Advisory Board of Georgetown University Law Center.



Appendix: Trade Events, Associations, and

Web site:
Web site:

Web site:

International Poultry Expo (IPE)

January 20-22, 2013, January 28-30, 2014
Atlanta, GA
The U.S. largest and the most-up-to-date, relevant information pertaining to the poultry and feed industry.
Over 1,000 exhibitors. Over 25,000 attendees.
Winter Fancy Food Show
January 20-22, 2013, January 19-21, 2014
San Francisco, CA
17,000+ attendees discover more than 80,000 products featuring the world's finest foods and beverage from
more than 1,300 exhibitors representing 35+ countries.
MEAT Expo 2013
February 10-13, 2013
Las Vegas, NV
North American Meat Association bolsters its various committee with forums. The forums feature a roster of
high-powered speakers that bring knowledge and experience to bear on the issues covered by the

Web site:

Natural Products Expo WEST

March 7-10, 2013
Anaheim, CA
The leading showcase of all natural, organic products (including dietary supplements). Over 30,000

Web site:

National Coffee Association Convention

March 21-23, 2013,
San Francisco, CA
National Coffee Association (NCA) Annual Convention


International Cheese Technology Expo

April 22-24, 2014 (every 2 year)
Milwaukee, WI
World's largest gathering devoted solely to the multi-billion dollar market for cheese and related dairy

Web site:



Web site:

Web site:

Web site:

Web site:

Web site:

Web site:
Web site:

Supply Side West - International Trade Show & Conference

April 30- May 2, 2013
New York, NY
SupplySide MarketPlace 2013 brings together the buyers and sellers that drive the dietary supplement, food,
beverage, personal care, cosmetic and animal nutrition marketplace.
BevTech 2013
April 29- May 1, 2013
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Enhance the promotion, development and dissemination of knowledge relating to the art and science of
beverage technology for the non-alcoholic beverage industry. Focus areas of activity include, but are not
limited to, beverage formulation, production, packaging, equipment and distribution.
National Restaurant Association Annual Show
May 18-21, 2013
Chicago, IL
Every year, over the course of four days, more than 1,800 suppliers and tens of thousands of buyers come
together to make lasting connections that drive business profitability and shape the future of the restaurant,
foodservice and hospitality industry.
International Wine, Spirits & Beer Event 2013
May 19-20, 2013
Chicago, IL
The 2013 International Wine, Spirits & Beer Event will bring restaurant and hospitality industry buyers
together with hundreds of established and emerging labels to connect and uncover ways that beverage
alcohol can enhance menus and drive profitability.
Sweets & Snacks Expo 2013
May 21-23, 2013
Chicago, IL
Break through the clutter by attending the confectionery and snack industry's most successful, world class
event. The Sweets & Snacks Expo is unrivaled in new product launches, business building solutions and
innovations in merchandising.
Dairy-Deli-Bake Seminar & Expo
June 2-4, 2013
Orlando, FL
This is the largest show for the dairy, deli, bakery, and foodservice professional. The retail buyers,
merchandisers, brokers, distributors, and manufacturers come from all over the world for this important
buying and educational event.
World Tea Expo
June 7-9, 2013
Las Vegas, NV
The leading trade event with a robust confence that is focused on 100% on premium teas and related



Web site:

Summer Fancy Food Show

June 30 - July 2, 2013
New York, NY
North America's largetest specialty food & beverage event. 2,400 exhibitors from 80+ countries.

Web site:

IFT 13 (Institute of Food Technologies)

July 13-16, 2013
Chicago, IL
The largest collection of food ingredients, equipment, processing and packaging suppliers.

Web site:

American Culinary Federation National Convention

July 21-25, 2013
Las Vegas, NV
jam-packed, five-day convention, offering exceptional educational programming and networking


In-flight Food Service Assn. Conference and Exhibition

September 9-11, 2013
Anaheim, CA
Hosted in Long Beach, California and co-located for the third consecutive year with the Airline Passenger
Experience Association (APEX), the 2012 IFSA Annual Conference & Exhibition involved a significant
increase in industry participation. Marketed as an airline super show and as the industry event of the
year, the co-location offered opportunities for IFSA and APEX attendees to explore the many different
products available to enhance the overall passenger experience.

