Nutrition continues to drive decision making in supermarket aisles across the country, according to Shopping for Health 2012, the 20th in a yearly study released July 18, by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and Prevention, and published by Rodale Inc.

For the past few years, shoppers have recognized and increased their purchases of foods containing desirable ingredients including whole grains, fiber, and protein. That number continues to grow, with 32 percent of shoppers reporting that they are buying more foods based on nutritional components versus last year.

Customers are attempting to make more of their calories count for better overall health, with 55 percent of shoppers switching to whole grain bread, 33 percent showing an interest in protein on the label (up 10 points since 2009), and 30 percent switching to Greek yogurt (up 9 points versus 2011).

“More and more shoppers are making the switch to foods with benefits. They are steering away from empty calories and asking, ‘what’s in my food, and how is it good for me?’” says Cary Silvers, Director of Consumer Insights forPrevention.

The desire to eat healthier and the stagnant economy appear to be two drivers that have led consumers to do more cooking at home, with 57 percent of people reporting having tried a new healthy recipe in the last year, an increase of five points from 2009. Shoppers recognize and use a variety of reliable sources when it comes to healthy meal ideas, with shoppers finding recipes through a variety of sources including the Internet (39 percent), cooking shows (37 percent), magazines (34 percent), cookbooks (33 percent), word-of-mouth (31 percent), recipes on labels (26 percent), culinary magazines (12 percent), and supermarket recipes (11 percent).

With the economy still in a slow growth mode, many of the tactics shoppers started using in 2008 are still in place, with 63 percent of shoppers reported only buying what they need (down 1 point from last year), and 60 percent switching to store brands (up 6 points from last year). While switching to store brands began as a money-saving tactic, improvements to quality, labeling and promotion have strengthened their position versus national brands.

Consumers are aware of their options at the grocery store, as 54 percent of respondents recognized the effort of food manufacturers to reduce sodium level in their foods. Sixty-seven percent of shoppers say that sodium is important to them, with 32 percent of shoppers saying that they are buying more low-sodium products versus 2011.

“Our food retail members are witness to these trends on a daily basis,” said Cathy Polley, RPh, vice president of health and wellness and executive director of the FMI Foundation. “Just as consumers are increasingly aware of the health-conscious opportunities afforded to them in the grocery aisles, FMI is also renewing its emphasis through its advancements in health and nutrition research and education with its Foundation.”

Publisher of Prevention, Lori Burgess, noted, “Shopping for Health is an invaluable source of information for the food industry, as it gives us a glimpse into the lives of consumers and the shifts that are taking place at grocery stores and in kitchens throughout the country. Each year, together with FMI,Prevention is able to uncover shoppers’ changing behavior, preferences and concerns as it pertains to food purchasing and preparation.”

The Shopping for Health survey of America’s supermarket shoppers examines their interests and attitudes regarding health and nutrition, their efforts to manage diets, and the ways in which health and nutritional concerns play out in buying decisions at the supermarket. To purchase Shopping for Health 2012, visit the FMI Store at FMI.org or call 202.220.0723.

Methodology: The data for Shopping for Health 2012 were collected through an online survey, conducted between November 19 and December 1, 2011, among a nationally representative sample of 1,471 U.S. shoppers. The margin of error associated with the survey is 3.0 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

The respondent must have met the following requirements to participate in the survey:

• Reside in the U.S.
• A minimum of 18 years of age.
• Does 50 percent or more of the grocery shopping for their household.
• Have shopped for groceries in the past month.

(Reuters) – Visa Inc, MasterCard Inc and banks that issue their credit cards have agreed to a $7.25 billion settlement with U.S. retailers in a lawsuit over the fixing of credit and debit card fees in what could be the largest antitrust settlement in U.S. history.

The settlement, if approved by a judge, would resolve dozens of lawsuits filed by retailers in 2005. The card companies and banks would also allow stores to start charging customers extra for using certain credit cards in an effort to steer them toward cheaper forms of payment.

