Listening to the plastic-bag industry oppose bans on their product is eerily similar to what carmakers said decades ago in opposition to seat belts and air bags.

Bad idea, they argued. Bad for consumers. Won’t accomplish what supporters intend.

In fact, seat belts cut the number of crash-related injuries and deaths in half, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the combination of seat belts and air bags reduced fatalities by more than 60%.

And now we have plastic-bag manufacturers claiming that bans at the local and state level hurt the economy, kill jobs, tax the poor and don’t actually help the environment.

“It’s yet another job-killing, big grocer cash grab masquerading as an environmental bill,” Mark Daniels, chairman of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, said of California’s ban on plastic bags that takes effect in July.

It’s yet another job-killing, big grocer cash grab masquerading as an environmental bill.- Mark Daniels, chairman of the American Progressive Bag Alliance
A ban on plastic bags in Los Angeles County took effect four months ago. A 10-cent fee is charged for paper bags.

The plastic-bag industry, like the auto industry before it, wants people to think it’s fighting the good fight on behalf of personal freedom, individual liberty and common sense.

All it’s really doing is trying to protect its profits.

The plastic-bag industry is now gearing up — and spending heavily — to place a referendum on the November 2016 ballot that would overturn California’s bag ban. It has until Dec. 29 to collect the more than 500,000 signatures needed to put the matter to voters.

I spotted an ad on Craigslist for people to receive $1.50 for every signature they gather in support of the referendum. “It is basically to reverse the ban,” the ad says, “but the way you pitch is to vote on it whether you want it or not.”
Daniels acknowledged that the industry is employing professional signature gatherers.

Plastics companies recently contributed about $1.2 million toward the referendum campaign, according to public records. All but $50,000 came from companies based outside California.

The largest donation — $566,666.67 — was made by South Carolina’s Hilex Poly, one of the country’s largest plastic-bag makers and the main provider of funds for Daniels’ American Progressive Bag Alliance.

Indeed, when he isn’t defending “progressive” bags, which are more friendly sounding than plastic bags, Daniels is Hilex Poly’s vice president of sustainability and environmental policy.

California’s ban, Daniels told me, is not about the environment. “It’s about a backroom deal to scam Californians out of billions of dollars.”
By the industry’s reckoning, he said, state lawmakers bowed to pressure from grocery stores and unions to require that consumers pay extra for paper or reusable bags.

“We’re getting inundated with calls from Californians thanking us for doing this,” Daniels said of the planned referendum. “It’s very encouraging for our industry.”

Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, which spearheaded the statewide bag ban, said he very much doubted that bag makers are being swamped with calls of support from state residents.

About 60% of voters said they support the statewide bag ban, according to a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released Friday.

Murray said the industry’s claims of broad support mirror its insistence that plastic bags are environmentally safe. “They don’t have a real argument, so they’re using bogus arguments,” he said.

A plastics industry website, BagTheBan.com, says that “studies show banning plastic bags could increase global warming, put more carbon in the air, require more trucks on the road and use up more water because consumers would be forced to use resource-heavy alternatives like paper and reusable bags.”

The reality, Murray said, is that plastic bags are a blight on the landscape after being discarded by careless consumers or blowing from trash cans, garbage trucks or landfills.

The Natural Resources Defense Council reported last year that California communities spend more than $428 million a year trying to prevent litter from entering the state’s waterways.

Plastic bags make up as much as a quarter of all that trash, the group found. They pose a threat to wildlife, clog storm drains and threaten vital industries, such as tourism and commercial fishing, it said.

“The environmental cost of this product far exceeds its utility,” Murray said.

He said California’s bag ban was the result of many hours of public hearings and negotiations with interested parties. But because the industry didn’t get its way, Murray said, “they’re now just buying their way onto the ballot.”

It’s a fair point. If Californians were clamoring for an end to a law that hasn’t even taken effect yet, they’d be signing petitions at a grass-roots level, not at the behest of mercenary hustlers making $1.50 a signature.

The California Legislature passed a bill in 2011 that would have prohibited petition circulators being paid on a per-signature basis, but it was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown. He said the legislation was “a dramatic change to a long-established democratic process in California.”

Contrast that with Oregon, which in 2002 required that petition circulators be paid by the hour, not per signature gathered. Since then, the state’s initiative process hasn’t died. It’s just become more representative of the public’s wishes.

