Green Memo Feature: Scientifc Evidence From the Lands and From The Oceans Suggests it's Time to Solve the Plastics Waste Issue

Scientists have recently discovered what they call a "plastic soup" of floating waste in the Pacific Ocean that is growing at an alarming rate, and currently covers an area twice the size of the continental United States. This massive, floating plastic garbage dump stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the California coast, across the northern Pacific, past the Hawaiin Islands and nearly as far as Japan.

American oceanographer Charles Moore was the first scientist to discover what he has named the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch." Moore estimates what he terms as this drifting "trash vortex" contains about 100 million tons of flotsam. Dr. Marcus Eriksen, a collegue of Moore's and director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which was founded by Dr. Moore, says the floating garbage dump is almost like a plastic soup. "It is vast and endless for an area that's about double the size of the continental United States, and is growing rapidly," Dr. Eriksen says.

According to Moore, Eriksen and other researchers, the drifting plastic garbage patch is composed of everything plastic, from shopping bags and plastic packaging, to things like Lego toys, laundry detergent bottles, footballs, empty water bottles, and most everything plastic that is disposed of outside of a landfill or not recycled. The scientists estimate about one-fifth of the plastic waste is thrown off ships or oil platforms, and that the rest--the vast majority--comes from the land and is washed out to sea.

Dr. Curtis Ebbesmeyer is another researcher who's been working on the buildup of plastics in the ocean issue for over a decade. He makes an analogy of the floating plastic "trash vortex" to a living organism. 'It moves around like a huge animal without a leash," he said at a recent conference on the issue. When the floating garbage patch comes close to land, "the garbage patch 'barfs,' and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic," he says. Dr. Ebbesmeyer and others have observed this "barfing" and the resulting beach being covered with shredded plastic waste on beaches in the Hawaiin archipalago.

Dr. David Karl, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii, says he is launching a major expedition later this year to further investigate and better document the origins of the floating plastic garbage patch. He says he thinks the garbage patch represents a new habitat and recently explained why.

According to Karl, historically, garbage that ends up in the ocean has already biodegraded. However, this is clearly not the case with the giant plastic flotsam. Rather, he suggests modern plastics are so durable that plastic items a half-century old have been found in the Pacific Ocean grabage patch. "Every piece of plastic manufactured in the last fifty years that has made its way into the ocean is still out there," Karl says.

Because the floating patch of plastic trash lies just under the surface of the ocean and is translucent, it can't be detected and viewed in satellite photographs, the researchers said. Rather, it can only be seen from the bows of ships, which is why the scientists have to go out to sea to study the flotsam.

The Pacific Ocean garbage patch has created a cottage industry of sorts. Aquatic garbage scavengers. Above, a scavenger paddles a canoe through the garbage vortex near a Manila waterway in the Philipines. (Courtesy: Getty Images.)

This massive and fast-growing floating plastic garbage dump at sea is posing many problems. For example, according to numerous independent researchers and the United Nations' Environmental Program, plastic debris in the ocean causes the death of at least a million seabirds each year, as well as more than 100,000 marine mammals. Researchers have found plastic grocery bags, plastic toothbrushes, disposable cigarette lighters and numerous other plastic items inside the stomachs of dead seabirds and marine mammals, who mistake the items for food and ingest them, causing their deaths.

There's agreement among scientists and oceanographic organizations who study the issue, that plastics make up about 90% of all trash floating in the world's oceans. In 2006, a study sponsored by the UN Environmental Program determined that every square mile of ocean contains about 46,000 pieces of floating plastic refuse.

This seaborn plastic garbage doesn't just cause death and health risks to seabirds and mammals, but to humans as well, according to the scientists. Dr. Erikson says it is well excepted that the fast-growing, floating vortex of plastic rubbish poses a risk to human health.

He explains that hundreds of tiny plastic pellets, called nurdles--which are the raw materials the plastic industry uses to make plastic items--are spilled or disposed of every year and work their way into the oceans. These pellets act as chemical sponges of sorts, attracting man-made chemicals such as hydrocarbons and the pesticide DDT to them. They then enter the food chain, he says. "What goes into the ocean goes into these animals (fish, seafood) and onto your dinner plate. It's just that simple," he says.

Our Analysis and Viewpoint: The Ecological Crisis, Plastics Legislation, Taxes and Outright Bans: What to Do?

The scientific evidence on how plastic refuse is affecting the oceans and killing marine birds and mammals, as well as posing human health risks is clear, based on the research of those scientists sited in this piece and many others. What else the waste might be doing in unknown at present, but being researched by ecologists, oceanographers and others.

This oceanic evidence adds to what we already know about the harmful environmental, potential health and economic effects that plastics not recycled or disposed of properly causes on land as well: litter, landfill issues, and the like.

Above is a photograph of 2 million plastic beverage bottles, which happens to be the amount Americans throw away every five minutes. (The photo is by Chris Jordan.)

Taken together--by land and by sea--it's obvious a solution has to be found to this growing crisis. This fact is being recognized in increasing frequency by countries, states, provinces and cities throughout the world. China, for example, has banned thin plastic shopping bags. Beginning in June retail stores in the wrld's most-populous country will no longer be able to use the bags to package customer purchases.

In the USA, cities like San Francisco and Oakland in California also have banned the use of plastic grocery bags by retailers with stores over 10,000 square feet. Currently, more than 50 cities in the U.S. are considering banning the use of plastic shopping bags at retail (prmarily food stores) in one form or another.

Some countries in Africa have banned plastic shopping bags as well. Using a different strategy, the government of South Africa has required manufacturers to make plastic shopping bags much thicker, thus being more durable and expensive, than they normally are. As a result of this law, inacted five years ago, the government says there's been a 90% reduction in use because the bags are so much more expensive.

The government of Australia has recieved agreement from 90% of that country's retailers to stop using plastic bags, and is considering banning them outright nationwide. The state of Victoria already has its own ban on plastic bags.

In the United Kingdom (UK), Parliment is currently debating a ban for most of metropolitan Britian. Vancouver, BC. has banned plastic carrier bags in the city, and there is legislation to do so nationwide making its way through the governmental process in Canada. Other Canadian cities aren't waiting; they're pushing through their own local bag bans.

Ireland has placed a 15-cents per-bag tax on shoppers if they want to have their goods packed in plastic bags. The Irish goverment says there's been a 75% -to- 95% drop in consumer use of the bags since the tax was initiated two years ago. Similarly, in Tawian, the government now requires all retail food stores, convenience stores and restaurants to charge customers extra (a tax) if they want plastic bags and plastic serving utensils. According to the government, this has resulted in a 69% drop in the use of the plastic items over the last six years. The tax went into affect in 2001-2002.

