You have the answers?

Recent days have left me with some nagging questions about the restaurant industry. For instance…

What if “local” doesn’t necessarily mean “better”? Patrons are clamoring right now for more local ingredients in their restaurant meals, a propensity stoked by the belief that foodstuffs grown nearby have to be fresher, more flavorful and more nutritious.

But does that equation pencil out? Don’t growing conditions make some areas the ideal source for produce, even if they’re hundreds or thousands of miles away? And can a farmer with a truck always beat a well-oiled supply chain in getting materials to a kitchen?

That thought came to mind as I was making a salad with lettuce I’d grabbed up in my local supermarket because the bag was marked, “Grown Here On Long Island!” A half-hour later, I was trying to chop the leathery Romaine, a task akin to slicing wet tissues. The heads might’ve been produced locally, but perhaps not in the current calendar year.

Nor was the flavor as good as some of the mass-market brands available here, like Andy Boy or Dole.

Lest you think I’m palate-damaged numbskull who can't grasp the advantages of local fare, keep in mind that my father ran a millionaire’s estate/farm when I was growing up. One of my jobs was to head down to the garden and get the lettuce, cucumbers and tomatoes that would figure into my family’s dinner, typically served a few minutes later. I know freshness, and I know what good lettuce tastes like. And, in my experience, local lettuce doesn’t always equate to better. Ditto for strawberries, melons, tomatoes and broccoli.

What happened to our outrage? Kanye West pulls a dunderheaded move for the ages and, justifiably, he’s almost voted off the planet. On the same day his transgression comes to light, Share Our Strength reports the first flush of an investigation into classroom hunger. Teachers were asked. “Do you see child hunger in your classroom?”

Quoted was a San Antonio instructor identified as Kate, who spoke about a second-grader in her school named Kimberly. The child must have qualified for the school lunch or breakfast program, because, Kate noted, she could count on getting a meal at school.

“Anytime we had leftovers,” Kate said, “she would always want to take them home. She’d wrap up the leftover food to take home to her little brothers and sisters. She was a second grader trying to make sure her family got fed.”

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t have had a chance if it weren’t for school. It was still the great equalizer in my day, the opportunity that largely offset the accidents of birth. And today we have 7 or 8-year-olds whose attention is diverted from basic math or reading by the need to feed her siblings.

With all due respect to music stars, isn’t that a little more galling than Taylor Swift getting dissed?

Who drugged the nation’s restaurateurs? Being a geek, I peruse virtually all the financial reports of publicly owned restaurant companies. It's like packing your iPod with blues songs and dirges, then putting it on Shuffle mode.

Lately, just to get a bit of relief, I’ve taken to reading the reports of supermarket and c-store chains. They should be delivered with confetti, noisemakers and party hats. The big source of their growth is in prepared meals, partially prepared meals, and rawer foodstuffs that can be turned into meals in lieu of a restaurant outing. In short, they’re eating the industry’s lunch.

Yet the restaurant trade seems oblivious to the loss. The only noticeable reaction has been to strike more licensing deals with food processors. That way, the chains figure, they at least pocket a few pennies from the dollars being spent on frozen entrees and other grocery products.

If you can’t compete on price, as restaurants likely can’t, at least the industry should tout service. Yet have you heard much about experience in restaurants’ commercials or other promotional efforts? Can you recall any marketing push that made a convincing case for restaurant service?

It’s as if the industry is ceding its dinner business, with vows to win it back once the economic climate improves.

But that recovery effort could be far, far more difficult than the industry imagines.

Getting bounce from 'balance'

Wipe “locavore” and “natural” off the whiteboard. A new buzzword for restaurant menu planners is starting to take hold: “Balance.”

That’s the underlying principle of True Food Kitchen, the new concept that P.F. Chang’s has decided to back with a $10-million infusion of growth capital. If the emperor of Asian casual dining likes what it fosters, it has the option of buying a controlling stake in the brainchild of Sam Fox, the Rich Melman of Phoenix. The young concept creator’s earlier hatchlings include the Sauce pizza and wine fast-casual chain and one-offs like Olive & Ivy.

True Food is a foodservice retreat for those seeking “a more balanced lifestyle,” according to Fox’s company, Fox Restaurant Concepts. It was created in collaboration with a New Age medical guru, Dr. Andrew Weil, who advocates a blend of conventional medicine and alternative aids like herbs and moderation.

It may be the most visible proponent of the new balance sensibility, but it’s hardly alone. Across the Atlantic, Sodexo, the contract-feeding giant, is featuring a menu based on “balanced nutrition” at 500 of the institutional feeding operations it manages. The aim of the new Vitality line-up, according to the France-based company, is to provide healthy dining options without sacrificing the enjoyment. In short, it aims to strike a balance.

