Friday, July 31, 2015

Cows vs. Almonds


By
 Which milk is best for toddlers?

toddlers and milk.
Drink up.
Photo illustration by Juliana Jiménez. Photo by Thinkstock.
Several years ago, after an acquaintance asked me if I’d heard about the controversy, I Googled “cow’s milk” and “kids” and a new world opened up to me—one that hysterically warned me that cow’s milk would cause my child to develop diabetes, obesity, and cancer, among other lovely things. I decided that until I learned more, I would switch my toddler from cow’s milk to a 50–50 mixture of cow’s and almond milk. Just, you know, in case. I’m not alone: Many parents are apparently now questioning the conventional wisdom of feeding kids cow’s milk, turning instead to alternative plant-based “milks” such as soy, almond, cashew, rice, or coconut milk, which they believe are healthier.
But the science suggests that this “controversy” is pointless, for several reasons. While cow’s milk isn’t perfect, and some of its benefits may be overtouted, many of the scary claims made about it are overblown. Compared with many plant-based “milks,” the milk that comes from a cow typically has more nutrients and fewer unhealthy additives. And really, there’s no need to stress about milk anyway: The idea that toddlers and older kids need milk and are going to suffer without the right kind is silly. Milk provides important nutrients, but if your kid eats a balanced diet and stays hydrated, she doesn’t need it at all. (This also means you don’t need to stress if your kid doesn’t like cow’s milk or if she has a milk allergy or intolerance.)
Cow’s milk, as I’m sure you’ve heard since you were wee, is chock full of calcium, vitamin D, and protein. In one glass, a kid gets as much protein as he would eatingthree slices of deli turkey. He also gets nearly 40 percent of the recommended amount of calcium for 1- to 3-year-olds and 20 percent of the recommended amount of vitamin D. Considering how sunscreen-happy parents are these days, kids probably need as much vitamin D as they can get from their food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that kids and adolescents, depending on their age, consume two to three cups’ worth of dairy products a day.
Plant-based milk alternatives deliver some of these nutrients, but generally not all of them. Almond and cashew milks are calcium-fortified—some contain more calcium than cow’s milk—and they also have lots of vitamin D, but they are quite low in protein. As for soy, coconut, and rice milks, it depends on the brand. Soy milk typically has as much protein as cow’s milk does, and some brands are calcium- and vitamin D–fortified too; rice and coconut milks are typically low in protein but can, again, be enriched with calcium and vitamin D. (One other good thing about soy milk: Research suggests that a consuming a serving or two of soy foods a day during childhood and adolescence could protect against breast cancer later in life.)  
And while plant-based milks are sometimes celebrated for having less saturated fat than milk does, the body of evidence to date suggests that fat is not the nutritional villain it was once believed to be. So basically: Cow’s milk is the most consistently nutritive of the lot. (As for goat’s milk versus cow’s milk, here’s a great breakdown of the nutritional differences. The takeaway is that they are equally healthy.)
You would think that milks made of nuts would be more protein-rich than they are—and this scarcity raises questions. Last summer, in a piece titled “Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters,” Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott calculated that an entire 48-ounce jug of Califia Farms almond milk contains the same amount of protein as a mere handful of the nuts. His conclusion: “The almond-milk industry is selling you a jug of filtered water clouded by a handful of ground almonds.” This month, consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against Blue Diamond Growers, the makers of Almond Breeze, alleging that the company falsely markets the drink as if it is primarily made from almonds when, in fact, it is composed of only 2 percent almonds, with water, sugar, and additives making up most of the rest. If true, this allegation could help to explain why these nut milks aren’t all that nutritious.
Another problem is that plant-based “milks” are often loaded with added sugar. The “vanilla” flavor of Silk almond milk contains 16 grams of sugars per serving, which is equivalent to about 4 teaspoons of table sugar. Even the “original” flavor packs 7 grams of sugar in each serving. Cow’s milk contains sugar, too—13 grams per serving—but at least this is in the form of a naturally occurring sugar, lactose, whereas the sugars in other types of milk are typically added for taste. (The American Heart Association considers naturally occurring sugars to be part of a healthy diet because they are “an integral part” of whole foods, whereas added sugars, in large amounts, can cause health problems.) Ultimately, plant-based milk alternatives “are of varying quality, expensive, often full of sugar, low in fat and protein, and are fortified with synthetic vitamins,” says Natasha Burgert, a pediatrician in Kansas City, Missouri. Not so appealing anymore, huh?
Of course, cow’s milk isn’t perfect either. For one thing, it is very low in iron, and the calcium in it also inhibits iron absorption. (Calcium-fortified plant milks do the same.) Adding to the problem, if your child drinks too much cow’s milk, she’ll feel full and potentially eat fewer iron-rich foods, which could explain why “evidence has shown that throughout a person's lifespan, 1- to 3-year-olds have the lowest daily iron intake,” Burgert says.
What’s more, all those claims you hear about milk being crucial for bones are a little thin on evidence. In 2014, researchers at Harvard University and other institutions published the results of a study in which they followed more than 96,000 men and women for 22 years starting in adolescence. After controlling for other factors, theyfound that the amount of milk the subjects drank during their teen years had no effect on their risk of hip fractures as they got older. Other studies suggest that exercise and body mass index have a much bigger effect on children’s bone health than what they eat.
Some observational studies have also found that people who drink a lot of milk are more likely to develop certain cancers. These types of studies are, however, difficult to interpret, because people who drink milk may be different in myriad ways from people who don’t. Cow’s milk does contain a growth hormone called IGF-1, which has been tied to increased cancer risk, but scientists say that drinking milk increases IGF-1 levels in the human body so minimally, if at all, that it’s unlikely to explain the association. In light of all the unknowns, though, some nutrition scientists suggestthat children limit their milk intake to no more than two servings a day, just to be safe.
Another growth hormone that often gets mentioned in fearful conversations about cow’s milk is recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH (also called rBST), which is injected into some U.S. dairy cows to increase their milk output. Studies have foundno differences between milk made by untreated versus treated cows, and it’s important to note that cows make this hormone naturally anyway. There is one good reason to question the wisdom of rBGH use, though: Research suggests that treated cows are more likely to develop serious udder infections called mastitis, which require antibiotics and may contribute to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. The majority of milk sold in the U.S. is made from cows that have not been treated with rBGH, but if you’re concerned or don’t want to support the practice, here’s a list of brands of milk made from non-rBGH-treated cows. And as for the claim that milk will cause kids to develop diabetes, the bulk of the risk comes from feeding large quantities of cow’s milk to babies under the age of 1, which the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against.
So no: Cow’s milk isn’t going to endanger your kid (unless it is unpasteurized—pleasedon’t feed your kids raw milk!), and it’s better than a lot of the plant-based alternatives. But this doesn’t mean you have to pour milk down your kid’s throat or worry if your kid can’t have it—in fact, many pediatricians tell parents to take it easy on the milk, especially if kids eat a lot of cheese or yogurt, because children who are constantly chowing down on dairy may not ultimately get a balanced diet. As Manhattan-based pediatric dietician Natalia Stasenko explains, “If your toddler drinks four 8-ounce bottles [of milk] a day, he will have very little appetite for other nutritious foods and feel less adventurous at mealtimes.” She suggests, among other things, that parents replace milk “snacks” with solid foods and serve milk only at mealtimes.