Other states in the U.S., such as California, New York and New Jersey, have taken a different legislative approach instead of new taxes or fees. Last year, California past a statewide law which requires all grocers with stores over a certain size to place plastic bag recycling bins in their stores, and to offer reusable shopping bags for sale in every store. New York and New Jersey recently passed similar legislation for their respective states. Cities in each of these states have the right to ban plastic bags completely however.

Food retailers are getting into the picture on their own as well. U.S.-based Whole Foods Market, Inc. recently announced it will stop using plastic grocery bags in all its stores in the U.S., Canada and the UK in June of this year. Whole Foods will offer only100% recyclable paper bags in its stores, as well as sell reusable grocery carrier bags. The grocer already gives shoppers a 5-cent per bag discount on their grocery purchases for every reusable bag they bring with them to the store, as do many other grocery retailers.

Trader Joe's, the popular U.S. specialty grocer with over 300 stores, doesn't offer plastic bags in its stores at all--never has. Instead it encourages shoppers to use reusable shopping bags, gives them a per-bag discount for doing so, and offers paper bags which it says are made from 100% post-consumer recycled paper.

Why all the focus on plastic shopping or grocery bags?

The reason plastic shopping or grocery bags have been the primary focus of legislation, taxes and outright bans throughout the world is because they are generally the most prevelant form of plastic litter or waste. They clog landfills, taking ages to biodegrade, are found all over the roadsides and elsewhere, and are one of the most common sources of that floating plastic refuse vortex described by the scientists at the top of this story.

Plastic shopping bags however are far from the only source of plastic clogging landfills, being thrown all over the roadsides, and clogging that floating plastic garbage dump in the Pacific Ocean. Legislating, taxing and banning the use of plastic shopping bags might be a good first step, but it's dealing with only a tiny fraction of the problem.

What to do?

What's needed in our view is a comprehensive, market-based and public policy-based effort to deal with the entire disposable plastic waste issue. This effort must invlove all stakeholders: consumers, retailers, product manufacturers who use plastics, plastics manufacturers, governments and non-governmental organization.

We believe countries, states, provinces and cities have the right to legislate, tax and ban the use of plastic bags and other plastic containers and materials. We essentially support much of what's being done on that front in fact.

However, we have a few problems with it to date. First, the scope of the focus is too narrow. As we said above, plastic shopping bags might be a good first step, but its just the tip of the iceberg.

Second, the legislation, taxes and bans are so piecemeal they will end-up causing much confusion in the long run. We don't know how this can be avoided as such piecemeal legislation is part of being a soveriegn government. And in countries like the U.S. and most of the Western world, which use some form of Federalism, states and cities and other localities have the right to make their own laws and create taxation policies within various national restrictions. Further, one can't expect a less-developed country to be able to enact the same type of laws as a developed and rich one.

Lastly, and most importantly, we want to see a mix of market-based incentives (carrots), increased environmental education, and disincentives (sticks) like taxes, legislation and outright bans when needed to address the entire plastic packaging and disposable waste issue.

Towards a comprehensive approach

What do we mean by a comprehensive approach, using a combination of market-based ideas and government public policy: taxes, legislation, bans, and the like?

First, a comprehensive approach is key. This includes governments, the private sector and citizens being onboard. And, of course, this will very from country-to-country. Totalitarian states like China can announce a ban on plastic bags in January, like they did, and say it will go into affect a mere six months later in June (which it will) without any objection. It's a bit harder--thankfully so--in more democratic countries.

We are far from having the answers to a problem as large as this. Nor do we even pretend to know the solution. However, what we do have are ideas, and a framework, which is the comprehensive carrot and stick approach we described above.

Below is our suggestions and basic overview of how such an approach to trying to solve the plastic waste issue and the associated health, ecological and economic problems that come with it might work.

First, it's a fact that if citizens were more responsible, recycled plastics regularly where it's available, didn't litter, and were more careful with their personal consumption, the issue would probably be at least onlyhalf as bad as it currently is. As such, any discussion of solving the problem we believe must start from the point of personal and indivual responsibility.

Left to their own devices however, we suspect it will take many decades or more for individuals to see the "green" light and become more environmentally responsible. We must say though that compared to let's say the 1980's, just 25 years ago, environmental responsibility among most consumers has increased dramatically. This has been largely because of environmental education programs created by various groups and governments and aimed at consumers. Over the last 10 years the private sector also has started to jump in and offer such education as well. It works. Not near 100% of course. But it has a positive effect over time.

Education: The first part of our comprehensive solution model then is a dramatic increase globally in environmental and ecological education as it relates to the use of plastics and its affect on the environment. This effort needs to be paid for by taxpayers, plastic companies, manufacturers who sell plastic goods, and the retailers who sell them. A joint effort, with all stakeholders buying in. What's needed is at least double the environmental educational efforts we see today.

Industry R&D Economic Incentive Package: The second part of this comprehensive blueprint involves government and the plastics industry. Governments in those countries that have plastics manufacturers should create a massive program, including tax incentives and other economic bonuses, with a mandate to the plastics industry to come up with more rapidly-biodegrading plastic bags, bottles, containers and the like.

This incentive package--say an initial five year program--comes with a stick: that if the plastic companies take the economic incentives but don't make progress, they will face further legislation, more taxes and other penalties. These are all coming anyway--so they would be wise to get onboard if such an incentive package comes there way.

Industry Efforts and Pressure: Product manufacturers must put more pressure on the plastics' industry to innovate better and faster, creating new plastics from plant-based products that biodegrade faster. Retailers in turn need to put more heat on their suppliers who use plastic packaging to create products--like concentrated laundry detergents for example--that reduce plastic in the packaging, and to even innovate new packaging that eliminates plastic completely.

Retailers also need to increasingly make policy decisions like Whole Foods' has on its self-banning of plastic bags, and like Wal-Mart is doing with its recently introduced packaging scorecard, which will eventually mandate that its suppliers use a minimum of 25% less plastic in their packages than they currently do, or else the retailer will not buy that particular item from the supplier. This policy process at retail--the place where the consumer and the retailer interact directly--not only will help eliminate much plastics waste in the short run, it also will have the long run result--if practiced by enough big retail chains--of making the plastics industry realize they better innovate and make changes or face serious sales losses.