Web site:
Web site:

BioFach America Organic Products Expo

September 26-28, 2013
Baltimore, MD
BioFach America - All Things Organic offers manufacturers and traders the opportunity to get to know the
North American organic market better. Besides inspiring meetings at the trade show,

Web site:

Natural Products Expo EAST

September 25-28, 2013
Baltimore, MD
The leading showcase of all natural, organic products (including dietary supplements). Over 30,000

Web site:

World Dairy Expo

October 1-5, 2013
Madison, WI
The show is the must attend event for everyone in the dairy industry. 65,000+ attendees

Web site:

IBIE - International Baking Industry Expo

October 6-9, 2013
Las Vegas, NV
20,000 baking professionals attend. The world's largest, most comprehensive trade event. 750+ exhibitors



Web site:

InterBev 2013
American Beverage Associations annual convention

Web site:

Fresh Summit International Convention & Exposition

October 18-20, 2013
New Orleans, LA
21,000+ industry professionals from 61 countries and nearly 4,000 buyers, Fresh Summit delivered Global
Connections, Consumer Insights, and Innovation Business Solutions.

Web site:

FNCE - Food & Nutrition Conference & Expo

October 19-22, 2013
Houston, TX
350+ exhibitors

Web site:

Americas Food & Beverage Trade Show & Conference

October 28-29, 2013
Miami Beach, FL
The largest selection of foods and beverage from around the world catering to the taste of the Americas.
73,000 industry professionals attend.

Web site:

International Dairy Show

November 3-6, 2013
Chicago, IL (co-location of Process Expo)
One event focus on business solutions for the dairy industry. 200+ exhibitors


Process Expo
November 3-6, 2013
Chicago, IL (co-location of International Dairy Show)
Nation's leading equipment manufacturer at the nation's largest trade show event dedicated strictly to the
food and beverage industry. 400+ exhibitors. 10,000+ attendees.naturl

Web site:
Web site:

Web site:

PLMAs 2013 (Private Label Trade Show)

November 17-19, 2013
Chicago, IL
PLMA's 2013 Private Label Trade Show is the leading U.S. private label industry trade event. No show offers
exhibitors an opportunity to meet as many buyers from as many retail channels.
SOHO Expo 2013
December 5-8, 2013
Orlando, FL
SOHO EXPO is produced by the The Southeast Natural Products Association (Southeast NPA) is the
southeast region of Natural Products Association (formerly NNFA) (est. 1936) and serves Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.




Web site:

Web site:

International Hotel, Motel + Restaurant Show

November 9-12, 2013
New York, NY
Each year, more than 700 IHM+RS exhibitors present the most diverse collection of hospitality products and
services under one roof. From high-end linens, in-room technology and amenities, to energy-efficient
cooking equipment, and tableware, the IHM+RS presents thousands of new and innovative resources.
National Grocers Association Annual Convention
February 9-12, 2014
Las Vegas, NV
The annual four-day Show was one of the largest in NGA history, with over 2,700 in attendance including
retailers, wholesalers and industry partners. The NGA EXPO brings independent grocers together with
manufacturers of a wide variety of products and solutions.

Web site:

Snack Food Associations SNAXPO

March 1-4, 2014
Dallas, TX


Food Marketing Institutes Food Retail Show

June 10-13, 2014
Chicago, IL
The food retail industry's most-attended conference and exposition in North America. FMI2014 brings
together over 12,000 industry-shaping professionals from 90 countries for four days of thought-provoking
education, a dynamic show floor with 1,200+ exhibitors and countless opportunities to learn more about
your customers.

Web site:



AACC American Association of Cereal Chemists
AACC International is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the knowledge and understanding of cereal grain
science through research leadership, education, superior technical service, and advocacy.
3340 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, MN 55121
Tel: +1 (651) 454-7250
Fax: +1 (651) 454-0766
ABA American Beverage Association
The American Beverage Association (ABA) is the trade association that represents America's non-alcoholic beverage
industry. ABA was founded in 1919 as the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, and renamed the National Soft Drink
Association in 1966. Today the ABA represents hundreds of beverage producers, distributors, franchise companies and
support industries. Together, they bring to market hundreds of brands, flavors and packages, including regular and diet soft
drinks, bottled water and water beverages, 100 percent juice and juice drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks and ready-to-drink
1101 Sixteenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 (202) 463- 6732
Fax: +1 (202) 659-5349
ABA - American Bakers Association
ABA advocates on behalf of more than 700 baking facilities and baking company suppliers. ABA members produce bread, rolls,
crackers, bagels, sweet goods, tortillas and many other wholesome, nutritious, baked products for Americas families.
1300 I Street NW, Suite 700W, Washington D.C. 20005
Tel: +1 (202) 789-0300
ABI American Beverage Institute
The American Beverage Institute is a restaurant trade association dedicated to protecting the on-premise dining experience
which often includes the responsible consumption of adult beverages.
1090 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 800, Washignton DC 20005
Tel: +1 (202) 463-7110
AFI Association of Food Industries
The Association of Food Industries Inc. is committed to developing programs that facilitate the business of its member
companies, encourage free and fair trade, and foster compliance with US laws and regulations.
3301 Route 66, Suite 205, Bldg. C, Neptune, NJ 07753
Tel: +1 (732) 922-3008
Fax: +1 (732) 922-3590



AIWF American Institute of Wine & Food

The American Institute of Wine & Food is a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the understanding,
appreciation and quality of wine and food through fun educational experiences in support of our signature Days of Taste and
Scholarship programs.
26384 Carmel Rancho Lane, Suite 200E, Carmel, CA 93923
Tel: +1 (831) 274-2493
Fax: +1 (831) 250-7641
ALTA Natural Products Association
The Natural Products Association is the nations largest and oldest nonprofit organization dedicated to the natural products
industry. NPA represents over 1,900 members accounting for more than 10,000 retail, manufacturing, wholesale, and
distribution locations of natural products, including foods, dietary supplements, and health/beauty aids. NPA unites a diverse
membership, from the smallest health food store to the largest dietary supplement manufacturer.
1773 T Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009
Tel: +1 (202) 223-0101
Fax: +1(202) 223-0250
AMBA American Malting Barley Association
The American Malting Barley Association, Inc. (AMBA) Mission is to encourage and support
production of an adequate supply of high quality malting barley for the malting and brewing
industry and increase our understanding of malting barley.
740 North Plankinton Avenue Suite, 830 Milwaukee, WI 53203
Tel: +1 (414) 272-4640
ANFP Association of Nutrition & Foodservice Professionals
Association of Nutrition & Foodservice Professionals (ANFP) is a national not-for-profit association established in 1960 that
today has over 14,000 professionals dedicated to the mission of providing optimum nutritional care through foodservice
406 Surrey Woods Dr. St. Charles, IL 60174
Tel: +1 (630) 323-1908
Fax: +1 (630) 587-6308
B&CMA Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association
The Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association (B&CMA) is a 112 year old international trade organization representing
the entire spectrum of companies in the manufacturing of cookies and crackers and the suppliers to the industry. Our mission
is to bring unparalleled education, training and networking opportunities to members of the B&CMA.
7 Torino Road, Manchester, NJ 08759
Tel: +1 (848) 227-3089



