HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: Business Insider

Consumers Are Driving A Food Revolution, According To Danone CEO Emmanuel Faber

173 ratings | 8514 views
The world is undergoing a "food revolution," according to Emmanuel Faber, the CEO of the $48 billion food company Danone. Danone's portfolio of brands includes Evian, Activia, Horizon Organic, Silk, and Danimals. It's North American subsidiary is the largest B-Corp in the world. ------------------------------------------------------ Business Insider tells you all you need to know about business, finance, tech, retail, and more. Subscribe to our channel and visit us at: https://read.bi/7XqUHI BI on Facebook: https://read.bi/2xOcEcj BI on Instagram: https://read.bi/2Q2D29T BI on Twitter: https://read.bi/2xCnzGF ------------------------------------------------------ Consumers Are Driving A Food Revolution, According To Danone CEO Emmanuel Faber
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (23)
Ryan Cunningham (24 days ago)
Good job spreading chemophobia and science denialism. Muh scry gmos in my water reee
penguins forall (1 month ago)
The "food revolution" was a long and complicated fight. This guy signaled altruism masks the fact that they are pivoting to this because they have to not because its "smart business." The reason is that through the 2000s local food distributors took over and most of the market share is spread across local food producers. So large food conglomerates have to play along or consumers will switch to other local chains. But the reason for that happening is a complicated mess of different movements that he is collectively referring to as the "food revolution." Organics are the earliest starting in the early 1990s. and were a reaction to factory farming practices like growth hormones and antibiotics. Originally organics prohibited vitamin fortification and would later be against the use of DHA. This shows the lineage of organics as not health food but as regulation on industrial practices and agricultural sustainability. There is also organic fabrics for example. Eventually by the mid-2000s Organics including certification bodies are bending to the whim of health food over industrial practice. The health food craze which is both an artifact of social media and the ability to report on industrial food practices like Mc Donalds meat sludge and Internet blogging about food taking a central role in promoting food consumption. However this movement was huge and organics bent to the whim of it the large food producers tried heavily to take advantage of it and not surprising at all this CEO tries to parrot some of the stupider myths they them selves created like healthy yogurt and dairy products. Aggressive marking campaigns in the mid-2000s about indulging in the the "healthy" versions of foods that are inherently not healthy like icecream and of course marketing centered on what was natural. A lot of the popularity of "natural" foods is actually a myth created in response to the health foods movement to sell unhealthy food. This was things like cereal bars which in case you didn't know are very not natural. Further there is the whole foods sub-trend which came out of marketing because the "real" whole foods are basically equivalent to the organics movement except vegan and i would hazard to guess most who use that term aren't actually vegan. But as part of the health foods and organic foods trends were a higher consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. All of this seam rolled into the advent of entirely different food distributors taking over and large part because large distributors must use presticides, nutrient depleted and then fortified products, preservatives etc to be able to survive trips across the US and make thin profit margins. They also pull influence from local foods movements as well. You can intuitively explain why this trend occurred but I'm not entirely sure on the exact influences. But I would credit organics as behind the scenes influences on making chains like Whole Foods, Wegmans and Cosco. But also the network of food producers and distrbutors locally that provide to those chains which actually means even if you add up the top ten grocery chains thats less than 25% marketshare. Whats really going on is there are many different chains which lead to many different choices and its that fact which lead to consumer choice forcing the big chains to play along.
CrabTastingMan (19 days ago)
penguins forall *your insight is really mind opening* but can you please go back and proof read your verbage and run-on sentences and needless “whichs” I really, really want to understand you 100% and it’s a hindrance. Because I cannot fully grasp the relations between your terminologies and jargon... I am lead to ask you some questions. 1. Are you saying Organic foods are not originally a movement to make better food, but big industries being regulated to stop using DHA insertion and vitamin fortification, but they took this setback and turned it into a crafty advantage by slapping on “NOW ORGANIC!” Label on their now-regulated foods? 2. Why was there a regulation on foods to stop vitamin fortification and use of DHA? Who commanded this for what purpose? 3. And you said “this shows the lineage of organics as not health food but as regulation on industrial practices and agricultural sustainability” are you saying, that the Organic food regulations somehow help with sustainability of food production? How is that supposed to sustain it, I don’t understand. 4. “Eventually, by the mid-2000s, Organics including certification bodies, *were bending to the whim of health food* over industrial practice.” What do you mean, bending to the whim of “Health Food”? I don’t understand what “bending towards Health Food” looks like, can you elaborate with a scenario/example? 4. Are you saying Whole foods, Natural foods are not really “natural” but more like “a teeny tiny insignificantly bit more natural than before, therefore we can slap a special NATURAL label on it.” ? 5. Last paragraph, you said “Seam rolled” who is doing the “steamrolling” or are you saying all this seem rolled into the advent of local food distributors taking over the market?
