EEUU: Potatoes move from comfort food to comfort zone

People enjoy potatoes in many forms, including ones that aren’t very healthy, like fries and chips.

But potato marketers don’t need to apologize for that.

At the Potatoes USA annual meeting March 15-17, potato industry leaders showed the spud is in a different place than a few years ago — a much more confident place.

Not long ago, potatoes were under attack by low-carb diets, excluded from federal feeding programs, and even The Packer was questioning the potato board’s marketing approach.

We had a copy editor who attended the board’s annual meeting in 2013 and criticized the board for targeting “Linda,” the prototypical potato consumer, who was a woman age 25-54, has children at home, is her family’s primary shopper and enjoys cooking.

Our copy editor said that target consumer was out of touch with the reality of modern America.

The board responded with a letter to the editor, saying our copy editor misunderstood the marketing effort, and Linda comes from all backgrounds, ethnicities, regions and incomes.

(In case you’re wondering, because I was, Linda was the most popular name for girls born 1947-52, and it remained in the top 5 through 1963, the end of the birth period for baby boomers. From 1965-80, or the Generation X era, it slipped from No. 8 to No. 109. From 1981 to 2000, or the millennial age, it went from No. 111 to No. 357. In 2013, it was the 643rd most-popular baby girl name.)

Last fall, Linda officially retired, as the board embraced a new target audience, food enthusiasts, who are consumers seeking flavor and a food experience that is more than just fuel.

The food enthusiast can be any demographic.

Blair Richardson, who joined the board as CEO in late 2013, told me at the meeting the “Linda” demographic will still buy potatoes, but that’s not where the industry will grow.

There will continue to be bags of russets in every supermarket in the country, but there’s not much growth there either.

Richardson said the board, which changed its name from the U.S. Potato Board to Potatoes USA at the meeting, will increase its marketing in foodservice.

He said consumers purchase 57% of their potatoes from foodservice, and it seems to grow about a percentage point a year.

The board is funding a potato-serving food truck.

The board is also showing it’s not afraid to let potatoes be fun.

One export marketing poster said “Exercise? I thought you said ‘extra fries,’” and a domestic one said “If you can’t make vodka and electricity with it, it’s not a super food.”

Potatoes are healthy. Except when they’re not. So what?

———

John Keeling, executive vice president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Potato Council, addressed attendees March 16, and, among other topics, said there is justified concern in the potato industry about GMO labeling.

Around the time of Keeling’s remarks, a bill that would have established a voluntary federal labeling system for genetically modified foods was rejected by the U.S. Senate in a 48-49 vote led by Democratic opposition. A similar bill had already passed in the House of Representatives.

The problem for food marketers is that Vermont passed a GMO labeling bill that will take effect July 1. If other states follow suit, each will have its own labeling rules, making a mess of a packing line.

Keeling said the potato industry stance is that it supports technology when safe, and it doesn’t support labeling for means of production. GMOs are both of those.

It’s a tough issue for both potatoes, as a GMO version is testing the waters, and the whole produce industry, which is mostly GMO-free.

All the science shows GMOs are safe, but there’s a small, vocal group of Americans who irrationally hate them.

Do consumers have the right to know how their food is made? Are states free to make their own laws?

Those are tough positions for potato marketers to be against, even if they’re both reasonable.

If nothing happens between now and July, thousands of food companies will have to alter their labels for the 600,000 consumers who live in Vermont.

Or they could just not ship product there. Or they could tack on a surcharge. Or there may be some other compromise.

Sometimes the best course is to just let the market sort it out.

gjohnson@farmjournal.com

What’s your take? Leave a comment and tell us your opinion.