The strategy is hardly unknown on this side of the pond. Seasons 52, Darden Restaurant’s brilliant play for aging Baby Boomers, promises the same sort of balance between taste, indulgence and health concerns. You can have a low-calorie entrée, finish it off with tiny shot-glass-sized desserts, and wash it down with a few selections from the concept’s extensive wine list.

“Balance” also figured into Mimi’s selection of the winner in a customer recipe contest. Patrons were asked to come up with a Meaningful Muffin that could be added to the casual chain’s menu. The winner was a Pineapple Coconut Crumb preparation, praised in part by celebrity judge/chef Gale Gand for its “perfect balance of flavors and textures.” In part because of that distinction, “we felt it would appeal best to a wide audience,” said the Chicago restaurateur.

Clearly “balance” is being used in a variety of ways, just as “health,” “fresh,” “wholesome” or “homestyle” once carried more definitions than a pocket-sized Webster’s. But all the applications suggest it’s a word that resonates right now with the public. For that reason, it’s certain to show up on more menus.

Busted at belly bombing

The con’s over for the 10-year-old desperados who profess to be my nieces. The adorable little flimflammers have been playing me for years, laser-targeting those doe-eyed looks of sainthood to wheedle a pre-dinner soda or ice cream bar. After all, I’d think as I slid some sugary snack their way, the little dears don’t know any better. Why not indulge their misguided innocence, just this 15th time?

Then I read a research report from Technomic and C3, an agency that specializes in kids’ marketing. Seems that kids are well aware of what’s healthful to eat. But, just like lots of adults, they don’t want to eat it.

Nearly nine out of every 10 ankle-biters know that fresh vegetables and fruits are good for them, for instance. The problem is that many prefer the fruit filling of a PopTart or jelly doughnut.

Similarly, 78% cited salad as something they should eat for health reasons, and 76% mentioned steamed vegetables, no doubt as they were munching on some fries.

One of the more intriguing questions raised by the research is how the kids might’ve learned what’s healthy. Indeed, that unanswered point of interest could turn the data into a weapon for both sides on the obesity debate.

Those who assert the industry should be required to offer healthier options for kids can underscore the finding that salads are now among the most common items on the kids’ menus of full-service restaurants. Put salads on the menu, and the youngsters learn this is what they should be eating. The push-what’s-good-for-them proponents can point to that and claim victory.

Yet the restaurant industry can just as readily contend that, first, they are providing plenty of healthful choices to kids and their parents, and, second, that doesn’t mean behavior is going to change. The kids have to want the healthier fare, or be taught to eat it by their parents. Public health advocates can demand all the healthful menu choices they want, but it doesn’t mean the little folk are going to order them.

Indeed, the study found that children aged 9 and under—the ones who are most likely to depend on Mom or Dad for guidance in ordering within a restaurant—are more likely than their older siblings to order the type of stuff that drives Michael Jacobson crazy. Technomic found that those kids will go for the fries, chicken fingers and pizza, while children aged 10 to 12 will opt for dinners like salads, seafood or steak.

Yet, the study found, restaurants are continuing to develop menu options that are perceived as healthy, particularly certain beverages and natural or organic items.

Meanwhile, I have to perfect my withering comeback for the next cupcake request. They already (successfully) put the bite on me for ice cream, including a cone of some fluorescent pink flavor called Crazy Cotton Candy.

Beverage wars give rise to healthy counter-attack

Fast-food chains are scrambling like frat boys at a kegger to grab more coffee and smoothie servings. So how are the intended victims protecting their cup counts? In one of the great ironies of the business, drink specialists are countering with promises of better fast food.

The Reuters news service carried an exclusive yesterday about Starbucks’ plan to replace its anemic food offerings with a new line-up of better-for-you choices. "Food has been the Achilles' heel of the company,” executive vice president of marketing Michelle Gass told reporter Lisa Baertlein. “That statement will be long buried after we launch this program."   

The new selections will reportedly include salads, breakfast sandwiches made with egg whites, and a variety of baked goods sweetened with sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup, which nutrition scolds put in the same category as Communism, puppy kicking and bathroom-grout mold.   

The baked products will also be produced without dyes or artificial flavorings. Preservatives will also be eliminated wherever possible, Starbucks said.   The new array’s tagline will be “Real Food. Simply Delicious,” Gass told Reuters.  

The news came to light a few days after Jamba Juice informed investors that it expects a new menu of “healthy on-the-go” food choices to generate as much as every fifth sales dollar (see below).   Included are grab-and-go wraps, salads and sandwiches.   

The meal-in-a-cup specialist is also encroaching on Starbucks’ turf a bit with new cold teas.   Then again, Starbucks plans to extend its Vivanno smoothies line.