Certainly, if your kid isn’t drinking much milk, you’ll want to try to get him to eat other calcium- and vitamin D–rich foods (salmon is a great source of both), but you may not have to worry about the lost protein: The average American child over the age of 2 consumes more protein than he needs. In sum, everything that milk provides your little darling can be gotten in other ways, so don’t waste your precious mental parenting capital worrying about how much he gets, or whether it comes from a cow, an almond, or a soybean. As Burgert puts it, “Milk is simply a beverage to enjoy with a healthy meal.”'re t
POPULARITY OF PRIVATE LABEL KEEPS GROWING
The latest market share data shows that the popularity of private label continues to spread across Europe. Retailer brands now account for at least 30% of all products sold in 15 countries, the greatest number ever, according to Nielsen data compiled for PLMA’s 2014 International Private Label Yearbook.
Of the 20 countries tracked by Nielsen in 2013, 16 posted volume market share gains. The biggest percentage increases were made by Sweden (+5.1 points), Finland (4.0 points), Poland (+3.1 points) and Slovakia (+2.7 points).
Three countries—Sweden, Finland and Czech Republic—crossed the 30% market share line last year for the first time. The number of countries achieving 30% share has been rising steadily. Back in 2011, only 10 countries made it. In 2012, the number climbed to 12.
Private label continues to account for more than half of all products sold in Switzerland (53%) and Spain (51%). Both countries showed market share gains in volume and value. In five countries—United Kingdom (45%), Portugal (45%), Germany (44%), Belgium (41%) and Austria (40%)—private label now accounts for at least four of every ten products sold. Market share for retailer brands also posted gains in Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Turkey and Italy.
Private label accounts for more than three out of every ten products sold in France, nearly three out of ten in The Netherlands and over 20% of products sold in Greece.
Retailer brands are achieving a dominant status in some store departments. Private label represents more than half of all paper and hygiene products sold in 11 countries, frozen products in 10 countries and pet products in nine countries.
Private label can expect still greater market share growth in the year ahead based on a new study of more than 10,000 consumers in 14 countries commissioned by PLMA, entitled "Today's European Shoppers".
The study shows that private label plays a fundamental role in the lives of shoppers across Europe and market share will continue to expand. Forty-six percent (46%) purchase them "frequently." In the year ahead, one in four believe that they will buy a larger amount of own brands than currently. Even when the economy gets better, consumers say that they will stick with private label: eight in ten said that after the economy improves they would not stop purchasing own brands.
WHAT ARE PRIVATE LABEL PRODUCTS?
Private label products encompass all merchandise sold under a retailer's brand. That brand can be the retailer's own name or a name created exclusively by that retailer. In some cases, a retailer may belong to a wholesale group that owns the brands that are available to only the members of the group.
WHAT PRODUCTS ARE SOLD AS PRIVATE LABEL?
Major supermarkets, hypermarkets, drug stores and discounters today offer almost any product under the retailer's brand. Private label cover full lines of fresh, canned, frozen, and dry foods; snacks, ethnic specialties, pet foods, health and beauty, over-the-counter drugs, cosmetics, household and laundry products, DIY, lawn and garden, paints, hardware and auto aftercare.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF PRIVATE LABEL?
For the consumer, private label represents the choice and opportunity to regularly purchase quality food and non-food products at savings compared to manufacturer brands, without waiting for promotional pricing. Private label items consist of the same or better ingredients than the manufacturer brands, and because the retailer's name or symbol is on the package, the consumer is assured that the product meets the reatiler's quality standards and specifications.
WHO MAKES PRIVATE LABEL?
Manufacturers of private label products fall into three general classifications:
  • Large manufacturers who produce both their own brands and private label products.
  • Small and medium size manufacturers that specialise in particular product lines and concentrate on producing private label almost exclusively.
  • Major retailers and wholesalers that operate their own manufacturing plants and provide private label products for their own stores. 

