0

1

2

Putting Change on Menu…and the Agenda

Healthy

Sustainable

& Delicious

Changing Menus Matters Water Footprint of Foods Think Protein First

3

Arlin 6 cont

min

4 4

SIGNIFICANT DECLINE OR REGRESS

GETTING BETTER, BUT FAR FROM

WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE

NO SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS

GOOD PROGRESS, WITH ROOM FOR MORE

SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS

5 5

6

Executive Briefings

7

A Year of Change

• Menus changed and so did the

fundamentals of the

foodservice industry.

• This year’s it ingredients were

decidedly sustainable

…And last year’s — kale and

Brussels sprouts — are now

mainstream.

• We continued a successful

trend of opening restaurants

that think plants first.

8

A Year of Change

• Climate and water weigh heavily on the

bottom line.

…and another year of record drought,

temperatures and CO2 levels.

• Plant-forward is a rare opportunity to

better manage food costs and address

climate and water issues.

9

A Year of Change

Supply chain transparency became a business priority in

addition to a priority for diners.

Labor Problems in Fisheries

GMO labeling and new scientific findings

Bird Flu and Eggs (to go along with pork and bacon)

Largest restaurant companies now making

pledges to use “clean” ingredients.

10

Health and Environmental Imperatives are Converging

11

• Focus on dietary patterns rather than individual nutrients – one size

don’t fit all

• Remove restriction on total fat: types of fat are more important

• Retain 10% upper limit on saturated fat

• Remove restriction on dietary cholesterol: eggs (moderate amount)

are Okay

• Consider environment: reduce red meat for both health & planet

• Set a 10% calorie upper limit on added sugars

• Retain 2300 mg/day sodium limit, but not 1500 mg/day

• Coffee consumption as part of a healthy diet/lifestyle

• Farm-raised and wild-caught seafood are equally nutritious

• Promote “Culture of health”: Accessible, affordable, and normative

29.585

Major takeaways for 2015 DGAC report

12

NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

D+L Overall (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.780)

Aeberli, 2011 (70)

Maersk, 2012 (68)

Tordoff, 1990, Women (69)

I-V Overall

Reid, 2010 (67)

Reid, 2007 (66)

Tordoff, 1990, Men (69)

Study

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.30 (-1.12, 1.72)

Weighted Mean

0.66 (-2.25, 3.57)

0.72 (0.14, 1.30)

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.43 (-0.84, 1.70)

1.37 (0.38, 2.36)

0.99 (0.41, 1.57)

Difference, kg (95% CI)

100.00

6.09

Weight

1.45

%

36.04

7.62

12.51

36.29

(D+L)

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.30 (-1.12, 1.72)

Weighted Mean

0.66 (-2.25, 3.57)

0.72 (0.14, 1.30)

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.43 (-0.84, 1.70)

1.37 (0.38, 2.36)

0.99 (0.41, 1.57)

Difference, kg (95% CI)

100.00

6.09

Weight

1.45

%

36.04

7.62

12.51

36.29

(D+L)

intervention reduces weight intervention increases weight

0.00-3.57 3.57

Weighted mean difference in weight change (kg) between intervention and control regimens from

RCT’s in adults. Interventions evaluated the effect of adding SSB

29.608

Adults: RCTs

Meta-analysis of prospective studies on sugar-sweetened

beverages and risk of type 2 diabetes

Malik et al. Diabetes Care 2010 29.609

14 37.008

15

Red meat and type 2 diabetes

Relative Risk for 100 g/day unprocessed red meat (meta-analysis)

An Pan, 2011 25.184

16 25.161

Rela

tive R

isk

Relative Risk of type 2 diabetes for replacing 1 serving/day of total red

meat with other foods. Data from NHS, NHSII, HPFS, including 13,759

cases of diabetes (Pan A et al. AJCN, 2011)

17

Substitution of Protein Sources (1 sv/day) and Risk of

CHD in NHS, 1980-2006 (3162 cases)