Both Daniels and Murray predicted that a referendum on California’s bag ban will come before voters in 2016. Even if it fails to pass, it would likely delay implementation of the ban for months.

And that would translate into additional profit for the bag industry.

Call it the best democracy money can buy.

David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5 and followed on Twitter @Davidlaz. Send your tips or feedback to [email protected].

It’s been a dispiriting drumbeat for the Chamber of Commerce this year at Los Angeles City Hall.

In a matter of weeks, three initiatives opposed by the chamber were embraced by the City Council: a ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in underground oil extraction; a prohibition on e-cigarettes in most workplaces; and a sweeping overhaul of commercial trash pickup promoted by labor and environmental groups.

The latest defeat came last week, when the council voted to hike the minimum wage to $15.37 for thousands of workers at L.A.’s large hotels — increasing pay for some employees as much as 71%. Business groups, who complained that their warnings about job losses were ignored, were left “alienated to a degree that I’ve never seen before,” said Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

Almost every month, someone has an idea at City Hall that makes it more challenging to grow your business, hire people and contribute to the economy of the community.

– Gary Toebben, president of the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce

“This decision seemed to say: ‘Not only are you going to lose, we’re not going to listen to you. You’re a non-factor,’” he said.

The chamber and its allies now are bracing for an even bigger battle: Mayor Eric Garcetti’s proposal to hike the minimum wage for all workers in the city to $13.25 by 2017. Lawmakers appear likely to approve an increase of at least that amount, further underscoring the diminished clout of traditional business lobbying groups at City Hall.

Gary Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, said the wage hikes, fracking plan and trash initiative have fueled a growing sense that the business community is “under siege.”

“Almost every month, someone has an idea at City Hall that makes it more challenging to grow your business, hire people and contribute to the economy of the community,” he said.

The anxiety — and, in some cases, anger — expressed by business organizations is sharply at odds with the message Garcetti and city lawmakers have been trying to send: that they have flung open the doors to investors and are working hard to expand the L.A. economy.

On Monday, the mayor disputed the idea that businesses are under siege, saying L.A. added tens of thousands of jobs last year. “This is not Detroit struggling to come back or Pittsburgh that lost half of its population,” he added. “This is L.A. It’s growing its economy.”

The widening disconnect between the narratives of key business leaders and city elected officials was on full display last week at City Hall.

During the chamber’s yearly presentation to the council on the state of the local economy, Toebben warned lawmakers that the city’s business tax is driving companies out of L.A. Noel Massie, chairman of the chamber’s board of directors, pointedly challenged lawmakers to examine why e-commerce businesses, such as large distribution centers for online retailers, are bypassing the city for other parts of Southern California.

Councilman Paul Krekorian countered that he’s seen no evidence that L.A.’s business tax, which requires companies to pay the city a percentage of their gross receipts, has sparked an exodus to nearby cities. He pointed to Chamber of Commerce data showing tourism, construction activity and tax revenue are on the rise and urged business leaders to move “the rhetoric away from gloom and doom.”

“There are a lot of great, great things going on in the business community in Los Angeles,” he told chamber officials.

The following day, hotel industry leaders called a news conference on the steps of City Hall to declare they would continue fighting the council’s hotel wage hike, possibly in the courts. They vowed to seek public records on any behind-the-scenes communications between elected officials and the unions that backed the wage increase.

Labor leaders and their allies are now pushing for a citywide wage hike that goes beyond Garcetti’s plan, by taking the minimum hourly pay to $15. They contend that business groups have racked up valuable victories at the local level, including tax subsidies for new downtown hotels and the passage of a 2008 county sales tax that is raising billions for transportation improvements. Union officials also argue that, with incomes remaining stagnant, the public mood has shifted on minimum wage laws.
“Business interests will always have a voice in City Hall,” said Rachel Torres, lead organizer with hotel workers union Unite Here Local 11. “But on wages, the pendulum has swung.”

Garcetti says his citywide minimum wage proposal will benefit businesses, giving families on the brink of poverty more spending power.

At a Woodland Hills luncheon last month for chambers of commerce across the San Fernando Valley, the mayor also pointed to his efforts to keep film production in California, eliminate red tape for real estate development and cut the business tax in coming years.

“We want to make sure we have a City Hall that works for you,” he told the crowd.