The settlement papers were filed on Friday in Brooklyn federal court.

Swipe fees – charges to cover processing credit and debit payments – are set by the card companies and deducted from the transaction by the banks that issue the cards, essentially passing on the cost to merchants, the lawsuits said.

The proposed settlement involves a payment to a class of stores of $6 billion from Visa, MasterCard and more than a dozen of the country’s largest banks who issue the companies’ cards. The card companies have also agreed to reduce swipe fees by the equivalent of 10 basis points for eight months for a total consideration to stores valued at about $1.2 billion, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The deal calls for merchants to be allowed to negotiate collectively over the swipe fees, also known as interchange fees.

Merchants would also be required to disclose information about card fees to customers, and credit card surcharges would be subject to a cap, according to the settlement papers. Surcharge rules would not affect the 10 states that currently prohibit that practice, which include California, New York and Texas.

An additional $525 million will be paid to stores suing individually, according to the documents.

“This is an historic settlement,” said Bonny Sweeney, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. The settlement “will help shift the competitive balance from one formerly dominated by the banks which controlled the card networks to the side of merchants and consumers,” said Craig Wildfang, who also represented the plaintiffs.

Noah Hanft, general counsel for MasterCard, said the company believed its interests were “best served by an amicable resolution” of the case. Visa Chief Executive Officer Joseph Saunders said the settlement was in the best interest of all parties and did not expect the settlement to impact its current guidance.

Not everyone was pleased with the proposed settlement, however. One class plaintiff, the National Association of Convenience Stores, rejected the settlement in a statement on Friday from its president, Tom Robinson, who is also president of Robinson Oil Corp.

“Not only does the proposed settlement fail to introduce competition and transparency, it actually provides Visa and MasterCard with the tools to continue to shield swipe fees from market forces,” Robinson said.

The proposed considerations are a far cry from the $50 billion in swipe-fees paid each year by U.S. retailers, he said.

The American Bankers Association, a trade group whose members include the bank defendants, said retailers, not consumers, stood to gain the most from the proposed settlement.

“Big-box retailers will likely seize this opportunity to ask Congress for even more handouts,” said ABA President Frank Keating in a statement, referring to the Durbin amendment passed by Congress in 2010 limiting debit-card swipe fees – a move that banks say resulted in an $8 billion windfall for retailers.

“The legal process worked and should send a signal to Congress that it is wrong to pick winners and losers in a complex dispute between two industries,” the Electronic Payment Coalition, which represents payment networks, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs charged that Visa and MasterCard colluded directly and indirectly through the issuing banks to keep merchants from finding ways to mitigate credit-card costs.

Plaintiffs in the case include supermarket chain Kroger Co, pharmacy chain Rite-Aid Corp and shoe retailer Payless ShoeSource, as well as trade associations such as the National Association of Convenience Stores, National Grocers Association and the American Booksellers Association.

The National Retail Federation, a trade group representing retailers, said that “the test will be whether the injunctive relief is meaningful. Unless it is, the card market will stay broken and neither merchants nor their customers will achieve a long-term benefit.”

A number of banks that issue Visa and MasterCard cards, including JP Morgan Chase & Co, were also named as defendants in the lawsuit, along with Visa and MasterCard’s payment networks.

A spokeswoman for Bank of America NA said it believed the terms of the settlement were fair. JP Morgan declined to comment. Citigroup Inc acknowledged its role in the deal and declined further comment.

A spokesman for Wells Fargo said the company was pleased to put the matter behind it.

An estimated 7 million retailers will be affected by the settlement, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Visa and MasterCard have been plagued by legal problems over their payment-card policies for the last decade. In 2003, the companies paid a combined $3 billion to settle a lawsuit by stores over their “honor all cards” policies, which tied acceptance of credit to debit cards.