For example, are disposable plates made out of plastic really a good thing? They are far too durable for just a single-use and then disposal. On the other hand, they don't hold up well in the dishwasher. How many people really wash them by hand (you can get multiple-uses that way). Probably zero. Paper plates, which can be recycled, and reusable plates, which can be washed by hand or go in the dishwasher and last for decades, are the way to go. Disposable plastic plates, which are sort of a mid-point between recyclable paper and reusable plates, are an example of what we feel is a superfluous product. Companies of course have the right to make the plastic disposable plates, but the demand is questionable.

Retailers also must increase the pressure on their suppliers to go back to the plastics industry and let them know that if they don't innovate at a much faster place they stand to loose business because the suppliers' customers, the retailers, are telling them they want source- reduction, rapid biodegradable plastics, and other innovations.

Consumer Power: Consumers must also get more skin in this game. They need to start voting more with their shopping dollars. Buying more products packaged minimally or alternatively, eliminating purchases of plastic utensils and other items that have alternatives, and telling their grocers and other retailers they demand less plastic in the products they buy. This includes bringing their own reusable shopping bags to the store, saying no to excessive plastic takeout food packaging, and a myriad of other consumer-focused behaviors, which are probably the most important factors or elements of all those described in this blueprint.

Law Enforcement: Government (s) needs to get serious in terms of fines and penalties for littering and other unlawful waste disposal. Something on the order of a $500 fine for tossing a plastic grocery bag or water bottle in the street might provide an economic incentive for people to avoid doing so the next time they think about it.

Legislation: Legislation will continue along the lines it currently is. Some countries creating laws which try to influence behavior, others creating new taxes on plastic packaging (like the bag legislation), and still others passing outright bans. Our only thought here is that to the greatest extent possible, governments should try to shoot for uniformity when they can. It does little overall good in the larger sense to have a plastic bag ban in San Francisco, for example, when plastic bag use in South San Francisco, less than a mile away, is legal. States and provinces will have to take the lead on this uniformity for it to happen.

In some cases outright bans might be needed. We are pretty free-choice when it comes to such things. However, we also realize that at times problems can be so serious that such free choice has to be modified: You can't drive drunk in most places in the world, minors can't buy tobacco products, grocers must keep there stores clean, and even in the U.S. you can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre if there really isn't a fire.

In the case of plastic bags, we think its time for most retailers to just say no more to the use of the regular, non-biodegradable plastic bags. There are decent biodegradable bags on the market--and they are getting better. There's really no reason, except not wanting to invest, that plastics companies can't make a superior biodegradeable shopping bag today. The science is there. All that's required is some investment. A few more Whole Foods'-style self plastic bag bans by big retailers--Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, Kroger for example--and we will see a superior, biodegradable shopping bag on the market in no time flat.

Plastics Fees or Taxes: We think its time for countries like the U.S., the UK and others to creeate a plastics fee or tax structure. This fee or tax would be shared by the plastics industry, manufactuerers who make plastic products and use plastic packaging (laundry detergent, milk jugs and the like), retailers and consumers. Everybody needs to be all in. If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

For example, lets use a plastic gallon milk jug or laundry detergent bottle to illustrate our example. Everybody down the line--the company that made the plastic, the consumer products' company or milk processor who uses the plastic container, the wholesaler or retail chain that buys it, and consumers who purchase the product at the store, would all pay some portion of a per-unit fee for the item. The same would be the case with plastic packaging, products like toothbrushes, disposable razors and on and on.

The proceeeds from this across the board, shared tax would go into a fund in the respective country. The fund would be used for plastics product and packaging innovation, creating new, alternatives to plastic packaging, and for the clean-up of the lands and the seas.

As we've said, ours is a big picture blueprint. It's designed to stimulate thought and further ideas. Obviously, god, or the devil, is in the details, which would have to be worked out on a country-by-country basis.

The time to start acting on all these fronts is now. That floating plastic refuse mass in the ocean is only going to get bigger. More seabirds and mammals will die. And we know that when other species are dying in large numers of a specific cause, its likely we can be affected similarly in time.

The world's landfills also are getting fuller. Taxpayers are the ones who will have to pay for new ones. Taxpayers also pay for the litter cleanup, and will eventually have to foot the bill for the ocean mess, unless a tax-sharing scheme like we described above is worked out so that industry shares in the costs and solutions as well as taxpayers. There will be many future costs that will have to be paid as well as scientists and others make further discoveries.

Further, we all know about oil, the primary ingredient in plastics. Its getter more expensive, people are killing for it, and it is running out. A greener solution to the plastics situation makes sense not only morally, but also ecologically, economically and health-wise. In fact, its ultimately a survival issue.

Issue Resources:

Below are links to a few stories and articles you might like to read in conjunction with our piece:

>Charles Moore. "Trashed: Across the Pacific Ocean, plastics, plastics everywhere." Natural History Magazine, November, 2003.
>Steve Connor. "Why plastic is the scourge of sea life." The Independent, February 5, 2008.

>Jane Black. "Plastic bags, Headed for a Meltdown." Washington Post, February 6, 2008.

>Terry Ross. "Paper or plastic question would be useful again." Arizona Sun, February 9, 2008.

>Tom Spears, "Truth and rumours muddy plastics debate." National Post, February 10, 2008.

>Aimee Neistat, "Bagging the plastic," Jerusalem Post, February 10, 2008.

Note: Graphic at top of page courtesy London Independent.

Retail Memo: Tesco Fresh & Easy Insight: A New Store Blooms in Compton, CA.; F&E's Chicagoland March; a Sacramento Neighborhood and F&E Get Hitched

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, addresses a crowd at this morning's grand opening of the Fresh & Easy grocery market in Compton, California.

A New Fresh & Easy neighborhood grocery market opens in a struggling Southern California city trying to chart a new future--and offers shoppers a 'Royal' welcome on grand-opening day.

Making good on its promise to not only open its small-format, neighborhood grocery stores in middle-class and upper-income suburban communities but in low-income "food deserts" as well, Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market opened its 43rd grocery store this morning in the hard-scramble, low-income Southern California city of Compton.

The residents of the Southern Los Angeles County city of Compton (which is infamous for being the birthplace of the Crips and the Bloods street gangs) who attended this morning's Fresh & Easy store grand opening were not only surprised by the store's bright decor and extensive product selection, featuring shelves full of everyday grocery items right next to specialty and organic groceries, fresh meats and produce, scores of fresh, prepared foods items and more, they also were shocked to be greated by another British import: British Royal Family member Prince Andrew was at the 10,000 square foot grocery store to meet, greet and welcome shoppers on opening day.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who in his youth the British press called "Randy Andy" for his amorous appetite, is now the United Kingdom's (UK) Special Representative for Trade and investment. He attended the Fresh & Easy store grand opening in that official capacity to praise Britain's Tesco for opening a store in the lower-income neighborhood, and to tout his country's retailing talent.