Bionutrient Food Association

The Bionutrient Food Association is a national association of voting members who agree to uphold the mission of the
organization and advocate for vital soils, nourishing food and healthy people. BFA partners with Grower Members to develop
and implement practices that will improve food quality while making their operations more lucrative and sustainable. BFA
helps consumers identify, advocate for and locate bionutrient food. BFA advocates to retailers and wholesalers for the
preferential placement and promotion of bionutrient food. Finally, BFA empowers public and private policymakers and
investors to support the shift from the century-long paradigm of factory farming to one in which quality food is profitable,
ecologically sustainable, tastier, and equally available to all.
670 West Napa Street, Suite B, Sonoma, CA 95476
Tel: +1 (707) 935-1468
Fax: +1 (707) 935-1672
Bread Bakers Gild of America
Founded in 1993, The Bread Bakers Guild of America is a non-profit alliance of professional bakers, farmers, millers, suppliers,
educators, students, home bakers, technical experts, and bakery owners and managers.
24 Hillsville Rd, North Brookfield, MA 01535
Tel: +1 (978) 257-2627
Fax: +1 (978) 277-6400
CFESA Commercial Food Equipment Service Association
The Commercial Food Equipment Service Association is the trade association of professional service and parts distributors.
Founded in 1963, CFESA members promote the highest standards of professional service. With over 450 members
representing all of North America, our members stock OEM parts-the best for any equipment-with access to an online
inventory of millions of parts. CFESA Certified Technicians will deliver a higher first time fix rate, thereby keeping your
downtime to a minimum. With nearly 3,000 CFESA Certified Technicians, there is a qualified technician in every area to get
and keep your equipment up and always running.
2216 West Meadowview Road, STE 100, Greensboro, NC 27407
Tel: +1 (336) 346.4700
Fax: +1 (336) 346-4745
FEDA Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association
Over the years, FNIC has continued to grow with added services and products to meet the needs of our users for reliable
nutrition information. A major milestone occurred in 1995 with the launching of the FNIC Web site, greatly expanding FNIC's
reach. In addition to the Web site overall, our most popular products are our Resource Lists and our Databases of Educational
Materials. Our most popular services include our Ask A Question and lending services. Our special projects target specific user
groups or subject areas.
2250 Point Boulevard, Suite 200, Elgin, IL 60123
Tel: +1 (224) 293-6500
Fax: +1 (224) 293-6505
FIAE Food Industry Association Executives
The Food Industry Association Executives are a powerful network of local, state, regional and national food associations
throughout the United States and Canada. They, in turn, represent over 95 percent of the grocery and food industry. As a
professional organization, FIAE sponsors meetings, activities, publications and services to advance the knowledge and


professionalism of the food industry association executive, and serves as a vehicle for the advancement of the food industry's
5657 W. 10770 North, Highland, Utah 84003
Tel: +1 (801) 599-1095
Fax: +1 (815) 550-1731
The Food and Beverage Association of America
The Food and Beverage Association of America is dedicated to promoting and advancing friendly relations between members,
encouraging continuing education, assisting in career growth, providing industry-related scholarships, and providing
philanthropic support for critical social issues.
111 East 14th Street,Suite 390, New York, NY 10003
Tel +1 (212) 344 8252
Fax +1 (212) 504 9536
FPI Foodservice Packaging Institute
Established in 1933, the Foodservice Packaging Institute is the trade association for the foodservice packaging industry in
North America. FPI's members include raw material and machinery suppliers, packaging converters, foodservice distributors
and operators/retailers.
201 Park Washington Court, Falls Church, VA 22046
Tel: +1 (703) 538-3550
Fax: +1(703) 241-5603
FPSA Food Processing Suppliers Association
The Food Processing Suppliers Association is the trade association for suppliers to the food processing and packaging industry
and the host of the largest and most affordable food processing trade show in the Americas. Our goal is to provide members
with networking, marketing and educational opportunities and to help assure the future of the industry through charitable
contributions and educational scholarships.
1451 Dolley Madison Boulevard, Suite 101, McLean, VA 22101-3850
Tel: +1 (703) 761-2600
Fax: +1 (703) 761-4334
FSMA Foodservice Sales & Marketing Association
FSMA was incorporated in November 2003 by firms formerly associated with the International Foodservice Brokers
Association/Association of Sales & Marketing Companies. The mission of FSMA is to promote sales and marketing agencies as
the preferred method for suppliers to come to market: to be the national voice of the sales agency community; to advocate on
behalf of sales agency interests, and to enhance relationships among suppliers, agencies, customers and other key stakeholders.
1810-J York Road #384, Lutherville, MD 21093
Tel: +1 (202) 293-1414
Fax: +1 (202) 293-1702