The U.S. Department of Justice brought and settled a civil antitrust suit against Visa and MasterCard in 2010. As part of the consent decree, the companies agreed to drop certain policies that kept stores from steering their customers to cheaper forms of payment.

But the decree left intact policies that prohibit stores from charging customers more when they use certain payment cards, according to a July 2011 court filing from plaintiffs.

The defendants denied that any collusion took place.

Visa said its share of the settlement is $4.4 billion, and Mastercard said its share is $790 million.

In December, Visa announced it set aside an additional $1.57 billion to cover the cost of a potential settlement in the case, bringing its litigation reserve balance to $4.28 billion, according to a regulatory filing. MasterCard in the fourth quarter of 2011 recorded a $770 million pretax charge, as an estimate of its potential liability in the case, a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission showed.

MasterCard said in a statement that it expected to incur an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in its 2012 second quarter financial statements to cover its portion of the settlement.

Visa and MasterCard together accounted for more than 80 percent of U.S. credit and debit card purchases by volume in 2011, according to data from the Nilson Report, a California trade publication.

Albert Foer, president of think-tank the American Antitrust Institute, said that the settlement should create more transparency for consumers at the cash register. Because merchants had been forbidden from charging customers extra for costlier payment forms, they often built that cost into the retail price, he said.

While it may not lead to lower prices, “it gives the consumers some choice and it should ultimately mean a better deal for everybody,” Foer said. “In the longer run, it should help keep retail prices under better control.”

It may also be the last time retailers are allowed to take Visa and Mastercard to court over interchange fees. The proposal provides for extensive litigation releases that would keep stores that join the settlement from suing over a wide range of issues relating to fees and anti-steering restraints.

The case is In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 05-1720.

On Wednesday afternoon, Governor Jerry Brown signed the 2012-2013 State Budget with very little fanfare. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Governor Brown Signs 2012-2013 State Budget

Late Wednesday night, Governor Jerry Brown signed a $91 billion budget for the 2012-13 budget year, which begins on Sunday.

Faced with a nearly $16 billion deficit, both houses of the Legislature and the Governor struggled over where to cut spending and find savings. Among the numerous impacts, one of the more significant is savings created by shifting 880,000 low-income children from Healthy Families to Medi-Cal. The budget also cuts funding for trial courts and allows for a 5% pay cut for state workers through 12 unpaid days off per year.

Although the budget is finalized on paper several impacts are still unknown. The Governor has placed an initiative on the November ballot critical to the state’s finances which will raise taxes on California’s top wage earners. If voters reject the Governor’s initiative it will automatically trigger several significant cuts, particularly in the education. This initiative relieved the Governor and Legislature from looking at increasing taxes through the budget process, most likely on businesses, which is why CGA supported the Governor going to the ballot.

A synopsis of the budget can be found here on Governor Brown’s website.

---

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on a 5-4 vote with Chief Justice John Roberts providing the swing vote. The effects of this landmark ruling on the grocery industry is largely unknown and still to be determined by regulation, but there are some key components to closely monitor.

Government agencies will soon release criteria that will determine which employees must be offered health insurance under the new law. If companies choose not to offer that insurance, they must pay an additional tax penalty.

Other significant components primarily affecting the grocery industry is a food menu labeling requirement and drug prescription requirement. Included in the PPACA is language regarding menu labeling for restaurants. The FDA issued a proposed rule that included grocery stores under the scope of the menu labeling requirement. However, the FDA also included an option that would limit restaurant menu labeling to establishments with 50% or more of their floor space devoted to restaurant or restaurant-type food. No word on which option the FDA will enforce. You can read more about menu labeling here.

Finally, the PPACA requires a doctor’s prescription before a customer can use an FSA debit card to purchase over-the-counter medications at local food stores.

GMO Foods Don’t Need Special Label, American Medical Assn. Says

Should foods containing genetically modified ingredients be specially labeled as such? The American Medical Assn. doesn’t think so, according to a policy statement adopted Tuesday at its annual meeting in Chicago.