Jason Gastrich (1 month ago)
In 2014, I went organic and I won’t even buy or give away food if it is not organic. “Conventional” food is unsafe for animals and landfills.
Clarence Maggazz (1 month ago)
Sponsored interview
Aykut (1 month ago)
I like & respect this guy, theyre doing it right and being a good example
Dirty Slav (1 month ago)
yeah they are... by not buying shitty danone products.
Talloolah Moon (1 month ago)
YOURE ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY MR DANONE.
Studmuffin (1 month ago)
440th view
Random Videos (1 month ago)
We didnt sow we say dumbass
woopygoman (1 month ago)
Yeah I'm sure this guy gets the food revolution. Get outta here... The only thing that these people understand is profits.
Maxim C. (1 month ago)
Food revolution would be: *ALL ORGANIC, LOCAL* Interesting what DANONE CEO would say on that... 😆
BeaterWRX (1 month ago)
+Maxim C. Lol. It's not that one scientist says something. It's that an issue is studied for an extensive period of time and never can actually be confirmed to be harmful to humans. In your world you think that product should be banned and neither I nor the FDA agrees with you. The EU paid for their own study into GMOs. It did not include any conflict of interests and still could not find any link between GMOs and health problems in humans. So far nearly every study cited about the harm GMOs cause is one with animal subjects, which does not necessarily translate to humans. Aspartame is another great example. For decades people have fear mongered about how bad it is for humans. And throughout 30+ years not one of these people could produce a study that supports their claim that aspartame should be banned for human consumption. And you think because I say I support GMO foods that I support Monsanto. Monsanto is an awful company and is very much an example of how fucked up the late stage capitalist/free market we foster in the US is. Monsanto is an evil company, but that does not make GMOs bad, nor does it make organic farming the way of the future.
Maxim C. (1 month ago)
BeaterWRX, I don't think in labels; "liberal", "left", "democrat", "republican", and so forth, say nothing to me. Both the sides are oblivious to the reality, and this is precisely why they keep playing the "left/right, democrats/republicans" game, political theater. "Science says"? First of all start filtering the paid "science" from the actual science. To believe all you hear just because the "science says" so label is not a very healthy practice. Again, the case of tobacco is a great example of it (and it's just one out of countless). GMO can and is patented. Organic seeds cannot - do you smell the difference here? Do you smell the problem here? My original comment, and comments on this thread said nothing about the the organic market not profiteering on their products. That's a completely another aspect of it. In fact I mentioned that I'm talking about "the actual organic", and not about it as a business, but as food itself. That's another problem: you talk to people about the substance and they can only think about the business. Awesome, we agree on that monetary profits driven economic system is BS.
BeaterWRX (1 month ago)
+Maxim C. Congrats, you're the liberal version of a climate change denier. You don't like what the science says so you go back decades to pull out the smoking example which you think means that in any case where you don't agree with the science you can just dismiss it. It's very problematic that we have science deniers on the left, since part of the reason I consider myself a Democrat/liberal is they generally do a better job respecting science than the right. Organic farming is driven by profits in the same way non-organic farming is. Just like the supplement industry is just as driven by profits as the pharmaceutical industry.
Maxim C. (1 month ago)
+BeaterWRX I mean the real, actual organic, as it was for millennia before recent rising of chemical producers into agriculture. 😆 Hmmm... Organic can't be patented, GMO can (and absolutely is) — hmmm... I wonder who spent the money to do those "positive results" "studies"... 🤔 Not to mention we *do not* need GMOs to feed the world, but hey, if a private chemical producing company says to me that we do need GMOs for that — I guess I'll just believe it... Little note: cigarettes back in the days not only "resulted" (yes, from "studies") not harmful, but actually beneficial for our health. Few decades forward — ops, I guess someone lied to us... And yes, I'm sure tens of thousands of *poor* Indian farmers didn't suicide because of GMOs miraculous harvest efficiency...
BeaterWRX (1 month ago)
Probably cite the overwhelming evidence that organic farming is unsustainable, bad for the environment, still includes the use of pesticides, and is a largely meaningless label that does not ensure higher quality or safer food. He'd probably follow up by citing the overwhelming evidence that GMOs are safe for human consumption and are the only way we can reasonably provide food to the entire world, especially in poor areas with harsh farming conditions. Hope that helps. Organic food is not the future. It is a luxury item and fighting against GMOs is fighting against poor people eating.
The Coin Hunter (1 month ago)
Hello
Knight Slasher (1 month ago)
Fat people unite we can stop this
Rohan Shinde (1 month ago)
Why, it's better for us lol.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.