GMA Grocery Manufacturers Association

There is a great national debate taking place about our food, and everyone has their own personal view of what and how they
should eat. No matter where you fall in the debate, most Americans can support four national priorities: jobs, health, our
children and helping those who may be less fortunate.
1350 Eye (I) Street NW, Washington, DC 20005
Tel: +1 (202) 639-5900
Fax: +1 (202) 639-5932
IAFP - International Association for Food Protection
IAFP is an organization of 3,600 food safety professionals committed to Advancing Food Safety Worldwide by providing
members worldwide with a forum to exchange information on protecting the global food supply.
6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864
Tel: +1 (515) 276-3344
Fax: +1 (515) 276-8655
ICBA International Council of Beverages Association
The International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA) provides a forum for the international beverage industry to
convene and work on issues of mutual interest. ICBA promotes the harmonization of standards and policies concerning nonalcoholic beverages, and the assurance of the safety and quality of ingredients and manufacturing processes.
1101 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: + 1 (202) 463-6790
Fax: + 1 (202) 463-8172
IDFA International Dairy Foods Association
The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Washington, D.C., represents the nation's dairy manufacturing and
marketing industries and their suppliers, with a membership of 550 companies within a $110-billion a year industry. IDFA is
composed of three constituent organizations:
Milk Industry Foundation (MIF)
National Cheese Institute (NCI)
International Ice Cream Association (IICA)
IDFA's 200 dairy processing members and their 175 divisions, subsidiaries, and joint ventures run nearly 600 plant operations,
and range from large multi-national organizations to single-plant companies.
1250 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
Tel: +1 (202) 737-4332
Fax: +1 (202) 331-7820
MAFSI Manufacturers Agents Association for the Foodservice Industry
MAFSI is a 63 year-old, professional trade association comprised of 270+ independent sales agencies and 220+ manufacturers
of commercial foodservice equipment, supplies, tabletop and furniture.
MAFSI represents over 2,000 sales and marketing professionals and manufacturing executives across North America and
internationally who are a major force in the 10 billion dollar equipment, supply, tabletop and furniture segment of the
foodservice industry.


Our primary member is the factory sales representative agency whose role is to professionally market foodservice equipment,
supplies, tabletop and furniture for their manufacturers, on a wholesale basis, and serve as the local factory branch office for
the dealer and operator communities (see foodservice industry map at right).
1199 Euclid Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30307
Tel: +1 (404) 214-9474
Fax: +1 (404) 522-0132
MWFPA Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.
The Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc. is a trade association that advocates on behalf of food processing
companies and affiliated industries in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Established in 1905 as the Wisconsin Canners
Association, today the association represents a more diverse group of food processors on a variety of food issues. The primary
role of MWFPA is to influence public policy and make the Midwest a great place for food processors to do business. The
association's activities can be summarized in four words; advocate, educate, communicate, and facilitate. Go to Association
Profile for more information.
4600 American Pkwy, Suite 210, Madison, WI 53718-8334
Tel: +1 (608) 255-9946
Fax: +1 (608) 255-9838
Email us:
NBBQ National Barbecue Association
Since 1991, NBBQA has been dedicated to supporting the barbecue industry and the people who love it. Our goals are to
promote the recognition and image of the BBQ community, connect all facets of the industry, foster new business opportunities
for our members and educate and inform the public about the art and enjoyment of great barbecue. Our legacy is one of shared
strength, the strength of many perspectives focused on one passion. Our family of members is made up of many indusry
segments, including restaurateurs, caterers, pitmasters, competitors, backyard enthusiasts, writers, vendors and suppliers.
455 S. 4th St., Suit 650, Louisville, KY 40202
Tel: +1 (888) 909-2121
Fax: +1 (502) 589-3602
Email us:
National Cherry Grower & Industries Foundation
The National Cherry Growers & Industries Foundation (NCGIF) is a nonprofit corporation formed in 1948 for the purpose of
having a unified effort from the processed cherry industry to lobby against excessive cherry imports. It then evolved that
assessments were used for promotion of maraschino, canned and frozen cherries.
2667 Reed Road, Hood River, OR 97031
Tel: +1 (541) 386-5761
Fax: +1(541) 386-3191



