Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery - September 2008 - (Page 59)

Snack Food Today chip Makers settle Acrylamide suit California recently settled lawsuits against Frito-Lay, Kettle Foods, Lance Inc. and Heinz after the companies agreed to reduce the levels of the cancer-causing chemical acrylamide in their potato chips and French fries. “The companies agreed to reduce this carcinogenic chemical in fried potatoes — a victory for public health and safety in California,” said California attorney general Edmund Brown, Jr. “Other companies should follow this lead and take steps to reduce acrylamide in French fries and potato chips.” Under the recent settlements, Plano, Texas-based Frito-Lay, Inc., which sells most of the potato chips sold in California; Kettle Foods, Inc., the Salem, Ore.-based producer of Kettle Chips, and Lance, Inc., the Charlotte, N.C., maker of Cape Cod Chips, will reduce acrylamide over a period of three years to 275 parts per billion. For Frito Lay, this is about a 20% reduction, according to the attorney general’s office. For Kettle Foods’ chips, which contain far more acrylamide, the move will result in an 87% reduction in acrylamide, the government said. Most Cape Cod chips are already near the compliance level, but one product, Cape Cod Robust Russets, contains more than 7,000 parts per billion of acrylamide, and immediately will either carry a warning label on the package or will be removed from the market. Additionally, Frito-Lay will pay $1.5 million in penalties and costs, $550,000 will be forgiven if it can reduce acrylamide in its products in half the time required by the settlement. It will pay an additional $2 million if it fails to reduce acrylamide in the required time. Kettle Foods will pay $350,000 in penalties and costs, while Lance will pay $95,000 in fees and costs. In 2005, the attorney general sued McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, KFC, Frito-Lay, Kettle Foods, Lance, Procter & Gamble and Heinz, for selling potato chips and French fries containing high levels of acrylamide, a chemical that the state claims to cause cancer. Acrylamide is a by-product of frying, roasting and baking foods, particularly those foods made of potatoes and those that contain certain amino acids. In 2002, Swedish scientists discovered high levels of cancer-causing acrylamide in fried potato products. The attorney general sued French fry and potato chip companies under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which requires companies to post warnings of any cancer-causing chemicals in their products unless they can prove that the levels do not pose a significant health risk. Last year, restaurant chains including KFC, McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Burger King agreed to post acrylamide warnings at their restaurants and pay civil penalties and costs. In January, Procter & Gamble agreed to reduce acrylamide in Pringles potato chips by 50% so that no warning would be required. California’s attorney general’s office also reached an agreement with Heinz, Inc., the manufacturer of Ore-Ida frozen French fries and tater tots, will pay $600,000 in penalties and costs and will change its fried potatoes to contain 50% less acrylamide. The settlements were approved by a Los Angeles Superior Court. Now you see it, now you don’t. No, it’s not a magic trick. It’s the disappearing act of products out of ever-shrinking bags of snacks. As the cost of commodities and energy continue to soar, many snack producers are putting less into the bag as a substitution for raising prices, and it’s working. For instance, Frito-Lay, Inc., owned by PepsiCo in Purchase, N.Y., recently trimmed its line of Doritos by as much as 2 oz. per familysize bag. However, the brand continues to show overall sales growth despite its chips being down in the count. And they’re not alone. Companies that produce cereal, ice cream, chewing gum, paper towels and even toilet paper are in on the stunt. Tricks of the Trade But is this vanishing act ethical? “It is a sneaky way to pass on a price increase,” says Edgar Dworsky, former Massachusetts assistant attorney general for consumer protection and now editor of Mouse Print, a Web site dedicated to tracking the fine print on consumer products. Although companies are putting the correct weight amount on their packages, is it wrong if consumers think they’re paying the same price to eat 20 chips instead of 30 per bag? Maybe not. In addition to saving money per bag, some snack producers are actually making more money because they’re selling more units. Why? Consumers like the less-is-more scenario. Not only do the bags of snacks contain fewer chips, they also contain fewer calories, which is reflected on the nutrition label. The salted snack category isn’t the only one benefiting by shrinking their packages. Years ago, dairy companies shrunk the size of yogurt containers and sales rose because consumers perceived the smaller sizes as more of a light snack. More recently, many companies shrunk their single-serve packages to magically transform them into 100-calorie packs. So cookie, cracker, snack bar and salted snack manufacturers can continue playing tricks. Keep in mind, however, that they’re not fooling too many people. Consumers are on to the jig and are going along with the act. SEPTEMBER 2008 - Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery 59

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery - September 2008

Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery - September 2008 Contents Editor’s Note For Goodness Sakes Better Than the Rest Unconventional Thinking Easy Does It New Products In the Comfort Zone Engineering Management The ASB Column Printer Keeps Production Running Equipment Briefs Better Than the Rest The Final Word

Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.