The 500-ish-word statement, which is not yet up at the medical association’s website, says among other things that as of this month, “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”

Federal oversight in agriculture, the statement also says, “should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant or animal, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new bioengineered crops and foods.”

In other words, it’s less important whether a plant or animal was altered by conventional breeding or genetic engineering, say, than what the potential for a problem might be.

The AMA does want each new genetically modified organism, or GMO, product to be carefully assessed for consumption safety and potential environmental risks such as spread of insect-resistance or herbicide-resistance to a crop’s wild relatives. And the AMA would like to see better technologies developed for assessing health risks, such as the potential for eliciting allergic reactions.

Here’s an emailed statement from AMA board member Dr. Patrice Harris:

“The science-based labeling policies of the FDAdo not support special product labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The AMA adopted policy supporting this science-based approach, recognizing that there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods.”

And more from Harris: “Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public. We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Whatever one’s feelings about GMO foods, it is true that conventional breeding is perfectly capable of throwing up potential health and environmental hazards, and yet this process is far freer from a regulatory standpoint. The topic is fairly extensively reviewed in a 2004 report from the National Academy of Sciences, which was undertaken to assess the safety of genetically engineered foods.

“All foods, whether or not they are genetically engineered, carry potentially hazardous substances or pathogenic microbes and must be properly and prudently assessed to ensure a reasonable degree of safety,” the report notes.

And it goes on: “History provides examples of traditional breeding that resulted in potentially hazardous foods .. Solanaceous (tobacco family) crops, such as potato and tomato, naturally produce various steroidal glycoalkaloids …. During the course of ordinary plant breeding assessments, breeding lines with increased levels of glycoalkaloids may be identified by the breeder as showing superior insect or disease resistance and retained for possible commercial release. The elevation of glycoalkaloid levels responsible for the pest tolerance may not be noted until people become ill from consuming the foods.”

New chemicals can also arise from such breeding. The review cites a case where geneticists bred the cultivated potato (Solanum tuberosum) with a wild potato (Solanum brevidens). The hybrid produced a toxic alkaloid called demissidine, even though neither parent potatoes had contained it.

In November, Californians will get to vote on whether foods with GMO ingredients will require labels.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (6/21/2012)

Associated Press: California Cigarette Tax Proposition Defeated

A California ballot measure to increase the cigarette tax by $1 a pack has failed, the Associated Press reported today.

Proposition 29 has been trailing in the vote count since the June 5 election, though the narrow margin made it too close to call until today. Wednesday, the gap was only 13,327 votes out of nearly 4.9 million counted.The latest results posted by the Secretary of State show the measure losing by 27,888 votes, less than one percentage point.

Supporters said the measure would raise $735 million annually for cancer research and smoking cessation programs.

Tobacco companies spent tens of millions of dollars against the measure. Opponents argued that the measure was flawed and lacked accountability and oversight for how the revenues would be spent.

No on 29 spokeswoman Beth Miller said, “”We are obviously very encouraged with the way the vote count is going.”

But, she said, they’re waiting until all the votes are tallied: “We’re not declaring a win yet. There are still 100,000 votes out there.”

Reprinted from The Sacramento Bee (6/22/2012)

FDA Urges Removal of Oysters, Clams, Mussels, and Some Scallops Products from Korea From Market

Media Inquiries: Curtis Allen, 301-796-0393, [email protected]

Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is urging food distributors, retailers, and food service operators to remove from sale or service all fresh, frozen, canned, and processed oysters, clams, mussels, and whole and roe-on scallops (molluscan shellfish) from Korea that have entered the United States. This includes molluscan shellfish from Korea that entered the United States prior to May 1, 2012, when the FDA removed such products from the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List (ICSSL), and that which may have inadvertently entered the country after that date. These products and any products made with them may have been exposed to human fecal waste and are potentially contaminated with norovirus.