Analysis: A&P bankruptcy sets showdown with labor

“The last three years have demonstrated ... that the sale strategy is the only viable path forward.”
—CHRISTOPHER McGARRY,
   A&P chief restructuring officer
A&P’s second bankruptcy in five years — one that looks likely to spell a final end to the 156-year-old supermarket icon one way or another — was precipitated by what it called “unsustainable” labor costs, and a failed attempt to turn around sales despite $500 million in new investment from private owners and an assist from union givebacks when it emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2012.
A plan to recover funds for the estate by way of a rapid-fire “sale strategy” requiring labor concessions on a tight timeline will be a central challenge of the case, observers told SN. This may also raise questions as to how A&P’s owners, management and lenders oversee the company and its finances since the emergence, they added.
Rivals Acme Markets (76 stores), Stop & Shop (25 stores) and Key Food (19 stores) have emerged as leading bidders for 120 A&P-owned stores in what is planned to be the first round of store auctions, while the company is also seeking court approval to close 25 stores.
The so-called “stalking horse” bids could raise $600 million — but are conditioned upon being free from labor obligations that A&P insists are at the heart of its troubled cost structure. A&P warned of “catastrophic” consequences if their collective bargaining agreements cannot be restructured promptly, including a “fire sale” liquidation of all its assets.
Noting that its bankruptcy financing is also contingent upon meeting a tight schedule for store sales and transfers, the retailer in a disclosure said it could seek to unilaterally reject all or parts of its labor agreements under sections 1113 and 1114 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
That stance has drawn a strong reaction from the United Food and Commercial Workers, which in a statement on behalf of 13 local chapters affected by the bankruptcy, expressed a willingness to negotiate with new employers, but warned “we will fight back with everything we have if A&P or its financial backers attempt to further exploit our members.”
The union noted it already made sacrifices as part of A&P’s previous bankruptcy case, which was filed in 2010 and completed in 2012. That agreement, calling for a wage freeze and reduction in vacation and other benefits, represented more than $600 million in givebacks, union sources told SN.
In a disclosure statement filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in July, A&P chief restructuring officer Christopher McGarry however referred to the labor savings as “a modest reduction,” saying that the 2010 bankruptcy was triggered primarily by a need to rationalize its store base and renegotiate supply and distribution contracts.
“These initiatives were expected to revitalize A&P’s businesses and generate material savings that would then permit the company to thrive within the competitive grocery industry,” McGarry said.
That revitalization never materialized.