NAFEM North America Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

The North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) is a trade association of nearly 550 foodservice
equipment and supplies manufacturers providing products for food preparation, cooking, storage and table service.
161 North Clark Street. Suite 2020. Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: +1 (312) 821.0201
Fax: +1(312) 821.0202
NCA National Confectioners Association
Founded in 1884 in Chicago by representatives of 69 confectionery manufacturing firms, the National Confectioners
Association (NCA) is one of the oldest, most respected trade associations in the world. The National Confectioners
Association's Chocolate Council was founded in 2008 by members of the trade association who process cocoa and make
1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington DC 20007
Tel: +1 (202) 534-1440
Fax: +1 (202) 337-0637
NCCR National Council of Chain Restaurants
The National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR) is the leading trade association exclusively representing chain restaurant
companies. For more than 40 years, the NCCR has worked to advance sound public policy that best serves the interests of
restaurant businesses and the millions of people they employ. NCCR members include the country's most-respected quickservice and table-service chains. NCCR is a division of the National Retail Federation, the world's largest retail trade group.
325 7th Street NW, Suite 1100. Washington DC 20004
Tel: +1 (202) 783-7971
Fax: +1 (202) 737-2849
NPFDA National Poultry & Food Distribution Association
To promote the Poultry and Food Distributors, Processors, and Allied industries by bringing them together and providing a
forum to foster long term business relationships.
2014 Osbourne Rd., Saint Mary's, GA 31558
Tel: +1 ( 770) 535-9901 or +1 (678) 850-9311
Fax: +1 (770)-535-7385
NRA National Restaurant Association
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) is the largest foodservice trade association in the worldsupporting nearly
500,000 restaurant businesses. In partnership with our state restaurant associations (SRA), we have more than 750 staffers
working to empower all restaurant owners and operators to achieve more than they thought possible.
2055 L St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 (202) 331-5900
NFRA National Frozen & Refridgerated Foods Association, Inc.
The National Frozen & Refrigerated Foods Association (NFRA) is uniquely positioned as an all-industry trade association,
representing the interests of every segment of the Frozen and Refrigerated Foods industry, including:


Local Associations
Logistics Providers
Regional Manufacturers
Sales Agents

4755 Linglestown Rd., Suite 300, P.O. Box 6069, Harrisburg, PA 17112
Tel: +1 (717) 657-8601
Fax: +1(717 657-9862
RFA - Refrigerated Food Association
The Refrigerated Foods Association (RFA) is an organization of manufacturers and suppliers of prepared, refrigerated food
products united by a common interest: to advance and safeguard the industry.
1640 Powers Ferry Road, Bldg. 2, Suite 200A, Marietta, GA 30067
Tel: +1 (770) 303-9905
Fax: +1 (770) 303-9906
SCAA Specialty Coffee Association of America
Established in 1982 by a small group of coffee professionals seeking a common forum to discuss issues and set quality
standards for the specialty coffee trade, the SCAA is now the world's largest coffee trade association with nearly 3,000
company members. SCAA members can rightfully be credited for much of the growth and success the specialty coffee industry
has experienced over the past twenty-five years. We invite you to view some of our most defining moments:
330 Golden Shore, #50, Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: +1 (562) 624-4100
SFA Snack Food Association
SFA's governmental affairs team represents member companies' interests at the international, federal and state levels. SFA
actively engages in the development of legislation and regulations that impact its members' ability to manufacture and market
their products.
1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 650, Arlington VA 22209
Tel: +1 (703) 836 4500
Fax: +1 (703) 836-8262



Soyfoods Association of North America

Over the span of 20 years, the association has grown to more than 50 members. Currently, membership of SANA is comprised
of large and small soyfoods companies, growers and suppliers of soybeans, nutritionists, equipment representatives, food
scientists, and retailers.
1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 (202) 659.3520
Specialty Food Association
Specialty Food Association membership is grouped into four large classifications. These classifications are consistent with the
structure of the specialty food industry. Find the Membership classification that best suits your business type and select "Learn
More" to view requirements and benefits of each classification type
136 Madison Avenue, 12th Fl. New York, NY 10016
Tel: +1 (212) 482-6440




Baking & Snack International Trends & Technology for the industrial baking market worldwide
Sosland Publishing Co.
4800 Main Street, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64112
+1 (816) 756-1000
+1 (816) 756-0494


Candy Industry The Global resource, from manufacture to retailing

BNP Medica
2401 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 700, Troy, MI 48084
+1 (847) 763-9534
+1 (847) 763-9538


Cheese Market News

Quarne Publishing, LLC
PO Box 620244, Middleton, WI 53562
+1 (608) 831-6002


Fancy Food & Culinary Products The gourmet products magazine for retailers
Talcott Communications Corporation
233 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite #1780, Chicago, IL 60601
+1 (312) 849-2220
+1 (312) 849-2174


Food Business News News, markets and analysis for the food processing industry
Sosland Publishing Co.
4800 Main Street, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64112
+1 (816) 756-1000
+1 (816) 756-0494


Food Engineering
BNP Media
2401 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 700, Troy, MI 48084
+1 (248) 362-3700




