Big problem

About a year ago I predicted that in 2006 we would see the issue of "globesity" shift from awareness to consequences. I was wrong.

To be fair, many of the great American brands have made nutritional corrections to their ingredients, including eliminating trans fats, and have developed new packaging that's helping many consumers understand the concept of portion control. These are just baby steps, however.

During the year, nutrition expert Marion Nestle delivered a wonderful book, What to Eat, which, if religiously studied and followed by every shopper, would have resulted in a significant reduction of our waistlines. On the other hand, Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation hit the silver screen and lost the credibility and strength it exhibited on the page, due to poor acting, underdeveloped storylines, and an attempt at sensationalism for its own sake.

What will it take to reverse the looming health crisis linked to "Fat America"?

At this time roughly two-thirds of the American population is either obese or overweight, and close to half of these are obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. (BMI is a measure of body fat, based on height and weight, that applies to both adult men and women.)

A recent study by ACNielsen looked to quantify how consumers feel about being fat, and what they think are the reasons. According to the study most (29 percent) blamed lack of exercise, while only 19 percent said it was the easy availability of junk food—a factor just about tied with the "ease of modern life" as key reasons for being overweight.

Interestingly enough, 82 percent of those surveyed blamed themselves for being overweight, resisting the temptation to pass the buck to fast-food chains, manufacturers, or retailers.

Two types of dieters

The most upsetting finding is that just 12 percent said, "People don't care about good nutrition." I would suggest that this number is much higher—probably well over 80 percent—which is why we have this problem.

Even though the respondents weren't selected because they were perfect diet advisors, their answers are revealing and worth repeating, since they could serve as a guideline for both retailers and CPG brands that want to attract customers by satisfying their needs and lifestyles.

According to the ACNielsen survey, the top two reasons, at 20 percent each, for people to re-evaluate their diets were "encountering health problems" (or having a "change in health circumstances") and "wanting to get in shape for a specific event or time of year."

Once more, this splits the nation into two groups, adding more complexity to the challenge of solving the obesity crisis: diet for health vs. diet for appearance.

The 100-calorie fix

As I look back over the past year, however, the one bright light was the positive acceptance of the 100-calorie pack.

It seems, whether by plan or happenstance, that brand marketers have hit upon a magic number that makes people feel they're controlling their treat intake and shaping better personal diets. Time will tell about the long-term effect on America's waistlines and lipid counts. Meanwhile there's no doubt that people love the concept of limits that are dictated by others—even if they're paying more per ounce for the options.

Let's look at the facts. One-hundred-calorie packs arrived as a new $20.6 million segment in 2004, and promptly soared fivefold to $102.2 million in 2005; then they nearly doubled to $196.0 million in the 52 weeks ended Oct. 7, 2006, according to ACNielsen Strategic Planner data for supermarket, drug, and mass store shelves (excluding Wal-Mart). Equivalized unit volume paralleled these gains: 383 percent in 2005 and 92 percent in the latest 52 weeks.

But there seems to be a small undertow that could actually be detrimental to all of the good that a smaller, portion-controlled package has brought to the shelves. In 2002 the combined sales in the cookie-cracker-salty snack categories crested at $14.1 billion, then slid to $13.9 billion in 2003, and again to $13.7 billion in 2004. But once the 100-calorie packs drew more weight watchers to the aisles, the categories bounced back—to $14.0 billion in 2005, and $14.4 billion in the latest 52-week period. In the past year alone, the business climbed another $400 million, more than twice the amount of purchases of the 100-calorie packs.

Where did that extra $200 million in sales go? Look at those waistlines.

These figures reflect incremental growth from packaging innovation, rather than cannibalization of other cookie, cracker, or chip segments. So, top-line, 100-calorie packs have actually increased consumption.

Now before you go off to celebrate and add more SKUs of 100-calorie packs, let me remind you that we're also undergoing a period of transition in which people are buying both forms of packaging and using them on different occasions. I have no doubt that as we get on the scale come Jan. 1 and decide it's time for that diet, the 100-calorie packs, which now represent a mere fraction of the total category, will graduate from occasional and lunch-box use to the mainstream.