Molluscan shellfish contaminated with fecal waste and/or norovirus are considered adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Following initial notifications last month, a number of food companies have begun to remove these products from their distribution chain. However, many others have yet to take action.

A comprehensive FDA evaluation determined that the Korean Shellfish Sanitation Program (KSSP) no longer meets the sanitation controls specified under the United States’National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The FDA’s evaluation found significant deficiencies with the KSSP including inadequate sanitary controls, ineffective management of land-based pollution sources and detection of norovirus in shellfish growing areas.

The deficiencies in the KSSP prompted the FDA to remove all Korean certified shippers of molluscan shellfish from the ICSSL on May 1, 2012. Although Korean molluscan shellfish represent only a small fraction of the oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops sold in the United States, the removal of Korean shellfish shippers from the ICSSL is an important step in stopping the importation of molluscan shellfish harvested from polluted waters.

Consumers who have recently bought molluscan shellfish and are concerned that it may have come from Korea, should contact the store where it was purchased and ask about its origin. Consumers can check the label on packaged seafood to see if it is from Korea. If it is not clear where the product is from, consumers can call the manufacturer to find out. Consumers should dispose of molluscan shellfish from Korea and any products made with molluscan shellfish from Korea.

These actions only affect molluscan shellfish harvested from Korean waters. They do not affect the receipt of fresh and frozen molluscan shellfish by distributors, retailers, and food service operators from any of the other shellfish shippers listed in the ICSSL. Further, these actions do not affect the importation of canned and other processed product made with molluscan shellfish harvested from non-Korean waters. The FDA is in ongoing discussions with Korean authorities to resolve the issue.

Although the heat treatment that canned products undergo should eliminate the risk of norovirus, the contents of the cans of molluscan shellfish from Korea are still considered not fit for human food because the products were harvested from waters subject to human fecal contamination. For fresh, frozen, or products processed by methods other than canning, the products should also be considered food not for human consumption and may also carry a risk of norovirus.

Noroviruses cause gastroenteritis. Symptoms of illness associated with norovirus include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach cramping. Affected individuals often experience low-grade fever, chills, headache, muscle aches and a general sense of tiredness. Most people show symptoms 12 to 48 hours after exposure to the virus. The illness typically lasts one to three days. Dehydration is the most common complication, especially in young children and older adults, which may require medical care. While there have been norovirus illnesses in the United States from the consumption of Korean oysters as recently as 2011, there have been no U.S. illnesses from the consumption of Korean shellfish reported in 2012.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

# # #

Visit the FDA on Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Twitter

Late yesterday afternoon the California Secretary of State’s office announced that proponents of a sweeping GE labeling and food marketing initiative has in fact qualified to appear on California’s General Election ballot in November.

Qualification was expected, with proponents submitting nearly twice the number of required signatures. The final random sample verification report notes County voting officials had confirmed as valid 561,466 signatures – 555,236 were needed to automatically qualify. CGA has been closely monitoring the effort and has significant concerns about the impact of the proposal on the retail food industry. The proposal seeks to not only mandate labels on food containing GE ingredients, but also creates significant restrictions on the use of terms like “natural” in food labeling and marketing and in-store signage.

This initiative joins an already crowded field of eight proposals that are guaranteed a spot on the November ballot. An additional five are pending signature verification, including the Governor’s temporary tax increase proposal. The deadline for any initiative to qualify for the November ballot is June 28.

CGA will discuss taking a formal position on the initiative at its July Board meeting. In the meantime, we will continue working with the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition. Additional resources are available on the coalition’s web site including information on becoming a member and educational resources.

For more information on the initiative, or if you are contacted by media and would prefer to have the Coalition respond, please contact Keri Askew Bailey.

June 5, 2012 – Growing in severity, number and type, retailers are reporting organized retail crime (ORC) has become more troublesome than ever before. Of the 125 retail companies surveyed for NRF’s eighth annual Organized Retail Crime Survey, a record-setting (96.0%) say their company has been the victim of organized retail crime in the past year, up from 94.5 percent last year, and another 87.7 percent say ORC activity in the United States has grown over the past three years.