The audience applauded the speech. But afterward, some business owners spoke anxiously about the mayor’s minimum wage proposal. Real estate agent Victor Viereck, a board member with the Universal City North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, predicted it would be a “destructive” force on the city’s economy. Bob Cohen, president of the Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce, called it “just one more thing” for small businesses to deal with.

L.A.’s chamber warned the Garcetti plan will slow the city’s recovery from the recession by forcing business owners to lay off workers, cut hours or move to cities with a lower minimum wage. The group also contends the mayor’s proposal will hit younger workers and those with limited skills especially hard, by making fewer jobs available to them.

Business advocates have long had an uphill climb in heavily Democratic Los Angeles, where political representatives tend to be vigorously pro-labor. Since the mayor’s minimum wage plan was unveiled, business owners have been divided on the concept, making it difficult for advocates to deliver a unified message to City Hall.

Tony Safoian, chief executive of the North Hollywood information technology company Sada Systems, has endorsed the mayor’s plan, saying it doesn’t make sense for full-time workers to live below the poverty line. If the measure is defeated, Safoian said, taxpayers will continue absorbing the cost of services for those on the brink of poverty.

“So many business groups and business voices have automatically considered [Garcetti’s plan] to be a bad thing,” he added. “We provide a counterpoint.”

Real estate developer Tom Gilmore, a leader in the revitalization of downtown, also supports the Garcetti proposal, saying he worries L.A. is developing a “permanent underclass.” He expects the higher wages to drive prices upward. “I say those effects are worth it,” he added.

Even among business groups critical of the mayor’s proposal — which would take the $9 minimum wage to $10.25 in 2015, $11.75 in 2016 and $13.25 in 2017 — there are diverging strategies on how to fight it. Some are seeking to soften the effect on businesses, while others are opposing it outright. Garcetti wants a vote on the proposal by January.

The California Fashion Assn., a networking group for the apparel industry, expects garment makers to be hit especially hard by the proposal. The group wants tax credits for apparel manufacturers and a lower “training wage” for new employees. The downtown-based Central City Assn. wants Garcetti to phase in the wage increases more slowly and include tips and employee health benefits in any pay requirement.

The Chamber of Commerce, which objects to the citywide minimum wage hike, hasn’t sought specific amendments. Toebben, the chamber president, said he expects more businesses will speak up as additional information comes out on the costs of Garcetti’s plan.

“I believe there will be many phone calls and letters and communications from small businesses to our mayor and members of our City Council — and that they will pay attention to these communications,” he said.

Others were more skeptical about the chances of stopping the measure.

“We are very realistic about this,” said California Fashion Assn. President Ilse Metchek. “It is a done deal. Nothing we say is going to change it.”

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (10/6/2014)

Yes on SB 270 Coalition Thanks Governor Jerry Brown for Making History

The Yes on SB 270 Coalition cheered Gov. Jerry Brown’s historic signing of a bill that makes California the first state to ban single-use plastic carryout bags.

“History was made today, and our environment and economy will be better for it,” said Ronald Fong, President and CEO, California Grocers Association. “SB 270 will foster innovation, create operational consistency, California green jobs, and protect our precious natural resources. We are grateful to Sens. Padilla, de León and Lara for bravely standing up for California.”

SB 270 (Padilla, de León, Lara) has been supported by dozens of groups representing a spectrum of sectors, including environment, organized labor, business organizations, grocers, retailers, poverty rights organizations, Latino leaders, waste management firms, local governments and others.

More than 100 cities and counties in California, including our largest metropolitan areas, have enacted bans on single-use carryout plastic bags. SB 270 will bring uniformity to California, while further reducing the use of plastic bags that litter streets, clog waterways, endanger animals and natural resources and cost taxpayers.

Gov. Brown’s Official Press Release »

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, during Thursday night’s gubernatorial debate with Republican rival Neel Kashkari, said he plans to sign a law that would make California the first state to impose a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags.

“I probably will sign it, yes,” Brown said during the televised debate. “ In fact, I’ll tell you why I’m going to sign it …. There are about 50 cities with their own plastic bag ban, and that’s causing a lot of confusion.’’

Brown said that grocers supported a reasonable ban, implying they welcomed a more consistent statewide policy.

“This is a compromise,” Brown said. “It’s taking into account the needs of the environment, and the needs of the economy and the needs of the grocers.”

