Another fascinating article in the NYT Sunday Magazine by my dietary hero, Michael Pollan. (If you haven’t read his essay “Unhappy Meals” yet, drop everything and do it. Now.) Pollan’s latest essay takes on Washington as it explores how the Farm Bill has influenced American diets. What was meant to be a simple support to retain independence of our food supply has become a major economic dysfunction that has led - directly, he suggests - to the obesity and health crises, as well as creating a destructive impact on the environment, global poverty and immigration.

Pollan’s solution is yet another great example of the power of framing. If we reframe the Farm Bill as the Food Bill, he suggests, it will put the issue in strict relief, refocusing the discourse in the appropriate c0ntext. After all, when a dollar can buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots, something is wrong with the way we have structured our nutritional infrastructure. The Farm Bill isn’t built in the best interest of our nation of eaters.

Pollan does a great job demonstrating how innovation, in this case, an economic policy innovation that’s been around for decades, can create unintended consequences for the broader ecosystem at large. And how something as simple as framing can be the first step in focusing the debate and solving the problem.

Pollan’s work is always fascinating and thought-provoking. Read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

The cover story of the 3.19 issue of Newsweek is fascinating. The emerging field of Neuropaleontology is shedding new light on our understanding of the process of evolution. Neuropaleontology uses prehistoric DNA to more richly map evolutionary progress vs. archeology, which is limited to suppositions based on physical skeletal references.

DNA can be used to document when lineages split - when a generation of species was demonstrably different from the last.

Equally interesting, we’re now learning that evolution is not a straight-lined path of progress. It occurs in fits and starts, with many adaptations failing to take root. We’re discovering an evolutionary family tree of sorts, with a number of adaptive traits developing, hanging around for several million years or so, and then becoming extinct. Progress is lumpy.

And that’s where brands come in. Brand evolution is rarely a straight line path of forward progress. Quite often, brand adaptations (let’s call them line extensions or flankers) come to market, score sufficient volume to hang around for several years, and then make way for a new generation of extensions. This process may continue on ad infinitum without ever really evolving the brand - making it more relevant, more contemporary, competitively advantaged.

Survival of the fittest is about more than merely hanging in there.

For a brand to truly evolve, it needs to move beyond these experiments and take a strategic view toward innovation of the entire ecosystem. Perhaps the business model needs to evolve (see Netflix vs. Blockbuster below). Perhaps the brand needs a different approach regarding channels or supply chain. Maybe the consumer situation (the human genomic code?) has changed and new needs have arisen, requiring repositioning or structural packaging innovation. Maybe a new predator has emerged that forces the brand to take a more defensive - or offensive - posture.

Just as our species need to evolve, so do our brands. Settling for “natural growth” only gets you so far - hyperadaptation of the innovation ecosystem is needed to grow the legs that take you out of the swamp.

Michael Pollan’s thought-provoking essay in yesterday’s NYT magazine (see the link below), examined the practice of Nutrionism, the science of deconstructing and evaluating food, outside of its natural eco-system. As with any industrial advance, innovating within a vacuum has a tendency to give rise to many unintended consequences.

Pollan writes about the dietary shift from Food to Food Products. He points out that with each incremental food science discovery (Antioxidants! Fat! Carbs! Sterols! Probiotics!), manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon, but despite the increasing availability of “nutrient-smart” food, our overall health has steadily declined. The more we know, the more Food Products are constructed to deliver more of the good and less of the bad, the less healthy we seem to become.

This is not meant to be a diatribe on processed food. Instead, it’s an observation on the need to innovate within the eco-system. The whole of the ecosystem - supply, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, sales, experience, support - must be involved for innovation to succeed, just like the context of the food, diet and lifestyle must be considered to understand the impact of nutrients. As we aim to solve problems and exploit opportunities, we must be broad-sighted and look at innovations in light of the consumer’s life, adoption and use. Does it function as it needs to? Does it fit within behavior patterns? Does it solve a problem? Does it create others? How does it work within their entire basket of purchases and alternatives?

When we stop looking exclusively at the small bits of the equation and start looking globally and in context, our ability to innovate becomes stronger. Remember, you need to measure the right stuff, not just the easy stuff.

By the way, Pollan’s main thesis: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Smart.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html