Food Ingredients Online An information resource for industry professionals

Atlantic Publishing Company
1210 SW 23rd Place, Ocala, FL 34471
+1 (352) 622-1825
+1 (352) 622-1875


Food Service Professional- Various kinds of Magazines or guidebooks

Atlantic Publishing Company
1210 SW 23rd Place, Ocala, FL 34471
+1 (352) 622-1825
+1 (352) 622-1875


Food Processing Magazine

Omeda Communications
555 Huehi Road, Northbrook, IL 60062
+1 (847) 559-7360


Food Product Design For product development professionals

Virgo Publishing, LLC
3300 N Central Ave., #300, Phoenix, AZ 85012
+1 (480) 990-0819


Food Quality The science-based news magazine focused on quality, assurance, safety, and security in the
food and beverage industry.
Science Corporate
111 River Street, 9-01, Hoboken, NJ 07030
+1 (480) 419-1851
+1 (480) 718-7719


Functional Ingredients
Penton Medica, Inc.
1166 Avenue of the Americas/10th fl, New York, NY 10036
+1 (212) 204-4200


Gourmet News - The Business Newspaper for the gourmet industry

Oser Communications Group, Inc.
1877 N. Kolb Road, Tucson, AZ 85745
+1 (520) 721-1300




Gourmet Retailer
Stagnito Media
570 Lake Cook Rd., Suite 310, Deerfiled, IL 60015
+1 (224) 632-8200
+1 (224) 632-8266


Hotel F&B- Lodging food and beverage professionals in hotels, resorts, and casinos worldwide.
Hotel Forum LLC
5455 N Sheridan Rd Apt 3602, Chicago, IL 60640
+1 (773) 728-4995


Kitchenware News & Housewares Review Leading B-to-B publication covering the speciality
kitchenware market.
Oser Communications Inc.
1877 N. Kolb Road, Tucson, AZ 85715
+1 (520) 721-1300

Address :

KosherToday-Converting the business of Kosher food & beverage

Diversified Business Communications
121 Free Street, Portland, ME 04101


Manufacturing Confectioner- the worldwide business, marketing and technology journal of the candy,
chocolate, confectionery, cough drop, and sweet baked goods industry.
MC Publishing Company
711 W. Water Street, P.O. Box 266, Princeton, WI 54968
+1 (920) 295-6969
+1 (920) 295-6843


Modern Baking Magazine for baking professionals

Penton Media, Inc.
330 N Wabash, Ste. 2300, Chicago, IL 60611
+1 (312) 840-8478
+1 (913) 514-3937

Meat & Poultry The business journal for meat and poultry processors
Sosland Publishing Co.
Address: 4800 Main Street, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64112
+1 (816) 756-1000
+1 (816) 756-0494




National Restaurant News- Leading source of foodservice industry news and information
Penton Medica Inc.
1166 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10036
+1 (212) 204-4200


Natural Foods Merchandiser

Penton Medica Inc.
1166 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10036
+1 (212) 204-4200
Weekly email update and monthly product showcase.


Nutraceuticals World - Nutritional Outlook Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery

Rodman Media
70 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, NJ 07446
+1 (201) 825-2552
+1 (201) 825-0553
Weekly email update and monthly product showcase.


Prepared Food Network Global new product introduction, culinary trends, ingredient technology.
BNP Media
2401 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 700, Troy, MI 48084
+1 (847) 405-4024
+1 (248) 283-6574


Tea&Coffee Trend Journal The international voice of the tea and coffee industries
Lockwood Publications, Inc.
3741 Crescent St., 2nd Floor, Long Island City, NY 11101
+1 (212) 391-2060
+1 (212) 827-0945


World Grain Grain and grain processing information

Sosland Publishing Co.
4800 Main Street, Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64112
+1 (816) 756-1000
+1 (816) 756-0494



T 0844 811 812

Switzerland Global Enterprise

Stampfenbachstrasse 85
CH-8006 Zrich
T +41 44 365 51 51
Switzerland Global Enterprise
Corso Elvezia 16 CP 5399
CH-6901 Lugano
T +41 91 911 51 35
Switzerland Global Enterprise
Avenue dOuchy 47 CP 315
CH-1001 Lausanne
T +41 21 613 35 70