"Congratulations number 43 (the 43rd Fresh & Easy), and good luck with the rest. This is just one small example of what the UK can do in the retail industry," Prince Andrew said in making a brief speech as part of this morning's grand opening ceremonies."

Under the leadership of mayor Eric Perrodin, the city of Compton is working hard to overcome its reputation as the home to gangs and poverty, and to in the mayor's words, "Birth a new Compton." In fact, as part of the store's grand opening ceremony, the mayor presented Prince Andrew with a "Birthing a New Compton" T-shirt and baseball cap, which are marketing tools used in the city's effort to redevelop and improve the community.

The new Compton Fresh & Easy store is a big part of that effort by the mayor, other city officials, business people and communtiy residents. Like many other lower-income cities, Compton has had a difficult time getting grocers, especially those who sell lots of fresh and nutritious foods, to build stores in the community. The city is what Tesco identified in its research, prior to launching the Fresh & Easy format, as "food deserts" in the USA, those mostly urban, inner-city regions (but also in suburbs and rural areas) which have a dearth of grocery stores that offer a selection of basic groceries, along with lots of fresh foods at reasonable prices.

Compton city officials worked hard and closely with Tesco executives to make the brand new store, built from the ground-up, a reality. The store took only one year to build because the city made it a top priority, Kofi Sefa-Boakye, the city's redevelopment agency director said at the grand opening. He praised Fresh & Easy executives and said the store is going to be a big asset to the city and its redevelopment efforts. He added the store would bring in about $200,000 annually in property tax payments to the city's coffers, in addition to providing a sorely-needed grocery store for the community, along with providing new jobs.

The store will employee 22 workers, all part time except for store management, at a starting salary of $10 hour. Fresh & Easy CEO Tim Mason told us all store employees will work a minimum of 20 hours a week so they can qualify for the company's health plan. Employees pay into the health plan as well, and have co-payments for medical office visits and prescription drugs.

Mayor Perrodin, who was first elected in 2001 and made making a "new" Compton his chief campaign goal at the time, said the city had only one full-service grocery store before today, when the new Fresh & Easy opened its doors at 10am. Since the city has a population of nearly 100,000 people, that's a sad and amazing fact. Most Compton residents drive or take public transportation to other nearby cities to do their grocery shopping, a fact Fresh & Easy was well aware of and which was important in the grocer's decision to build a store in the city.

There was a huge crowd at the store this morning waiting for CEO Mason, Prince Andrew, Mayor Perrodin and others to cut the grand opening ribbon so they could go inside and get a look at their new 10,000 square foot grocery store. In fact, if today's crowd is any indication, the store should do a thriving business, despite the fact that many Fresh & Easy stores opened in other parts of Southern California are seeing rather meger store counts thus far.

More than one shopper remarked how happy they were to see the store open. A mother of four said her family of will be regular customers of the new grocery market. Another customer said he makes a 25 minute drive twice a week from his house to shop at a supermarket in a nearby city. "The Fresh & Easy is five minutes from my house," he said. "I'll shop here at least three or four times a week, and maybe more."

Grocery stores, especially those offering a quality selection of fresh and other food and grocery products at reasonable prices, are becoming key to cities throughout America in their redevelopment efforts. There's a trend towards increased urban housing in the U.S., and a desire on the part of a growing number of people of all ages to live in cities again after decades of suburban flight. However, these same people are used to high-quality supermarkets, and they want the same food shopping choices available to them in the city.

In the case of impoverished or lower-income cities like Compton and others, the simple fact is food retailers have in the main either closed existing stores in these cities, especially in the inner-city, or refused to build new stores in them for a variety of reasons--some valid, others not. This is where we think Fresh & Easy's real opportunity is.

Despite the fact they have lower-incomes, inner-city residents tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on food and groceries. Additionally, given the opportunity, they also will purchase fresh prepared foods, organic products and other specialty groceries. The problem is: They haven't had much opportunity to do so in the form of conveniently available grocery stores in their neighborhoods that offer such quality and variety.

Although thus far the vast majority of Tesco's Fresh & Easy grocery markets are in middle and upper-income suburbs, we suggest the grocer focus more on their "food desert" strategy. There's a huge, untapped market in cities throughout the U.S. for neighborhood grocery stores that offer a good selection of reasonably-priced everyday grocery items and more specialty-oriented offerings.

There also are numerous rural communties of ample size in need of neighborhood-style grocery stores. Residents in these rural cities often drive 20 miles or more to shop at bog-box stores. Given an alternative like Fresh & Easy, which sells basic grocery products as well as specialty items, we think many of these residents would flock to such stores located in their cities. We think the "food desert" strategy can, in the long run, be equally--or even more profitable--for Tesco in the U.S. than the middle/upper-income suburban strategy.

(Read an analysis we wrote on December 12, 2007, "Three reasons why Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market's venture could be a huge success--and three reasons it could be a historic food retailing failure.")

Is Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market preparing to march on to Chicago from it's Western U.S. base? We believe so, but not for a while.

On November 27, 2007 we were one of the first publications to report that Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market was looking beyond the Western U.S. states of California, Arizona and Nevada, to Chicago, New York and Florida, as new markets for its Fresh & Easy small-format, convenience-oriented grocery stores. (Read our November 27, 2007 piece, "Eastward-Bound for Fresh & Easy," here.

In that piece, we particularly focused on Fresh & Easy's search for a location for a Midwestern region distribution center in the Chicago, Illinois area, as well as its scouting of various locations in and around Chicago for retail store sights.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, the city's major daily, is confirming what we and others wrote about three months ago, and adding some new information of its own. Most specifically, today's Sun-Times story says a knowledgeable source told the paper a specific potential Fresh & Easy store site is in the Chicago suburb of Arlington Heights.

Since one of our sources for the November, 2007 piece is a very knowledgeable Chicago-area commercial real estate broker, we tend to feel rather certain Fresh & Easy is looking to the Chicago region, along with New York and Florida, as its next step beyond the Western U.S. Further, we believe Chicago will be first, then perhaps New York and Florida after. We base this on our source's information regarding the talks Fresh & Easy has had (not with him) about the possible distribution center locations in the Chicago region.