'Outdated and underinvested'

McGarry acknowledged that the company failed to meet projections of its 2012 emergence, including falling short by about half on a plan to spend more than $500 million on capital expenditures over a five-year period. As a result, he said, “stores have remained outdated and/or underinvested, making it difficult to attract and retain new customers during a crucial time of rebranding and rebuilding.”
That rebranding — which included temporary price reductions and a commercial campaign featuring then-CEO Sam Martin inviting customers back to a chain that was rebuilding  behind revamped products and locally-tailored stores — also fell short, McGarry said, noting that while store traffic increased, price cuts led to heavy losses. “Although [A&P’s] strategy drew more customers to their stores, such efforts were at the expense of margin income and the debtors were not building productive, long-lasting relationships with their customers,” McGarry wrote.

Martin, a veteran of companies backed by Yucaipa Cos., which led the new equity investment that sprung A&P from bankruptcy, left the company in late 2013. He was not available for comment.
One local observer, who asked not to be identified, said A&P’s labor pressures need to be examined in perspective with the decline in sales volumes.
“A&P’s problem was a sales problem and a culture problem, not necessarily a labor problem,” the source told SN. “Labor costs need to be considered in relation to productivity, and if your stores are doing decreasing volumes, of course your productivity is going to be poor.”
With the company losing $28 million a month during the first six months of fiscal 2012, A&P scaled back price investments, cut spending, and began efforts to monetize assets including raising $200 million in sale-leasebacks. These efforts helped to stabilize the company, McGarry said, but sales continued to slide.
A subsequent effort to sell the company in 2013 did not result in an offer, and financial performance continued to decline. A&P lost $68 million in 2013 and $305 million in fiscal 2014, when sales declined by 6%.
Yucaipa’s partner in the equity investment, Mt. Kellett Capital Management, has become A&P’s largest owner, filings show. Mt. Kellett as of the filing controls 77.27% of the stock in the company and Yucaipa, the Ron Burkle-led provate equity firm with a long history of food retail investments, now holds 22.73%.
Mt. Kellett is a New York-based private investment firm focusing on distressed debt, special situations and opportunistic investing, founded by former Goldman Sachs executive Mark McGoldrick.
According to published reports, Mt. Kellett has been struggling as a result of soured investments in energy companies and this spring required a $200 million bailout from Fortress Investment Group. Officials of Mt. Kellett were not available for immediate comment.
Fortress is providing $100 million in debtor-in-possession financing for A&P but according to court filings it is contingent upon a furious pace of store sale procedures including having the court enter orders for bid procedures within 20 days of the filing and for A&P to have consummated sales by Oct. 30.

