Focus: What ends up on our shelves

When you buy food, what do you pay attention to?

Sibyl Anwander: Things like Fair Trade, organic products and variety are important to me. But we don’t stock any convenience foods. When shopping I keep the children’s preferences in mind – although we have the problem that they don’t eat any vegetables. That can be a bit limiting

Achim Walter: In my case it’s usually my wife who does the shopping. She’s a vegetarian and she uses lots of different vegetables in her cooking. She looks out for organic and regional products. I tend to buy the things that brighten up our lives – wine, beer and sometimes sweets for the children.

Michael Siegrist: We both go out to work and I do around 80 percent of the shopping. I have a hedonistic leaning. What’s most important for me is the taste of the food. Labels are of secondary importance. We have two sons: one eats everything, while the other is a bit more difficult.

Children seem to play an important role when shopping. Does this influence the range of products in the shops?

Anwander: At Coop we look very carefully at which products we introduce in which price category so as to offer a diverse range that sets itself apart from what our competitors are offering, but also meets consumer expectations. Twenty years ago we introduced organic products, and just a few years ago we started selling old varieties in our Pro Specie Rara range. There was no direct demand because there was nothing on offer. But we did anticipate societal developments with this.
On the other hand, we also remove products from the range specifically for sustainability reasons. For example, the fish product range is regularly reviewed in line with the Guidelines of the WWF Seafood Group. This leads to delistings or a change in the product range in terms of fishing grounds and fishing methods. Wherever possible, we source products from MSC-certified fisheries or organic fish farms. When it comes to the product range, the retail trade plays a gatekeeper role in both a positive and a negative sense.

And what role do consumers play?

Anwander: In the end, they decide whether a product will be successful or not. Of course, the retail trade can influence purchasing decisions through product placement, promotions or accompanying communication. Nonetheless, around three-quarters of new products don’t convince customers in the longer term. So, besides the regulars, there is a constantly changing range of products.

Does agriculture also contribute to changes in the product range?

Walter: Yes, innovations also come from agriculture. Let’s take the example of the apricot. It has undergone major development over the last 15 years. In Switzerland you can now buy apricots from Canton Valais from June to September. A few years ago that would have been inconceivable. There was a time window in July/August of about two weeks when apricots were ripe. 
On what criteria do consumers base their purchasing decisions?

Siegrist: Price plays an important role, and so does flavour. Products can be very healthy and manufactured sustainably. But if they don’t taste good, people won’t buy them. Then there are the additional benefits like organic sourcing or convenience that appeal to different segments.

Aren’t consumers confused by the immense product range?

Siegrist: In psychology there is the paradox of choice. When the choice is too large, consumers are unhappy because they think that they didn’t make the best decision. Practice, however, shows that they shop where there is a large selection. They can indeed cope with the large range by sticking to trusted brands and products.

Is that the reason why so many new products are a flop?

Anwander: You see both: customers who are disappointed when a familiar product is no longer in the shelves and customers who like to try out new products. We can influence purchasing decisions through the recipes in our magazine. We can use them to demonstrate, for instance, that an animal is not just made of fillets. Swiss consumers also respond very well to price campaigns. When a product costs less or receives additional points, people buy it more.

What are the most important food crops?

Walter: In terms of calories, wheat, rice and maize are the most important crops. They cover more than 50 percent of global calorie requirements. In terms of weighed quantity, fruit and vegetables account for a larger share because of their high water content. However, the three cereals are taking on increasing importance because a growing proportion of foods is produced from components of these three crops. There is also a concentration in consumed cereal crops. For instance, oats, which were still very important 40 years ago, are scarcely grown any more in Switzerland today.

How much potential is there for further development of these plants?

Walter: In the case of local products like the apricots I mentioned, consumers will continue to see tangible cultivation successes in the future. In the case of wheat, rice and maize, however, the biological limits have almost been reached. Any further increase in yield is almost inconceivable.

What criteria play a role in cultivation? Is it all just about yield or about flavour, too?

Walter: Flavour must exceed a specific threshold value for the product to be bought at all. I remember “Holland tomatoes” that appeared in shops 30 years ago. I stopped buying them, as did many other consumers. Today, we have tomatoes that are far better products in terms of flavour and quality.