Additionally, there have been some quality reports in the British papers, in addition to today's report in the Sun-Times, that mirror what we're being told. We don't see Fresh & Easy starting to build anything in Chicago until mid-to-late 2009 however. The retailer still has many new stores to open in Southern California, Arizona and Nevada this year and into 2009.

It's also going into Northern California beginning later this year, and into 2009. The grocer has 18 store leases already signed in the San Francisco Bay Area, with many more on the way in the coming months. Based on information from our sources, we think the retailer would like to have about 40 -to- 50 stores open and operating in Northern California by the end of 2009.

There's also the matter of sales and store traffic count, which based on our observations, conversations with numerous store-level workers, suppliers and others, aren't all that great to date in the 43 Fresh & Easy stores which have been open. With such a rapid new store-opening clip--about three stores a week since early November--Tesco needs to take some time soon to step-back a bit and do some evaluating and make some changes before the growth-pace outstrips their ability to do so in our view.

A long-struggling Sacramento, California neighborhood has made dramatic quality-of-life improvements, with more on the way--and Tesco's Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market will become part of the solution when it opens a new store in the neighborhood next year.

The Oak Park neighborhood in Sacramento, California's Midtown district is in the process of being transformed from a once rundown, "undesireable" neighborhood in the city, to one in which its residents and others in this city of 500,000 are calling an "up-and-comer."

Midtown is one of Sacramento's oldest districts. It's near the city's downtown core and not far from the California state capital building. It's streets are lined with fifty-plus year-old large shade trees, and there are many victorian-style homes in the area.

The Oak Park neighborhood, which is in Midtown, was once a thriving place, especially in the Sacramento of the 1950's and early 1960's. However, it eventually became rundown: the crime rate soared, drugs came to the neighborhood, and businesses, along with working and upper-class families left for the suburbs.

Beginning in the mid-1990's however things started to change thanks to a dedicated group of residents, small business people and a few supporters on the Sacramento City Council and in the City Manager's office. A group called the Oak Park Neighborhood Association, comprised of residents and small business owners, was formed and the group began to lobby city hall for attention. The group also reached out to real estate agents and others, encouraging them to market the neighborhood as a desireable residential location in the city.

The timing was good from a residential point of view in Sacramento. Housing prices were skyrocketing in the city's more "desireable" neighborhoods. Oak Park was a relative bargain. Then, many people discovered the neighborhood's gorgeous but rundown victorian houses and jumped at the chance to buy these houses and renovate them. This activity, along with the opening of a few new, small businesses started a slow but sure turnaround for the neighborhood.

This revitalization of Oak Park has picked up steam in the last couple years, although much remains to be done, especially in the view of the neighborhood association which got the ball rolling in the mid-1990's.

At the top of the group's agenda has been launcnching a major effort over the last few years to get retail businesses to locate stores in the neighborhood so that residents don't have to drive across the city to shop. Chief among their goals has been to get a high-quality grocery store into an empty building in the core of the neighborhood called the Made-Rite property.

Last night at a meeting of the Oak Park Neighborhood Association it was announced that the goal of the activists had been achieved: a 10,000 square foot Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market store will go into the empty Made-Rite property building and serve as a local neighborhood grocery store for residents in the growing and prospering neighborhood. The store is scheduled to be open in early 2009, a member of the association told us.

While Sacramento's Oak Park neighborhood isn't quite a "food desert" on the order of Compton, California, which we discussed in our lead story above, it is a neighborhood underserved by food stores and one on the road to rivitalization.

The Fresh & Easy store will become an integral part of Oak Park's experiment in better urban living. A new urban loft residential development called 4th Avenue Lofts is currently being constructed in the neighborhood, the classic Guild Theatre has been renovated, new retail stores are opening, as are restaurants and even an upscale wine bar. The older, tree-lined neighborhood is becoming one of the city's most desireable places to live, especially among young professionals, artists and even suburbanites who are moving back into the city.

Having the Fresh & Easy store come in though is key to what the neighborhood association wants the area to become, a member of the group told us. What Oak Park's residents want is a neighborhood of their own, with a mix of people of all ethnicities and income levels, lots of local shopping choices, a lively street life, and a better quality of life than has previously been the case.

The residents of Oak Park have achieved much of what they want already--and have more to look forward to coming up. Tesco's Fresh & Easy has an opportunity to be a major part of this ongoing quality-of-life improvement--and to gain the loyalty of the neighborhood in the process.

Food & Society Memo: The Poor Get Diabetes, the Rich Get Local and Organic

In an excerpt from his new book, Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty, Mark Winne, a writer and the longtime director of the Hartford Food System in Hartford, Connecticut, analyzes and writes about what he says is a dangerous dietary split between those who have substantial economic means in the U.S. and those who don't.

Winne says the residents he worked with for 25 years in the low-income neighborhoods of Hartford knew all about organic and local fresh foods--and desired to have them--but were in the main unable to obtain the foods, not only for economic reasons, but because of logistical ones as well. Chief among these logistical or distribution reasons, is the lack of quality food stores in the inner-cities that offer healthy, fresh, organic and local foods at a reasonable price.

In his piece, Winne argues there are a variety of market-based and government-oriented public policy programs that could bring more fresh and healthy foods to poor people, especially those in the inner-city.

Further, he offers examples and potential solutions from his years running the Hartford Food System, and describes other innovative solutions to this serious problem being successfully implemented in places like Oakland, California, Massachusetts, and other places in the U.S.

Winnie's piece is thought-provoking, and offers some good solutions to this serious dietary problem faced by people living in America's inner cities (and rural regions as well).

The healthy "food gap" between America's haves and have-nots, as Winnie puts it, does continue to grow. Smart, creative and innovative solutions are needed to bridge this economic and social divide. These solutions also need to be provided in a partnership consisting of government, the private sector, non-profit groups, retailers and citizens.

We would also like to see America's food industry, especially retailers, work in partnership with food manufacturers, community groups and others to launch real, healthy food and shopping education programs in communities throughout the U.S., especially in the inner-cities and poor rural regions.

It's amazing how much money a person can save, and how much healthier they can eat, when they have knowledge. That knowledge needs to include a primer on how to shop economically: shopping weekly sales, the fact that "real" foods are cheaper than highly-processed ones, and other facts.

Home food preparation also needs to be a part of the classes. Scientific research has demonstrated that those people who cook and eat at home most often are far healthier than those who eat foods away from home most often. Cooking at home also is at least 50% cheaper overall than eating out regularly, even at fast food places.