9.202a

Bernstein A, et al. Circulation. 2010;122(9):876-83

18

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

NHS 1980-2008

Re

lati

ve

Ris

k

Red meat and Mortality

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

HPFS 1986-2008

Rela

tive R

isk

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

NHS 1980-2008

Re

lati

ve

Ris

k

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

HPFS 1986-2008

Rela

tive R

isk

Unprocessed

Processed

29.610

19

Total Red Meat & Risk of Premenopausal Breast Cancer M

ult

ivari

ate

RR

Quintiles

(Farvid MS et al., Int J Cancer 2014)

P,trend = 0.007

0.339

20

Estimated Sources of Calories in US Diet

29.340

Sat fat

Mono fat

Poly fat

Trans fat Protein

Other carbs

Potatoes

Whole grain

Refined grain

Added sugar

(unpublished, compiled from NHANES)

21

Saturated Fat

Trans Fat

Refined Starch, Sugar

Whole Grains

Unsaturated Vegetable Fats --High monounsaturated vegetable fats

--High polyunsaturated vegetable fats

Carbohydrates

29.536

22

Bagel, jam 100% fruit juice

Steel-cut oats Nuts

Blueberries

Shredded wheat Milk

20.414

Eggs Toast

23 23

24

Climate Change and Water

Water

Reducing meat consumption and raising awareness about water stress are helpful measures that consumers and chefs can take.

But these trends do not yet reflect broad efforts in the foodservice industry, while producers face prolonged periods of drought.

Climate

Emissions continue to rise, and agriculture both contributes to that, especially from livestock production, and is affected by it.

Our industry can direct our collective purchasing power toward better choices: actively support sustainably managed farms and provide alternatives to beef on menus.

25 25

26

Protein Production and Consumption

Red meat production and consumption in the United States continue to decline but are growing in the developing world. Climate conditions are reducing supplies and driving up price volatility, underscoring the business case from further reductions. Chefs foodservice operators play ay a key role in leading and inspiring dietary shifts.

27 27

28

Innovations

Startups hoping to “disrupt”

the food and foodservice

industries are increasingly

attracting attention and

investment from venture

capital and private-equity

investors.

Changes in Investment

Standards

Investors have increased their

support for new food and

foodservice companies that

feature plant-forward concepts

and focus on sustainable supply

chains.

Investors also now more clearly

link stock performance with

sustainability performance.

Changing Calculus of Business

29

Helping Culinary Professionals to be Better

Change Makers and Intrapreneurs

This Year’s Menu for Change

Plant Forward

Shaping Consumer

Choices by Design

Cooking

Up the

News

30

This Year’s Menu of Change

Making the Business Case for Change:

Managing Risk

31

• Focus on dietary patterns rather than individual nutrients – one size

don’t fit all

• Remove restriction on total fat: types of fat are more important

• Retain 10% upper limit on saturated fat

• Remove restriction on dietary cholesterol: eggs (moderate amount)

are Okay

• Consider environment: reduce red meat for both health & planet

• Set a 10% calorie upper limit on added sugars

• Retain 2300 mg/day sodium limit, but not 1500 mg/day

• Coffee consumption as part of a healthy diet/lifestyle

• Farm-raised and wild-caught seafood are equally nutritious

• Promote “Culture of health”: Accessible, affordable, and normative

29.585

Major takeaways for 2015 DGAC report

32

NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis

D+L Overall (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.780)

Aeberli, 2011 (70)

Maersk, 2012 (68)

Tordoff, 1990, Women (69)

I-V Overall

Reid, 2010 (67)

Reid, 2007 (66)

Tordoff, 1990, Men (69)

Study

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.30 (-1.12, 1.72)

Weighted Mean

0.66 (-2.25, 3.57)

0.72 (0.14, 1.30)

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.43 (-0.84, 1.70)