Cost pressure

A&P said legacy union contracts — particularly “bumping” clauses allowing for more senior members of the workforce to take jobs from less experienced employees in the event of layoffs — put pressure on costs to the point where it was more efficient to keep money-losing stores open than to close them and infect surrounding stores with higher costs.
Mandates to raise hourly wages also put increased pressure on costs as sales fell, McGarry noted. The company’s labor rate as a percent of sales increased from 13.46% in fiscal 2013 to 14.07% in fiscal 2014 to an expected 14.78% in fiscal 2015, an increase of 9.8%, McGarry said. Average hourly wages for the respective periods were $16.41, $16.65 and $16.85.
As word spread this summer of A&P's ongoing financial troubles, nervous vendors tightened credit terms, McGarry said, depleting A&P’s cash position. And shortly before the Chapter 11 filing, supplier C&S Wholesale Grocers issued a notice of default for non-payment of a $17 million deferred debt. The following day, lender ABL issued a notice accelerating the entire unpaid principal amount of its loans to A&P, totaling $198 million. That triggered the company’s flee to Chapter 11 and subsequent plan to recover monies through the so-called “sale strategy.” 
“The debtors have explored all possible alternatives and pursued numerous strategies to ‘right the ship,’” McGarry concluded. “The last three years have demonstrated, however, that the sale strategy is the only viable path forward.”
While acknowledging A&P’s costs were troublesome, observers suggested the company’s failure stemmed from operations issues that escaped the attention of management. Burt P. Flickinger, managing director at Strategic Resource Group, New York, specifically cited a lack of procedures covering inventory receiving and scheduling, leading to high operating losses. “A&P stores, in my opinion, simply need adequate leadership,” he told SN.
If the sale strategy proceeds as planned, competitors would benefit not only from the addition of new stores to their portfolio, but the potential removal of dozens of sites expected to close, or convert to other uses.
“Everybody’s a winner,” Flickinger said. “Ahold is a winner, Acme and Albertsons are winners and Key Food is a winner, and if some stores go to Kings or anyone else, they’re winners. Because they are good locations, and even with average management they could be quite profitable.”
Meeting the timeline of those proposed sales will be a challenge that might require court-ordered negotiation between A&P and its unions. On Thursday, the UFCW published a letter from president Marc Perrone to Peter Briger, co-chairman of Fortress, decrying “draconian terms and timelines” of the financing facility and offering to negotiate terms that would better serve the 29,000 union workers who could be affected by the bankruptcy.



Conflicts like these have the potential to turn into lawsuits themselves, sources told SN, with one observer saying “things could get very messy.”
Flickinger said the role of A&P’s management and its owners leading to the bankruptcy could also come into question.
“The judge really needs to look at private equity and find out how much money has been streamed from the company to private equity, and look at all the contracts that appear to not have been addressed for rejection for rejection or corrective action.”

Thursday, July 30, 2015

The Future of Retail: 10 Trends of Tomorrow

22 Jul 2015
Retailing will become more personalised, collaborative and socially-influenced in the future, according to new research by Planet Retail.
The report, titled The Future of Retail: 10 Trends of Tomorrow and featuring case studies from retailers around the globe, warns that retailers should begin preparing themselves for another few years of significant structural change.
Natalie Berg, Retail Insights Director and author of the report, commented:
“Retailing has undergone seismic shifts over the past five years and we believe that further fundamental changes are just around the corner. By 2020, we predict that shoppers will have to pay for home delivery, traditional points-based loyalty cards will become a thing of the past, pure-play retail will largely cease to exist and checkout-less stores will become a reality.
“A key theme across the 10 future trends is the need for collaboration. Retailers are finally beginning to recognise the benefits of working together both in bid for differentiation and providing a better service for the customer. We expect more retailers will join forces by 2020, primarily through instore concessions or collection points for online orders.”
Fulfilment
“When it comes to fulfilment of online orders, we believe there is a growing disconnect between shopper expectations and retailer capabilities. The competitive state of the sector has resulted in a proliferation of retail delivery services with lead times getting shorter and shorter. As a result, shoppers now expect delivery to be fast, reliable and – crucially – free.  This is unsustainable in our view, and we are beginning to see the first signs of cracks in the system. Looking to the future, we expect more retailers to begin charging for services such as home delivery and for low-value click & collect orders.
“Click & collect will continue to bridge the gap between online and offline retailing. Our own research shows that half of global shoppers are now influenced by a retailer’s ability to offer convenient collection points for online purchases. Click & collect is no longer a nice-to-have, it’s now a prerequisite.
“Looking ahead, retailers must follow their own golden rule by putting the customer first. For many, this will require collaboration with some unconventional partners to improve speed and quality of service while providing additional choice for customers. The key will be to collaborate with non-competing chains that share an overlap in customer demographics, thus allowing the retailer to benefit from increased footfall and shopper satisfaction without the risk of sales cannibalisation. It’s for this reason that we are expecting more retailers competing in different sectors - e.g. fashion and beauty - to join forces in the name of providing a best-in-class click & collect service.”
Instore technology
“The store of the future will be heavily influenced by technology. We expect more retailers - particularly the spacious, SKU-heavy hypermarkets - to invest in instore navigation capabilities. In addition to the opportunity to better understand shopping habits, this technology is incredibly powerful as it enables the retailer to engage with shoppers just moments before potentially making a purchase.
“In the not too distant future, we also expect more shoppers to pay for items via their smartphones. The highly publicised launch of Apple Pay has certainly created a buzz around mobile payments, but we believe it will be some time before shopper usage catches up with awareness. In fact, our own research shows that only 20% of shoppers globally have used their mobile phones as a method of payment.
“Concerns over privacy and security must be addressed in order for mobile payments to be accepted beyond those early adaptors. Convenience, ease of use and providing tangible benefits for the shopper are essential.  For example, some retailers have been testing checkout-less stores, allowing shoppers to use their smartphones to scan and pay for items as they add them to their basket.
“Retailers should also consider rewarding shoppers, potentially linking to loyalty schemes, as an incentive to make mobile payments. It’s for this reason that we believe in the long-term success of a more comprehensive mobile wallet as opposed to mobile payments as a standalone option. Although such technologies can help retailers to differentiate today, it’s important to bear in mind that this will also lead to greater customer expectations and in the next five to 10 years such technologies will simply become the norm.”
Loyalty
“We believe the end is nigh for points-based loyalty cards. The rise of shopper promiscuity and general strive for more honest, transparent pricing has had a detrimental impact on traditional loyalty schemes. That said, the notion of rewarding your most loyal, most profitable customers will never go away. The future will revolve around personalisation, digitisation and gamification. We would also encourage retailers to look towards value-added perks – as opposed to money-off vouchers - such as providing VIP checkouts for cardholders or free hot drinks instore.”
Personalisation
“Retailers must be prepared to enter a new phase of mass personalisation. Historically, bricks and mortar players have struggled to replicate the level of personalisation that can be found online. However, recent advances in beacon technology mean that targeted, real-time offers are now a reality. What’s more, Planet Retail research shows that 38% of global shoppers want to opt in to receiving relevant discounts when instore, compared to the 15% of shoppers currently doing this. This combination of shopper enthusiasm and technological capability means that bricks and mortar retailers should be looking to take personalisation to new heights, driving both customer loyalty and spend,” Berg concluded.
The 10 Future Trends:
1. Fewer, but more impactful, stores
2. Working together to stand apart
3. Race for the most convenient store experience
4. Personalisation to reach new heights
5. The end of points-based loyalty cards
6. Power of the peer
7. Cracking the final mile
8. Death of pure-play
9. Click & collect
10. From one-click to no-click