Lastly--but far from least--there needs to be a nutritional element in these community-based classes. A primer on the basic food groups, differences between proteins, carbs and fats, and the importance of eating a balanced diet all need to be included.

These three elements--shopping economics, cooking at home, and diet and health--can be tied together easily in a series of community-based classes, and brought to community centers and churches throughout America's inner-cities and rural areas.

If done in a real, comprehensive way, and backed by both the private and public sectors, such classes--along with other private and public initiatives--will go a long way towards helping many people eat better, stay healthier, and live longer.

Read Winnie's piece, The Poor Get Diabetes, the Rich Get Local and Organic, here.

Food & Society Memo: Michael Pollan on the Pleasures of Eating

Writer Michael Pollan, author of the best selling book "The Omnivor's Dilemma," has a new book coming out this week.

The book, "In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto" suggests there once was a time when knowing what to eat was easy. It not only was encoded in our genes so to speak, it also was culturally based, and a decision unfettered by so many middle men.

Over the past 40 years however, Pollan says the food industry and nutritionists have interfered with out diet. Among the results of that interference, Pollan argues, is confusion--and an epidemic of food-related diseases.

The book won't be published until January 31. However, Pollan published the first two chapters from his book in tomorrow's (Monday, January 7) issue of the United Kingdom-based Guardian newspaper.

Pollan's central point in the excerpt from the first chapters of his new book (which are published in the Guardian in essay form) is that it's time to forget about the science and marketing--and rediscover the pleasures of eating.

Like his book "The Omnivor's Dilemma," Pollan's new book is likely to get lots of attention and stimulate much discussion among consumers, nutritionists, farmers, the food industry and others interested in what we eat and how we grow and market food. We give you a preview here before the book comes out on January 31.

Read Pollan's essay from the Guardian here.

Food & Society Memo: Fear and Loathing in South Carolina

A true tale featuring PETA, an Abbey of Roman Catholic Trappist Monks, their egg farming operation, and an 'ending' that didn't have to be

A monastery in South Carolina has decided to close its egg farming business after a 10-month campaign by the animal activist group PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which claimed it had video-taped evidence that the Trappist monks of Mepkin Abbey were mistreating the egg laying hens.

Father Stan Gumula of Mepkin Abbey said in a statement last Wednesday that pressure from PETA had made it difficult for the monks to live a quiet life of prayer, work and sacred reading. He further said in the statement the monks were sad to give up "a hard and honorable work (the egg farming) of which they are proud."

The monks of Mepkin Abbey, located in Monks Corner, South Carolina, belong to the worldwide Order of Cistercians of Strict Observance. In the U.S. and other western nations they are commonly called Trappists.

Mepkin Abbey was founded in 1949 in what is described as the "low country" of South Carolina. The Abbey's grounds have sacred and historic significance. Native Americans once used the property the Abbey now sits on as hunting grounds. It's also thought that some Native Americans may have been buried on the grounds. (You can read more about Mepkin Abbey here, and learn more about their Trappist order.)

In announcing their decision to get out of the egg farming and marketing business, the monks admitted no wrong doing in their statement. The egg farming operation will be phased out over the next 18 months, Father Gumula said.

The egg farming business is a substantial one for the Abbey. It produces about 9 million eggs a year, which are all sold to local area food retailers. The money from the sales of the eggs is used to help support the Abbey and its works, along with funds raised from other Abbey businesses, which include a specialty products and specialty foods store. The specialty store sells works of art, books, music on compact disks, and videos produced by Trappist monks at Mepkin Abbey and at other Abbey's throughout the world.

The Mepkin Monks also operate a specialty foods store. The store features numerous specialty foods items produced at Mepkin, and at other monasteries in their order. Items sold in the store, and produced by Trappist monks, include: confections and cakes, coffees, cookies, fruitcakes, creamed honey, herbed oils and vinegars and Trappist Preserves, a line of over 25 varieties of specialty preserves produced by Trappist Monks from the St. Joseph Abbey in Spencer, Mass. (You can read more about the specialty store, see pictures, and view a selection of specialty foods sold at the store here.)

PETA began its criticism of the Mepkin Abbey's egg farming practices in February of this year, saying it had under-cover videos of thousands of hens crammed into small cages. The group also said it had evidence the Abbey's hen suppliers cut off the animals' beeks and killed off the males, which PETA says are cruel practices.

The criticism and campaign against Mepkin Abbey's eg farming operation has gone on since February, with apparently no changes made in the egg farming practices by the Mempkin Monks. On Wednesday, PETA ratcheted up its campaign, and announced it planned to urge local area shoppers to boycott buying Mepkin-produced eggs in the local stores. Among PETA's plans was to hand out leaflets with the headline "Cruelty to Animals is Un-christian" at food stores in Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina that sell the Mepkin Monks' eggs.

It was this planned action which lead the monastery to decide to exit the egg farming business, and make their announcement on Wednesday.

In a statement in response to the Mepkin Monk's announcement, PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich said, "We're delighted to learn that Mepkin is getting out of the cruelty business, and we hope that we can work with then to remove the hens from these cages. No matter what the abuser's religion, it's wrong to abuse one animal, let alone 20,000 of them. The monks have about 20,000 egg laying hens in their egg farming operation.

Our View: What should have happened

The resolution of this issue--the Mepkin Monks closing down their egg farming and marketing operation, and PETA proclaiming a victory--frankly lives us feeling hollow. Nobody won.

And we wonder why the Mepkin Monks didn't decide to do something positive during the ten-plus months PETA campaigned against the monastery's egg farming practices. Could they not have gotten bigger cages for the hens, which even numerous for-profit egg farming operations have done and are doing? What about transitioning into "cruelty free" and "cage free" egg farming, which is a popular trend? "Cruelty free" and "cage free" eggs also command a higher price premium, and generally higher profits, at retail as well.

As for PETA, instead of merely campaigning against the monastery in the same way they do against a "faceless," for-profit corporation, why didn't the group try to work with the monastery to transition the egg farming operation into a model of "cruelty free" egg production? PETA could have offered to work with the monks, even provide some funding from the group's numerous wealthy donors, towards the goal of creating a model, non-profit egg farming and marketing operation. But no, PETA's only objective seems to have been to get the monastery to STOP. And now they claim victory over the fact the Trappist Monks have announced they will be closing the egg farming operation completely in 18 months.