1.37 (0.38, 2.36)

0.99 (0.41, 1.57)

Difference, kg (95% CI)

100.00

6.09

Weight

1.45

%

36.04

7.62

12.51

36.29

(D+L)

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.30 (-1.12, 1.72)

Weighted Mean

0.66 (-2.25, 3.57)

0.72 (0.14, 1.30)

0.85 (0.50, 1.20)

0.43 (-0.84, 1.70)

1.37 (0.38, 2.36)

0.99 (0.41, 1.57)

Difference, kg (95% CI)

100.00

6.09

Weight

1.45

%

36.04

7.62

12.51

36.29

(D+L)

intervention reduces weight intervention increases weight

0.00-3.57 3.57

Weighted mean difference in weight change (kg) between intervention and control regimens from

RCT’s in adults. Interventions evaluated the effect of adding SSB

29.608

Adults: RCTs

Meta-analysis of prospective studies on sugar-sweetened

beverages and risk of type 2 diabetes

Malik et al. Diabetes Care 2010 29.609

34 37.008

35

Red meat and type 2 diabetes

Relative Risk for 100 g/day unprocessed red meat (meta-analysis)

An Pan, 2011 25.184

36 25.161

Rela

tive R

isk

Relative Risk of type 2 diabetes for replacing 1 serving/day of total red

meat with other foods. Data from NHS, NHSII, HPFS, including 13,759

cases of diabetes (Pan A et al. AJCN, 2011)

37

Substitution of Protein Sources (1 sv/day) and Risk of

CHD in NHS, 1980-2006 (3162 cases)

9.202a

Bernstein A, et al. Circulation. 2010;122(9):876-83

38

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

NHS 1980-2008

Re

lati

ve

Ris

k

Red meat and Mortality

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

HPFS 1986-2008

Rela

tive R

isk

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

NHS 1980-2008

Re

lati

ve

Ris

k

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

(P for trend, <0.001)

HPFS 1986-2008

Rela

tive R

isk

Unprocessed

Processed

29.610

39

Total Red Meat & Risk of Premenopausal Breast Cancer M

ult

ivari

ate

RR

Quintiles

(Farvid MS et al., Int J Cancer 2014)

P,trend = 0.007

0.339

40

Estimated Sources of Calories in US Diet

29.340

Sat fat

Mono fat

Poly fat

Trans fat Protein

Other carbs

Potatoes

Whole grain

Refined grain

Added sugar

(unpublished, compiled from NHANES)

41

Saturated Fat

Trans Fat

Refined Starch, Sugar

Whole Grains

Unsaturated Vegetable Fats --High monounsaturated vegetable fats

--High polyunsaturated vegetable fats

Carbohydrates

29.536

42

Bagel, jam 100% fruit juice

Steel-cut oats Nuts

Blueberries

Shredded wheat Milk

20.414

Eggs Toast

43 43

44

Multivariate Risks of Cardiovascular Disease

and Cancer Among 38,615 Men 1986-1994

(McCullough et al. 2002)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5

Cardiovascular

Disease Major Chronic

Disease

Cancer

Re

lati

ve

Ris

k

Quintiles of Revised Healthy Eating Index

38, 615

MEN

28.016

45

Alte

rna

te H

ea

lth

y E

atin

g In

de

x-2

01

0

Nu

mb

er

of d

ea

ths (

10

,00

0 d

ea

ths)

Change in AHEI through 1012

(Wang DD et al, unpublished data)

29.605

46 29.606

Change in AHEI components through 2012

(Wang DD et al., unpublished)

47

30

33

36

39

42

45

1999-2000 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 2011-2012

Low SES Medium SES High SES

Years

Alte

rna

te H

ealth

y E

ating

In

de

x -

2010

P for interaction =0.0132

Trends in AHEI -2010 Score by Socioeconomic Status (SES)

based on the NHANES

(Wang D et al., unpublished data) 29.611

48

49