Walmart leads 2015 Top 25 Global Retailers

“Walmart remains by far the leading player but will not rest on its laurels. In fact, there are a number of key strategic initiatives it is pursuing at home and abroad.”
—ROBERT GREGORY, Planet Retail

A shifting focus toward smaller retail formats and the strong U.S. dollar influenced Planet Retail’s list of the Top 25 Global Retailers, on which Walmart, Costco and Carrefour took the top three spots, respectively.
The ranking is based on 2015 sales in U.S. dollars, which Planet Retail has forecast for the year while taking into account historic performance, store opening projections (which are reflected in store counts provided) and an estimated comparable store growth rate.
With a projected $527.8 billion in sales, Wal-Mart Stores bests all other international retailers by a wide margin, according to Planet Retail.
“Walmart remains by far the leading player but will not rest on its laurels,” noted Robert Gregory, head of advisory for London-based Planet Retail. “In fact, there are a number of key strategic initiatives it is pursuing at home and abroad.”
These include restoring performance in some faltering international markets and focusing on e-commerce around the world.
“Walmart was initially slow to embrace e-commerce, but is making up ground fast with global e-commerce sales growing at more than 20% per annum,” Gregory said.
While the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer has online operations in most countries in which it operates, its key markets for digital sales are the U.S., U.K., Brazil and China, according to Gregory. Walmart considers Asda in the U.K. and Yihaodian in China to be best-in-class for e-commerce, he said.
No. 2 retailer, Issaquah, Wash.-based Costco Wholesale Corp., with a projected $127.9 billion in sales, has about 70% of its 687 outlets in the U.S., according to Gregory who said it is scheduled to open 24 new stores by fiscal year 2015.
“While the growth of ancillary businesses and an expanded service offering should boost domestic sales, international club expansion will drive new member growth, which will propel a stronger bottom line,” he said. “The first store in France is scheduled for 2016, following on from entry into Spain in 2014.”
French retailer Carrefour is No. 3, with $119.8 billion in sales when converted to U.S. dollars, and 12,965 outlets.
Gregory noted that despite increasing sales in their local currency, many European and Japanese retailers declined their ranking on the list due to currency exchange rates to the U.S. dollar.
Kroger, with $116.4 billion in sales and 3,750 stores takes the No. 4 spot, followed by Tesco.
The U.K.-based retailer is coming off a “nightmare year, rocked by leadership changes, the accountancy scandal, negative like-for-like sales and a record loss,” according to Gregory. “Further disposals are likely [such as Dunnhumby] and international markets such as South Korea, as it looks to rebuild its balance sheet and generate funds to invest in the U.K.”
While the outlook for Tesco and its 7,990 stores isn’t all doom and gloom, it still has a fair amount of challenges ahead.
“Tesco is currently on a journey and recent trading has actually improved and it is actually performing stronger than rivals such as Walmart’s Asda,” added Gregory. “However, it will be a long journey and with like-for-likes at its hypermarkets continuing to decline and with store openings being scaled back, Tesco is likely to fall further down the global ranking in the coming years.”
7-Eleven parent Seven & I, is the No. 6 retailer with $101.4 billion in sales across 38,009 outlets which include its retail banners and its nonfood offerings such as department stores.