Memo to PETA: You didn't win a thing. In fact, you lost. Had you done everything you could to work with the monastery to convert the egg farming operation to a model, "cruelty free" facility, you could have used that fact to garner tons of positive publicity--and used it as a model to show others they can change their practices and still make money. But, perhaps you want an end to all egg production, period? If so, that explains your actions regarding the thrust of your campaign against the Mepkin Monastery's egg farming business.

As we all know, the stores who were buying the eggs from Mepkin, and selling them to local shoppers, will merely replace the egg brand with those from another producer. That producer may even produce eggs in a manner in which you (PETA) deem more cruel than Mepkin's.

Local consumers also lose. Instead of being able to buy a locally-produced product (the Mepkin eggs) and support the monastery, they will now be buying eggs that could likely be produced hundreds of miles away. PETA, you didn't win a thing in this "battle."

Memo to the Mepkin Monks: Being men of God, we wonder why you didn't "see the light"-- even if PETA is extreme, or you didn't feel your egg farming operation was cruel to the hens--and make some changes? Bigger cages would be an easy first step. Moving to a "cruelty free" or "cage free" operation would have been a perfect second step.

Chickens, like all animals, are creatures of God. We're puzzled you didn't grasp that right away and change your egg farming operation. You could have become role models for others. Instead, you just quit. maybe you're just tired of the egg farming business anyway. That's your right. However, since you said in your statement how sorry the Abbey is to leave the business, we doubt if just wanting to "get out" is the reason for closing down the operation.

As you can see from what we wrote to PETA above, we believe they should have extended a hand to you rather than threatening a boycott. It seems that's all the group knows how to do.--boycott. But, did you, the good fathers of the Abbey, extend a similar hand to PETA? Ask them for help? Perhaps they would have helped you transition to a "cruelty free" egg farming operation?

But, we will never know, will we? The Mepkin Monks are phasing out the egg farming business over the next 18 months. Calling it quits. PETA has moved on. After all, the group has too many "battles" to fight to give too much thought to how they handled this one.

The Ending: Meanwhile, in the low-country of South Carolina, there's a little more fear about what a "big city" activist group can do to a farmer who's farming practices they believe are cruel. Local grocers also have a new fear, and will likely double-check farmer's they buy local products from.

There's also many questions left unanswered. Chief among these questions is why a God-loving, devoted group of Trappist monks wouldn't change their egg farming ways and create a model for God and man on how to humanely raise eggs and care for hens? There will be lots of loathing for some time over how this story was played out, and how it ultimately ended.

Had PETA and the Mepkin Monks talked, contemplated the greater meaning of things, and reached a compromise, this could have been a merry Christmas tale. Instead, it's merely a tale of fear and loathing.

Thursday Talking Points Memo: Food, Society and Marketing

RIP: The Dinner Entree?

Some say the traditional dinner entree-side-dish-dessert dining tradition is nearing extinction, or worse--that it's already dead. Others say it's not true. Rather, they say, its merely becoming another option, along with a host of new ones, for diners and eaters. We agree more with the latter than the former argument. However, the entree is losing its luster at many higher-end restaurants, and that has implications for food marketers and retailers.

An eye-opening and interesting piece by writer Kim Severson in yesterday's (December 5) New York Times has a number of very successful and well-known chefs and restaurateurs predicting the extinction of the dinner entree--that "center-of-the-plate" piece of protein-packed meat, fish or fowl. This phenomenon also has implications for food marketers and retailers, especially those in the natural and specialty foods categories.

Severson writes that in top restaurants in New York City, San Francisco and Chicago, "the main course is under attack." In it's place, top chefs say instead they're offering small plates, sample and snack menus, enhanced appetizers, salumi plates and cheese boards and similar offerings, which provide diners with small tastes with lots of variety rather than the standard entree, side dish and vegetable combination.

"The appetizer, once a loyal lieutenant," Severson writes, "is now demanding more attention on menu's. Side dishes and salads, fortified by seasonal ingredients and innovative preparations, are announcing their presence with new authority."

The chefs say the entree has been losing its cachet for some time. "I think the entree has been in trouble for a long time," chef Tom Colicchio says. "Eating an entree is too many bites of one thing, and it's boring."

In his Manhattan restaurant Craft, which he opened in 2001, Colicchio no longer offers the standard appetizer-entree-dessert menu, according to the Times' piece. Rather, at Craft he's created a menu of meats, fish, fowl, side-dishes and sauces to be mixed and matched by diners and combined into a meal. He still offers desserts though.

This trend of pushing aside the appetizer-entree-dessert format is a growing movement at restaurants. Severson sights the Spotted Pig in Manhattan's West Village, where the menu is categorized by the following: snacks, plates and sides. It offers a variety of each. The menu only has five entrees on it.

Other Manhattan restaurants doing similar include Gemma, in the Bowery district, Boquerra, in the Flatiron District, Maze, British TV star-chef Gordon Ramsey's restaurant located in the London Hotel, and others. Maze's menu lists a long list of small plate items of all varieties but doesn't designate any of them as either a starter or a main course. The word entree appears nowhere on the restaurant's menu.

Popular New York chef Maio Batali has his own theory about the eventual extinction of the entree. He tells Severson: "As a diner, the idea of me chewing 17 bites of one thing and another 17 bites of another is absolutely boring, and not how I want to eat, chef Batali says. Two of the restaurants he owns in New York City, Otto and Casa Mono, offer no main course entrees at all.

Other's in the Times' story suggest health concerns, global travel, and the desire among diners to experience multiple tastes over a meal rather than gorge on a single entree and just a couple of side dishes, as partial reasons for the entree's fading from the dining scene.

Although we believe the demise of the dinner entree is likely rather far off in the main, in reality it isn't that old of a dining concept. Paul Freedman, a professor of history at Yale University and author of a new book, "Food: The History of Taste," tells Severson that "although it's hard to imagine a time when the single-entree meal wasn't the norm, the concept is only about 75 or 80 years old, and not necessarily something to be cherished."

Not all chefs believe the entree is doomed to the garbage disposal of culinary history however. Popular San Francisco chef Michael Mina, who made famous the concept of multiple tiny courses embedded within a single entree, believes there's room for both the alternatives and the traditional entree in dining. Mina just opened an upscale steakhouse called StripSteak in Las Vegas. At StripSteak, the entree--prime steaks of various cuts and sizes--has a home in the center-of-the-plate.

On the other side of the menu, Mina is in the process of planning a restaurant and wine bar in San Francisco, scheduled to open next year, that will offer no main courses at all. Rather, it will offer 25 same-size dishes divided into five categories. Diners can mix and match the dishes as they please to make a meal.