Anwander: Production, harvest time and storage duration also have a major impact. The longer a fruit matures on the tree, the easier it is for it to fully use its genetic potential – with the consequence that products of this kind cannot be stored for so long any more and sometimes have an unsightly spot. Cost considerations also come into play because the risk of not being able to sell ripe products is greater.

Do consumers still have a sufficiently good relationship to products?

Siegrist: It is true that food production is a black box for more and more consumers. Who’s been to a slaughterhouse? Who’s visited a farm? Naive ideas about how food should be produced are consequently on the rise. The volume of food that is needed cannot be produced in the manner suggested by advertising spots. Products like that would be far too expensive, at least for most consumer.

Isn’t the distorted image of production conditions in retail trade advertising rather problematic?

Anwander: We are engaged in a balancing act. On the one hand we have new technologies aiming to rationalise the production process. On the other hand, less technology is sometimes used today, for instance in the case of additives for preservation. The products are processed more gently. However, it is true that people are no longer familiar today with the interactions between the composition of products, processes and shelf life. This raises the question as to whether people really want to know each and every process. After all, we consume not only rationally but also emotionally. Sustainability issues like animal welfare, organic farming, Fair Trade or regionalism can be conveyed far better through images than, for example, through an eco-audit on the packaging.

Nevertheless, these are highly idealised images.

Anwander: Yes, that’s right, in advertising we sometimes convey the image of an intact world. Surveys show that above all men around the age of 40 who work for banks and insurance companies would like to experience this intact world with their children. However, I think that we have to start talking again about agricultural markets and the interactions mentioned in a slightly more proactive manner. And also about the logistics achievement that means there is a range of products of this quality and freshness every day in each shop.

Mr Walter, how do you see this balancing act?

Walter: Raising awareness amongst consumers about how food is produced is very important to me. Today, children can explain how a smartphone works but they don’t know how basic foods are produced. As teachers, we are called on to identify ways of conveying this knowledge.

Food waste is a widely discussed topic. According to surveys one-third of all food is not consumed but thrown away. Why is that?

Anwander: In my opinion, this whole topic is currently being blown out of all proportion by the media. It starts with the failure to distinguish between food losses that occur during production and transport, and food that is actually thrown away by consumers. In the case of food losses it’s about the raw products, about how products with longer shelf lives can be produced and transport losses reduced. This is a major problem, particularly in developing countries. However, the current debate focuses on food discarded by private households and restaurants. Food is not as important as it once was. Whereas it still accounted for around one-third of household expenditure 50 years ago, today this figure is scarcely 10 percent. This has an impact on how foodstuffs are handled.

Do we simply have to live with losses on this scale?

Siegrist: What’s interesting about this debate are the moral undertones. We could also talk about the clothes we buy and never wear. Or about smartphones that we purchase although our old ones are still working. The fact that the debate concentrates on food has to do with the old-fashioned idea that we have to eat up what’s on our plate because someone else is starving. We have to be careful with political demands seeking to teach people the “right” way to behave. I’m not advocating that we throw food away. But we have to let consumers decide whether they prefer to eat fresh bread or first use up stale bread.

What is the retail trade doing in this area?

Anwander: Years ago we decided that, if possible, we wouldn’t throw away any food in our shops. To this end, we have a whole cascade of recycling measures. We reduce the price prior to the expiry of the sell-by date and work with aid organisations who distribute perfectly fresh food to needy individuals. Some products are passed on to farmers as animal feed and the rest is converted into biogas.

What’s the situation on the production side?

Walter: Distinctions have to be made between different world regions when it comes to post-harvest losses. In developing countries, transport losses are the predominant factor. They have no cold chains, the transport infrastructure is underdeveloped, etc. A great deal could be achieved by expanding the infrastructure. In Switzerland, losses are mainly caused by the fact that it is no longer possible to sell products with minor defects or blemishes. This leads to post-harvest losses here, too. The farmers also recycle products they cannot sell via other channels, even if it’s just on their own compost heap.

Anwander: For me, what’s far more worrying is that today we only use a small part of an animal. In the past, everything was eaten – from the calf’s head to the pig’s tail – or turned into specialties. Today, we only use the hindquarters or fillet from a cow. This is a luxury that is scarcely mentioned at all. From the ecological angle this is even more worrying, because the conversion of plant into animal protein already entails a major loss of efficiency.