U.S. invasion

It’s followed in the ranking by Lidl parent, Schwarz Group, with $99.7 billion in sales. Earlier this summer, Lidl confirmed plans to expand beyond Europe for the first time, to the U.S., but these stores are not expected to open in the near-term and therefore did not factor into Planet Retail’s projections. Schwarz Group has also announced market entries in Serbia (Kaufland, Lidl) and Lithuania (Lidl), according to Gregory.
With $96.2 billion in sales, U.S.-based Walgreens Boots Alliance is ranked No. 8. Its position was boosted by Walgreen’s acquisition of the remaining 55% of Alliance Boots that it did not own, to form the first global pharmacy-led, health and wellbeing enterprise and the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world.
Japanese retailer Aeon is No. 9 on the list with $92.1 billion in sales and 19,171 total outlets. And rounding out the top 10 is Aldi, which, according to Gregory, is among the retailers who’ve slipped down the ranking due to an unfavorable EUR-to-USD exchange rate.
Aldi’s expansion plans include new stores in a range of markets including some in Western and Southern Australia and West Coast and Southern California stores in the U.S. In addition to acquiring the Bottom Dollar chain from Delhaize, it hopes to more than double its stores in the U.K. by 2022, according to Gregory.
Minneapolis-based Target Corp., No. 11 on the list, “will accelerate small-box and urban expansion, via TargetExpress and to a lesser extent CityTarget,” said Gregory. “After having opened its first TargetExpress location last summer in its home market of Minneapolis, Target is set to open eight additional locations in 2015, more than half of its total planned store openings for the year.”
With $79.9 billion in sales, France-based Auchan is the 12th ranked retailer, followed by Metro Group (No. 13) with $77.9 billion in sales.



No. 14 on the list, CVS, with $70.5 billion in sales and 7,923 stores will continue to expand organically as well as benefit from the store-within-a-store concept that will result from its purchase of Target’s 1,660 in-store pharmacies and 80 in-store clinics, Gregory said.
“A clear trend amongst all players on the ranking is the shifting focus towards smaller formats,” he told SN. “Even the likes of Walmart are trying to decrease the proportion of sales from big-box stores as they look to embrace smaller formats, such as Walmart to Go and Walmart on Campus.
“In addition, investing in stores to make them a more integral part of the online shopping experience has become a priority with all leading players introducing click and collect facilities across their store networks. Clearly, this will be part of their attempts to reinvent the weak performing big-box stores, as well as measures such as improved service, greater use of in-store technology and trying to cater to the mobile shopper in the stores.”
Other notable retailers on the list include No. 19 Albertsons, with $56.8 billion in sales, whose ranking was boosted as a result of its merger with Safeway, and No. 22 Ahold, whose $46.7 billion sales projection does not include its forthcoming merger with Delhaize, according to Gregory. 