“What this tells us is that as retailers and law enforcement become more aware of and more proactive in pursuing organized retail crime gangs, criminals have become more desperate and brazen in their efforts, stopping at nothing to get their hands on large quantities of merchandise,” said NRF Vice President of Loss Prevention, Rich Mellor. “Selling this stolen merchandise is a growing criminal enterprise and retailers must remain vigilant as this is an issue that involves everyone’s cooperation when it comes to protecting retailer’s assets, including their valued store associates and customers.”

The silver lining: more companies this year believe law enforcement is aware of and understands the severity and complexity of the issue (40.0% vs. 32.3% in 2011). More than half (54.4%) say top management at their company is aware of the problems associated with organized retail crime.

Increase in violence and cargo theft pose problems for retailers

Cargo theft continues to grow at an alarming rate, posing huge problems for retailers and their distribution centers. According to the survey, 52.1 percent of companies say they have been a victim of cargo theft in the past 12 months, up from 49.6 percent last year. A significantly higher percent of companies this year said cargo theft occurs mostly en route from the distribution center to the store (68.1% vs. 57.4% last year). Four in 10 (43.5%) say these incidents also occur en route from manufacturer to distribution center and 15.9 percent say they happen at the distribution center.

The survey also indicates a growing trend in the level of violence retailers see when organized criminal gangs are apprehended. Retailers say on average 15 percent of apprehensions lead to some level of violence, up from 13 in 2011. Retailers grappling with these violent acts also report that they believe more ORC offenders are engaged in drug activity. Nearly half (49%) of respondents estimate drugs and drug activity are linked to organized retail crime incidents.

When asked what new trends in organized retail crime they have noticed in the past year, retailers cited familiar issues involving the economy, returned stolen merchandise, gift card fraud, and increases in violent activity upon apprehension. However, new to the list of trends this year were specific references to 1.) digital receipt fraud; 2.) increased smash and grab incidents; and 3.) collusion with street gangs.

“Though retailers continue to make great strides in their fight against organized retail crime, sophisticated criminals with unending opportunities and anonymous outlets to sell their stolen merchandise are proving to be quite challenging for both retailers and law enforcement agencies working to combat this issue,” said NRF Senior Asset Protection Advisor Joe LaRocca. “With the types of organized retail crimes changing in severity and scope every day, and cargo theft and violent instances becoming more troubling, retailers are constantly on high alert.”

Baltimore, Orange County, CA, added to top 10 cities for organized retail crime

Organized retail crime gangs still wreak the most havoc in the same parts of the country, but a few new additions give credence to the growing problem retailers are reporting in this year’s survey. The top 10 locations in the United States that retailers say have the most criminal activity are (in alphabetical order):

Atlanta, GA
Baltimore, MD/Washington DC
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Los Angeles/Orange County, CA
New York, NY/Northern NJ
Miami, FL
Phoenix, AZ
San Francisco/Oakland, CA

Federal Legislation Still Needed to Combat Growing Problem

For years, retailers and other vested parties have worked together to tackle organized retail crime. These partnerships include regional groups and associations who host meetings to share intelligence and work with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Even with the success of these partnerships organized retail crime remains a Federal issue because it crosses state lines. NRF strongly believes that organized retail crime must be addressed through Federal legislation, by amending the Federal Criminal Code to effectively address the organized and serious nature of this issue and, be properly defined as a federal crime with appropriate sentencing guidelines as well as providing Federal law enforcement the resources needed to combat this crime.

Sprouts Farmers Market and Sunflower Farmers Market have finalized the merging of the two companies, making Sprouts among the largest natural and organic foods retailers with 144 stores and projected 2012 revenues expected to near $2 billion.