Kashkari responded that “no chance would I sign” the plastic bag ban if he were governor.

Kashkari, a former assistant U.S. Treasury secretary who oversaw the federal bank bailout, then criticized other bills passed by the Legislature this year, including measures limiting high school football practices and legislation permitting dogs at outdoor restaurants.
“What they’re not working on is rebuilding the middle class,” Kashkari said.

California lawmakers last week approved legislation banning plastic bags, such as those available to customers in supermarkets, convenience stores and pharmacies. Supporters argued the ban would reduce litter on beaches and streets as well as garbage being dumped at landfills.

The hotly contested bill, strongly supported by environmentalists, would allow stores to charge customers 10 cents for paper or reusable plastic bags as an alternative. Similar bans are already in place in more than 100 California cities and counties, including Los Angeles County and San Francisco. Those regulations would remain intact.

Once signed by the governor, the ban on plastic bags would kick in for grocery stores and pharmacies on July 1, 2015, and extend to convenience stores and liquor stores a year later.

The bill was opposed by bag makers, who warned of job losses, and Republican legislators, who viewed the measure as an unnecessary government intrusion.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (9/5/2014)

The Yes on SB 270 Coalition celebrated the 22-15 victory in the California Senate late Friday night for SB 270, a landmark measure that will make California the first state to ban single-use plastic carryout bags if signed by the governor.

“This is a monumental night for California. With tonight’s vote, California is on the cusp of making history,” said Ronald Fong, President and CEO, California Grocers Association. “SB 270 will foster innovation, create homegrown jobs, safeguard businesses and protect California’s natural resources. We are grateful to Sens. Padilla, de León and Lara for bravely standing up for California.”

SB 270 (Padilla, de León, Lara) has been supported by dozens of groups representing a spectrum of sectors, including environment, organized labor, business organizations, grocers, retailers, poverty rights organizations, Latino leaders, waste management firms, local governments and others.

“We are thankful that our elected leaders saw through the tactics employed by out-of-state plastic companies seeking to block this measure, and stood up to special interests who do not have Californians’ best interest in mind. If Gov. Jerry Brown signs this bill into law, as we hope he will, we are confident we will see a seismic shift in consumer habits and a whole new crop of innovators and home-grown job creators in our state,” Fong said.

More than 100 cities and counties in California, including our largest metropolitan areas, have enacted bans on single-use carryout plastic bags. SB 270 will bring uniformity to California, while further reducing the use of plastic bags that litter streets, clog waterways, endanger animals and natural resources and cost taxpayers.

SB 270 ensures that those on food assistance programs are not subject to the 10-cent charge and that monies generated from the 10-cent charge stay local to be used for cost recovery and consumer education on reusable bag use.

The Yes on SB 270 Coalition hailed the California Assembly’s historic approval of Senate Bill 270, moving California one step closer to a landmark law banning single-use plastic carryout bags statewide.

SB 270 (Padilla, de Leon, Lara) is supported by dozens of groups representing a spectrum of sectors, including environment, organized labor, business organizations, grocers, retailers, poverty rights organizations, Latino leaders, waste management firms, local governments and others.

“Today California is one step closer to making history by becoming the first state in the nation to ban single-use plastic carryout bags statewide. If this bill become law, California will continue its storied legacy as a global leader in bold, game-changing policies to help create a better planet for future generations,” said Ronald Fong, President and CEO, California Grocers Association.

More than 100 cities and counties in California, including our largest metropolitan areas, have deliberated, studied, scrutinized, and, ultimately approved bans on single-use carryout plastic bags.

Thousands of other jurisdictions worldwide have done the same. SB 270 will bring uniformity to California, while further reducing the use of plastic bags that litter streets, clog waterways, endanger animals and natural resources and cost taxpayers.

“Nearly one-third of Californians already live in communities that have banned these bags. It is time for our state to step up and usher in a new era of reusable bags as the norm rather than the exception.,” said Marce Gutiérrez and Héctor Huezo, co-chairs of the Latino Coalition for a California Bag Ban. “SB 270 will foster innovation, create homegrown jobs, safeguard businesses and protect California’s treasured natural resources. We are grateful to Sens. Padilla, de Leon and Lara for listening to the concerns of Californians and for bravely standing up for economic justice and environmental common sense.”