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

This Startup Turns Almost-Expired Fruit Into Tasty Nutritional Powder To Fight Hunger

It's Soylent for the impoverished, coming to markets in the Philippines soon.
It sounds like a simple problem to solve: Grocery stores waste massive amounts of almost-expired food, while millions of people nearby go hungry. Why not connect the two? But the logistics of getting an overripe banana to a food bank fast enough that it can feed someone are more complicated than you think. Tesco, the U.K.'s largest chain, wasted over 100 million pounds of food last year, despite its donations to charity.
A Swedish startup is taking a different approach. Rather than trying to deliver fresh fruits that are about to go bad, they dry the fruits and turn them into a nutritional powder they're marketing as FoPo. The powder can be mixed with water or sprinkled on yogurt or ice cream.
"By drying fruits you extend the shelf life from around two weeks up to two years," says Kent Ngo, one of the founders of FoPo. The process, which can retain between 30% to 80% of the original nutritional value, makes logistics simpler. Suddenly it's possible to efficiently send the food not only to local soup kitchens, but to anyone struggling from hunger around the world.
"By using dried fruits we also eliminate the need for a fridge to preserve the food—sometimes this is critical in developing countries when the electricity stops working or in situations where a fridge doesn't exist," Ngo says.
The drying process works up until the fruit's last edible moments. "We can use the fruits up until the very day they expire," he says. "We collect produce which was deemed as 'rejects,' which are comprised of mostly overripe, ugly, misshaped, discolored but otherwise perfectly edible fruits and vegetables." The fruits are sorted and anything that's already moldy or inedible is tossed.
The company, which was founded by students from Lund University in Sweden, is piloting their product this summer in the Philippines. Thanks to poor storage and transport, huge amounts of food grown in the Philippines is wasted. At the same time, the country has a desperate need for cheap food.
"A lot of people here simply don't have enough money to buy food for the day," says Ngo. "So we asked ourselves, where in the world is a cheap fruit powder needed the most?" The disaster-prone country also suffers from typhoons, earthquakes and floods on a regular basis, and the company believes the powder is a cheap but nutritious way to provide humanitarian aid when disaster strikes.
They're working with local markets and farms to collect lemons, pineapples, and mangoes, and experiment with the manufacturing process. Once they've fully tested for safety, they plan to start selling in stores and supplying at a low cost to nonprofits.
"The fact is that one third of the food produced in the world is being thrown away—which would be more than enough to feed the entire population," says Ngo. "Sometimes fruit is thrown away because it is spoiled, sometimes because the fruit looks ugly, sometimes because people cook too much food. We can't do anything about people cooking too much food—but we are set on doing something about the rest."

Whole Foods to open five 365 locations in 2016

Whole Foods Market said it expects to open the first five units of its new, smaller format — 365 by Whole Foods Market — in the second half of next year and to double the number of openings the following year.
The stores will average 30,000 square feet, with the first unit scheduled to open in the Silver Lake area of Los Angeles — at a site where the company said it converted a lease in development from a Whole Foods Market to 365 — followed by openings in Santa Monica, Calif.; Portland, Ore.; Houston, Texas; and Bellevue, Wash.
Walter A. Robb, co-CEO, said all five are A-plus real-estate sites.
He said Whole Foods chose Silver Lake for the first 365 location “[because] Los Angeles is the perfect dense, urban market to introduce our latest evolution focused on quality food and value in a convenient format.”
He said 365 will allow the company “to address the value-quality proposition in a new way while maintaining the integrity the Whole Foods Market brand represents in the marketplace.”
Robb made his remarks during a conference call with investors detailing the company’s financial results for the third quarter ended July 5.
Net income for the 12-week quarter rose 2% to $154 million, while sales increased 8% to a record $3.6 billion and comparable store sales were up 1.3%, including a negative impact of an estimated 95 basis points from the shift of Easter from the third quarter last year to the second quarter this year.
Robb said results encompassed a 70 basis-point improvement in traffic but a 50 basis-point decline in basket size, which he attributed to “our value efforts and cost deflation in a few key volume product categories, including produce.”
He also said comps dropped sharply in the 11th week of the quarter — averaging 0.4% for the last two weeks of the quarter — after national media attention following an audit by the weights and measures department in New York City that found weight discrepancies.


Whole Foods has seen “a slight improvement” in trends so far in the fourth quarter, Robb noted, “[though] comps are still well below our 2.5% average for the nine weeks prior to the negative publicity.”
He said the problems in New York were not systemic “but rather were caused by inadvertent human error, including errors that were favorable to customers.
“We have taken immediate steps to address these issues, including improving our training regarding in-store packaging, weighing and labeling processes and expanding our third-party auditing process companywide.”
For the 40-week period net income climbed 6.2% to $479 million, with sales increasing 9.3% to $12 billion and comps up 3.3%.
The company said average weekly sales per store for the year-to-date were $728,000, translating to sales per gross square foot of approximately $990.