What impact does globalisation have on meat consumption?

Siegrist: Meat consumption is bound to increase across the globe. In countries that are undergoing economic development, consumption is rising even if it’s still on a low level. But given the large number of people who can now afford to buy meat, this has a major impact on demand. Nor is there any reason to believe that this is going to change. People rarely forego meat willingly.

Genetically modified products are another topic that is the subject of controversy. Will the Swiss population accept them in future?

Siegrist: The reason why consumers reject genetically modified products is, in my opinion, the lack of benefits. The products are not cheaper and they don’t taste better. At the same time, there are no genetically modified products because no one wants to get his fingers burnt. No producer or retailer wants to be the first – out of fear of NGOs like Greenpeace. However, I am convinced that products of this kind would be quickly accepted if they were available in shops like they are, for instance, in the USA.

That’s surprising given that they are rejected in the surveys.

Siegrist: We have to distinguish between whether people respond as citizens or consumers. In referenda the Swiss are always in favour of stiffer animal welfare laws. They are in favour of a moratorium on genetic engineering and for not overly large production plants, i.e. for morally correct production processes. At the same time, the same people purchase meat abroad where it is far cheaper but produced under completely different conditions.

What is the main benefit of genetic engineering?

Walter: Genetically modified foods are grown today on an area that is three times the size of the area for organic food. And this area is constantly growing. In the USA and in South America almost 100 percent of the soya and maize varieties that are grown are transgenetically modified. In the USA, that goes for sugar beet too. These plants offer the advantage that they are more resistant to disease and thus more reliable in production. The farmers can produce more cost-effectively, but their dependence on seed manufacturers grows. That is the reality. I don’t think that many Swiss people think about this when they eat a hamburger in the USA.

So attitudes could change?

Walter: The reservations amongst the population at large are considerable, for the reasons mentioned by Michael Siegrist. Things will only change when the cultivation of genetically modified plants becomes part of the normality around us.

Siegrist: And if prices change and you have to pay a mark-up for GMO-free products.

Anwander: The legislation clearly states that the people who use the technology and reap the benefits are responsible for ensuring a clear separation of genetically modified products from those that are GMO-free. In reality, however, it is the people who forego the technology who have to go through the certification process. This means that they are the ones who incur the costs, not the people who enjoy the advantages. Until the risk-benefit question has been properly discussed, genetic engineering will continue to be a subject of controversy in Switzerland.

And the retailers don’t want to expose themselves in this regard if at all possible?

Anwander: There are clear marketing considerations, too. As a food sector we have a competitive edge because Switzerland is the only country in Europe to have fully renounced genetic engineering in cultivation and feed. There are no additional costs because everyone has followed suit. One problem of genetic engineering is that there are still certain prejudices in people’s minds – for instance higher herbicide or pesticide consumption or a dependency on seed manufacturers. Up to 10 years ago we had an intensive dialogue in Switzerland. Unfortunately, it was broken off.

Mr Walter, how do you see the debate about genetic engineering?

Walter: Genetic engineering burst onto the scene with big promises. Today, it is viewed more soberly. Certain genetic modifications are an interesting tool. What is always forgotten in the discussions is the time horizon. The domestication of our crops took hundreds, thousands of years. Similar changes cannot be achieved with genetic engineering from one day to the next. We need long-term programmes with regular monitoring of whether the modifications in the field have achieved the desired result. It’s in the nature of things that this is a time-consuming process.

Anwander: Climate change might thus contribute to the acceptance of genetic engineering because farmers will need new breeds faster. Classical breeding takes at least 20 years – whether we will still have this time in the face of rapid climate changes is questionable. Genetic engineering could help to speed up breeding procedures.

Walter: Genetic diversity is important above all in respect of climate change. For all the main crops there are varieties that can thrive on less water or at higher or lower temperatures than prevail in a specific region today. In Switzerland we will have a different climate in 20 years’ time from the one we have now. We will need varieties that can make do with slightly less water, offer improved yield reliability or perhaps thrive at higher altitudes. We must tap into this biodiversity potential.