Said Mark Murray, Executive Director, Californians Against Waste “SB 270 is a tried-and-true policy which brings a broad base of support. By eliminating single-use plastic carryout grocery bags, consumer behavior shifts as shoppers make a habit of using reusable bags.”

Should consumers forget their reusable bags or need an extra bag at checkout, recycled paper bags are available for a 10-cent charge. Amendments to SB 270 ensure that those on food assistance programs are not subject to the 10-cent charge and to ensure that monies generated from the 10-cent charge stay local to be used for cost recovery and consumer education on reusable bag use.

2015 We Card Materials Available for Order Starting September 1 at WeCard.org

September is We Card Awareness Month across the country, and the California Grocers Association encourages all California retailers to continue in their efforts to successfully identify and prevent age-restricted product sales to minors.

The legal requirements of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations governing certain tobacco products, combined with state level restrictions and the rising focus on e-cigarettes, pushes responsible retailing of age-restricted products to a new level.

The national retailer violation rate with youth access to tobacco laws is 9.1 percent — significantly below the target percent rate. Even so, preventing age-restricted product sales to minors continues to be a top retail industry priority. Furthermore, California has a violation rate of 5.6 percent that is below the national average according to the FFY 2012 Synar Report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“California retailers have always taken sales of age-restricted products very seriously,” says Ronald Fong, President and CEO of the CGA. “They continue to be leaders by embracing ongoing education and training that helps prepare frontline employees to comply with the law.”

“Trained retail employees are confident and prepared to identify and deny underage attempts to purchase tobacco, e-cigarettes or other age-restricted products. We Card Awareness Month helps reinforce retailers’ daily efforts and highlights the services and tools We Card avails to help them complete it,” said We Card president Doug Anderson.

FDA requirements of retailers demand the “carding” of every under 27-year old customer for cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, smokeless tobacco or roll-your-own tobacco. Additional products, such as cigars and e-cigarettes may be added to this requirement since FDA proposed adding them to the list of restricted products earlier this year. Since 2010 FDA has completed more than 320,000 retail compliance checks to see if retailers’ are asking for ID of customers under 27 years old and rejecting those underage purchase attempts.

California retailers have experienced over 8,000 checks since FDA starting doing compliance checks, and that number will only increase.

Furthermore, e-cigarettes are now considered age-restricted products in nearly 40 states – including California – so an increased focus on responsible retailing and knowing which products to “card” and deny sales to minors is particularly important for the retail industry.

To help retailers,We Card Awareness Month launches the availability of We Card’s 2015 materials including a range of new age-of-purchase calendars and tools. From Labor Day to New Year’s Eve, it is We Card’s busiest time of the year as retailers order the coming year’s Age-of-Purchase Calendar – a daily reminder age-calculation tool — and a slew of other point-of-sale tools and signage to equip their stores.

We Card also offers award-winning training courses offered online through We Card’s eLearning Center at www.wecard.org or through licensing to retailers and other organizations.

FDA has issued official guidance for Tobacco Retailer Training Programs and We Card’s eLearning training matches and exceeds this federal curriculum with retail-focused emphasis on customer service, role-playing and interactive gaming – earning the training an American Business Awards 2013 Bronze Stevie® Award as a Best Training Site.

“We Card Awareness Month is a good time for California retailers to evaluate their tools and training to make sure they have the very best systems in place to identify and reject underage sales,” says Fong.

About We Card: The We Card Program, Inc. is a national non-profit organization created 18 years ago to support retailers of tobacco and other age-restricted products. Individual retail establishments as well as large retail chains use We Card’s educational and training services to comply with federal and state laws while working to prevent underage tobacco and age-restricted product sales. National and state retail trade associations, government officials, community groups and others also support We Card’s ongoing efforts to educate and train retailers.

We Card’s Board of Directors represents all classes of trade from independent convenience stores, chains, grocers, and wholesalers. Combined, the board member national associations connect with 235,000 tobacco-selling outlets. Through We Card’s Advisory Board members, We Card reaches some 200,000 retail outlets through direct contact.

Senate Bill (SB) 270 authored by Senators Alex Padilla, Kevin de Leon and Ricardo Lara passed with resounding support out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Thursday. The bill now heads to the Assembly floor for consideration.