“Everyone at Sprouts is eager to work with the Sunflower team to build a stronger company,” said Shon Boney, CEO of Sprouts. “In joining forces, we will create a company that is not only bigger, but better – and continue to provide our signature shopping experience with a strong commitment to value and natural products. The customers and employees of both stores have a lot to look forward to as we launch this great adventure.”

The addition of the Sunflower stores expands Sprouts’ geographic footprint to Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Oklahoma and further extends its presence in the states of California, Arizona, Colorado and Texas. All of the Sunflower stores will be re-branded under the Sprouts banner. The conversions will begin in July and occur in phases through the end of the year. The stores will receive new interior and exterior signage, updated fixtures and an expanded merchandise mix.

Sprouts will remain headquartered in Phoenix, and Sunflower’s corporate headquarters in Phoenix and Boulder will be consolidated into the Sprouts office.

Sprouts traces its lineage back to Henry Boney, a San Diego entrepreneur who opened his first business, a fruit stand at the corner of 71st and El Cajon Boulevard near La Mesa, California in 1943. Over the years, he and his family started and sold many retail businesses, including Speedee Mart, Boney’s and Windmill Farms.

The second generation of Boney’s stores were opened in 1969 by Henry’s sons, Stan, Steve, and later Scott. The name was changed to Henry’s Marketplace in 1997. The Boney family ran Henry’s until 1999, when the stores were sold to Wild Oats Markets, Inc., which later sold them again.

Henry’s son, Stan, and his grandson, Shon, along with family friends Kevin Easler and Scott Wing, returned to the natural foods business in 2002 when they opened the first Sprouts Farmers Market store in Chandler, Arizona. Sprouts grew rapidly, and just last year reunited with Henry’s in a merger sponsored by Apollo Management, L.P., which is now the majority owner of Sprouts.

Reprinted from Progressive Grocer (5/29/2012)

The L.A. City Council should approve a ban on the carry-out bags to protect the environment.

The City Council on Wednesday will consider whether to ban stores in Los Angeles from offering single-use plastic carry-out bags. A ban would take some getting used to, but examples from other jurisdictions, including the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, show that it can be done and that shoppers and stores quickly adapt. A ban is the right move. The council should adopt it.

For a city with such a strong environmental ethic, Los Angeles is lagging on the plastic bag issue. It has been batting around the idea of a ban for three years as cities up and down the state acted to keep millions of the bags from being freely distributed, only to end up fouling waterways, beaches and the ocean.

Like the Styrofoam containers that once held fast-food hamburgers, plastic bags became popular because they seem cheap and convenient. But it turns out they seem cheap only because the true costs aren’t assessed directly to the seller or the buyer, but to all of us when we bear the burden of environmental degradation and cleanup. Some fast-food chains recognized that they, their customers and our society could take a step forward by reaching back and returning to the use of paper containers. Others caught up when laws required them to. No one is the worse off for it, and we’re all better off without the Styrofoam clogging streets and sewers and, eventually, forming part of a floating mid-ocean garbage patch.

Likewise, plastic bags are more costly to all of us than they appear and won’t be missed once they are gone. Stores do offer an alternative — asking modern life’s essential question, “Paper or plastic?” — but there are even better options. More shoppers now carry reusable totes, and for those who won’t, don’t or just forgot, paper bags would still be available in Los Angeles stores for a modest fee.

Isn’t a plastic shopping bag ban just as foolish as the new requirement, panned on this page last week, that stores put locking wheels or other devices on shopping carts to make sure that they don’t end up on city streets? Not at all. Losing carts is costly for stores, and they have a financial incentive to self-police and to round up carts that have gone astray. There is no inducement for stores to gather up all the disposable plastic bags they send home — nor do they have the ability to do so — so they freely distribute them at little cost to themselves but at a huge cost to the environment.

Law or regulation is required when the free market and habit lead us to do things that produce hidden and unacceptable costs. That’s the case with single-use plastic bags. It’s time for the state’s largest city to catch up and ban them.

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times (5/22/2012)