Severson's New York Times' colleague, food critic Frank Bruni, agrees strongly with those like chef Mina who believe there's still plenty of room left in the culinary scene for the entree. After reading Severson's piece, which he complements, Bruni then wrote his own retort to those wishing the entree's extinction in the Times' food section blog called "In Defense of the Entree." Bruni says he loves small plates and such but, quoting Mario Batali's 17 bites comment, says "Sometimes that's just how I want to eat." His piece is a good complement to Severson's.

Analysis: Implications for food marketing and retailing

There's without a doubt a trend, especially at higher-end restaurants, towards smaller plates and variety. We see it weekly. The introduction of Tapas at restaurants in the U.S. started this trend. Health concerns--diners today in the main just don't eat huge dinners like was the norm in the 1960's and 1970's--play a part as well. People would rather in many cases eat less but have better quality in a restaurant.

Variety also is key. The old rules of a meat, poultry or fish main course, along with a starch and a vegetable on the side, just don't make sense to many diners today, especially younger people and those who've traveled and sampled foods from other cultures--or for that matter just watch the world of food on The Food Network or PBS.

It's a fact food trends often start at restaurants first, especially innovative ones. These trends then work there way down the "food chain" to specialty stores and supermarkets. So, how goes this trend towards more limited entree or main course dining for marketers and retailers?

First, we don't believe the entree is going away anytime soon. However, we do believe it's becoming less important in dining and to diners. Mix and match is cool. Multiple tastes are part of the eating experience. Also, the more restaurants that offer small plate and other similar alternatives--and do away with entrees altogether--the more the trend will grow. Trends are a two-way, push and pull concept: consumer demand fuels them (pull) while at the same time what restaurants and other food venues offer and how they offer it influences consumer choice (push).

Second, we believe the trend towards limited and non-entree dining is important for food marketers and retailers to recognize and understand. It means things like smaller portions and more variety in terms of in-store fresh-prepared and manufactured frozen foods. For example, It might be smart (and profitable) for a frozen food marketer to come out with a line of "small plate" frozen foods to complement the traditional frozen entree. A quality, upscale, global-flavored line of all-natural or organic "small plates" or Tapas is a perfect fit for a natural or specialty foods company looking for a new niche. All-natural, premium, fresh, convenient--these are among the current top food trends and will be for the next couple years.

At retail, the trend has implications for fresh meat departments for example. Cutting and merchandising smaller pieces of steak, pork and other meats makes good sense. Instead of cooking say four medium sized steaks, many people enjoy buying and preparing smaller pieces of a variety of meats and fish, for example, so they can offer their own variety at home like is being done at the restaurants described in the Times' piece. Doing this also means more incremental sales for food retailers.

The examples go on, and extend throughout the store--and throughout the food manufacturing and marketing chain. In fact, we're starting to see a number of savvy food marketers already picking up on this trend. They're offering smaller and mini-versions of everything from fresh produce and prepared desserts, to frozen foods, pizza's, gourmet groceries and more.

In many ways this trend away from the larger, center-of-the-plate entree reflects the "less is more" flight to quality we're currently seeing in consumers. In other words, they would rather eat less of foods that are superior in quality and taste instead of having larger servings of mediocre foods. (We call this the "anti-belly-fill" phenomenon.)

Nowhere is this phenomenon being seen more so than in the natural and specialty foods categories. As we write often, there are numerous convergences going on between these two categories and sister industries. Chief among them is the combining of natural and organic product attributes with those of quality and premium taste. The melting away of the dinner entree is a good analogy to that trend in terms of diners' wanting to combine multiple premium tastes and variety into healthier-oriented meals.

Food & Society: FreeRice

FreeRice: Play the Vocabulary Game and Help Feed the Hungry

FreeRice is a computer game with a humanitarian soul. The computer game tests your vocabulary--and for every word you get right 10 grains of rice are donated to hungry people throughout the world through the United Nations to help end world hunger. FreeRice is a game designed to challenge (and improve) your vocabulary skills and feed the hungry at the same time. It's a major league win-win proposition.

Here's how it works: A word pops up on the FreeRice Website with multiple choice answers. If you click the correct answer another, more difficult, word pops up for you to answer. Each time you get the correct answer the next word for you to answer is more difficult in a progressive fashion. For every correct click/answer 10 grains of rice are donated to the United Nations World Food Programme.

The game began on October 7, 2007. Thus far 195,074.730 grains of rice have been donated. We don't know--and aren't in the mood to calculate--how many pounds of rice that equals so far but it sounds pretty good for only 17 days of game playing. (On October 7, the game's first day 830 grains of rice were donated. Yesterday 30, 423,770 grains were donated.) The great thing is even if you get a word wrong you can keep going--and donating free rice.

The game also gives you a constant vocabulary rating as you play it. Warning: The combination of testing your vocabulary and knowing that each word you get correct results in a donation of 10 grains of rice is addicting. (We took a five minute break from writing this piece to play the game. Our five minutes lasted 10 minutes (addicting) and we donated 310 grains of rice. We got a 40 vocabulary level during our ten minutes, with only 3 words incorrect. We will be back.

Of course much more free rice can be donated. The more people know about the site--and play the game--the more rice can be donated by the sponsors to hungry people throughout the world. So play often when you read this--and email this story to your family members, friends, business associates, and even an enemy or two. It's a great game to play with your kids--or let them do it on their own. It will improve their vocabulary and they will feel great about the fact their correct answers mean a donation of rice to the hungry.

FreeRice is sponsored by Macy's Department Stores, Apple Computer, Office Depot, TimeLife, Inc., Fujitsu, Readers Digest and a number of other companies. The companies advertise on the FreeRice website, their small logos appearing on the site at the bottom of the screen as you play the game. It's very low key advertising that doesn't at all get in the way of playing the game. The sponsors pay for all the rice donated by players playing the vocabulary game.

You can click here or on any of the FreeRice linked words above to go to the FreeRice website and play the vocabulary game and start using your brain to donate free rice to the poor. No donation is required on your part--the sponsors take care of that. All you need to do is get as many answers as you can right. For each correct answer 10 grains of rice are donated to the hungry. From your brain to their stomachs is a pretty good investment of time. Get playing.

We applaud the creators and sponsors of FreeRice. It's doing good for others and social marketing at its best. We also invite you to read more about the United Nations World Food Programme here and what you can do to help solve world hunger. Learn more about world hunger and solutions at poverty.com , FreeRice's sister website.