More than 100 California jurisdictions already have adopted single-use plastic bag bans. From the Bay Area to Southern California, local governments have seen reduction in single use bags. In San Jose, the city’s bag ban has reduced single-use bag usage by 90 percent. In Los Angeles County the ordinance has resulted in stores continuing to maintain over a 90 percent reduction in single use bag usage compared to prior to adoption of the ordinance.

“The purpose of this bill always has been statewide consistency, something businesses want and consumers need—all the while cutting pollution and litter while supporting innovative, green jobs,” said California Grocers Association President and CEO Ron Fong.

As SB 270 continues to gain momentum as the coalition of support continues to grow.

“We’ve never seen a coalition so united behind one common goal. From business groups and in-state manufacturers to organized labor, environmental groups and poverty rights activists, SB 270 truly reflects the diversity and forward thinking of California,” Fong said.

The vote followed a fresh wave of support for the bill by major newspapers across the state, including the Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee.

Cynthia McCloud has joined the venerable Food Industry Management Program at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. A Marshall alumna, McCloud is the fifth director, and the first woman, to lead the program, now in its 56th year.

“We are delighted to welcome back one of our own to lead this elite program,” said USC Marshall School of Business Dean James G. Ellis. “Future students will benefit from her experience, leadership and vision.”

McCloud was a student in the Food Industry Management Program (FIM) in 1990 and then graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. in business administration from USC Marshall in 1991. She later went on to earn an MBA in 1997 from the University of California, Irvine.

McCloud brings more than 35 years of both domestic and international experience in the consumer packaged goods and grocery retail industries, many at the senior executive level. McCloud specializes in building highly-effective collaborative teams, developing future leaders through self-reflection/motivation/education, and creating innovative solutions through technology. She also has deep experience in loyalty marketing and a personal passion for finding a cure for Cystic Fibrosis and working with others to promote healthier lifestyles.

Prior to joining USC, McCloud led the global sales and client teams in the U.S., Europe and Asia as the Executive Vice President of Business Development for Market Metrix, a leader in feedback solutions for the hospitality industry. In her 15 years with personalized digital media giant Catalina Marketing, McCloud held senior positions including Executive Vice President of Retail Sales and Marketing in the U.S. and Executive Vice President and Director, Europe. Prior to Catalina, McCloud held several positions over an 18-year period at Vons, a division of Safeway.

“I could not be more pleased to return to my alma mater in a position where I can directly help shape the next generation of food industry leaders,” McCloud said. “The industry is changing faster than ever, and I am passionate about building awareness in the food industry around proactive strategic solutions, innovative new technologies, and competing differently, and more aggressively for share of consumers who have many options for what they buy and where they shop.”

The resistance to shopping for groceries online is fading, so finds new research from Los Angeles-based Fusion Marketing, which tracked a 200 percent change in consumers’ willingness to try purchasing groceries online in the last year.

“We are witnessing consumer perception change from being reluctant to buy to testing the waters and making purchases,” explains Steven Muro, president and founder of Fusion Marketing, which works with fresh produce suppliers, associations and retailers to increase sales with customized, information-based, market-ready solutions. “Consumers typically aren’t spending a lot online overall. Our research conducted in 2013 and 2014 indicates that a larger percentage of consumers have made a produce purchase, but many spent under $25 per shopping occasion.”

As more consumers go beyond trial to making online purchases mainstream, the demand for increased speed, efficiency and simplicity will increase, according to Muro. Nevertheless, consumer behavior is changing and retailers should be prepared if they want to capture market share of the $9.5 billion grocery industry, which equates to more than $1 billion from fresh produce sales, he adds, citing Fusion Marketing research that finds consumers are moving beyond searching for information to actually making grocery and produce purchases.

Additionally, consumers are more open to receiving text messages and personalized ads from grocery retailers tailored to their shopping patterns. The latest findings bode well in light of comparing the same research conducted a year ago, when only 4 percent of consumers were purchasing groceries online and were not interested in receiving text messages from grocery stores regarding promotions or special pricing for fresh fruits and vegetables.

Consumers’ acceptance of online grocery shopping is shifting, so says Fusion’s recent research, which found in the last year that shoppers were concerned about the food quality and receiving refunds for damaged or spoiled products, especially fresh produce. Fusion Marketing’s latest research suggests that consumers’ concerns about freshness from online retailers are dissipating, due to their positive delivery experience along with the convenience and pricing of buying online.

Reprinted from Progressive Grocer (8/5/2014)